Woohoo! Smoking banned in restaurants and workplaces in FL! :)
- Thread starter aphex
- Start date
BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,513
- 4
- 81
Why not let the owner decide? Why should the gov. tell him how to run his business? If people don't like it, they won't eat there, he'll go out of business or ban it. Has worked for several places around here. Banned both smoking and alcohol and they get tons of business.
I'm not a smoker, and I take by business to places where smoking isn't allowed. It's not up to the gov. to police it.
here we go again... :disgust:
if you haven't noticed by now, the government decides how a lot of businesses are run and what's in the public's best interest. but if you really want some reasoning, try this on for size:
cigarette smoke makes people sick and die. government pays for a lot of medical expenses. less people exposed to cigarette smoke = less money spent on smoking related diseases by government.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 56,795
- 17,441
- 146
I agree. It should be up to the owner of a PRIVATE business to decide what to allow in his business. If you don't like it, don't do business there.
Where in the Constitution do you derive the right to force business owners to do business on YOUR terms only?
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 56,795
- 17,441
- 146
First off, it is a myth that smokers cost the government more in medical costs. They die sooner, collect less, if any SS, and use no Medicare and seldom require years of managed care. A long drawn out death from old age is far more expensive than a quick year long bout with cancer. Furthermore, less than 1 in 3 smokers ever get a smoking related disease.
Secondly, if there ever was a good argument against socialism, this is it. It is proof positive that socialism equals less freedom. The benefactor ALWAYS gets to control what his dependents do.
first of all...
WRONG.
socialism equals freedom? i'm sorry, can you explain how this is socialism? the government acting out of the public good?
if cigarette smoke was self contained as alcohol is, then far fewer people would have a problem with it. but it's not. you want to smoke, you do it where it doesn't bother other people. your right to inconveinence others does not outweigh everyone elses right to not be inconvenienced.
Why should the restaurtant owner be required to enforce such law on his private property if he doesnt want to. Restaurants always have smokers and non smokers areas - there is no need to breathe the smoke...
Something similar passed in parts of Oregon. I'm all for it; I think cigarette smoking is an extremely disgusting habit and I don't like smelling the smoke.
"no need to breathe the smoke?" i forgot, i could simply choose not to breathe the smoke. how silly of me.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 56,795
- 17,441
- 146
Telling a PRIVATE business owner what he may, and may not allow in his PRIVATE business is a loss of freedom. You are supplanting his rights, for rights you do not have. Furthermore, using the excuse that smoking costs everyone money only means that socialized medicare is a bad idea, not that it's a good idea to stop smokers. This argument (it costs society money) can be used to ban just about anything. It's a slippery slope you do NOT want to go down.
First off, I do not smoke. Secondly, smoking in a building does not harm other people if they don't go in there (and it's doubtful it really does if they do). They have a choice to NOT GO IN THERE. You do not, no matter what anyone tells you, have a right to force others to do business with you on your terms only. The only inconvience here is to the business owner. Not you.
i'm sorry, but where in the constitution does it give you the right to SEND CARBON MONOXIDE AND 100 OTHER POISONS INTO THE AIR WHEREVER YOU WANT?
and i'm still waiting for you to refute my claim about medicare and tobacco related expenses. 'cause i have about a thousand independent studies just itching to be linked to.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 56,795
- 17,441
- 146
First, you'd have to prove that a smoker in a building you choose not to go into is harming you. You cannot. As I said before, if you don't like smoke, don't do business with businesses that allow smoking. How fscking hard is that? How are they harming you if you're not around them?
As for your link, BFD? That cost is more than offset by the savings in SS benefits, long term medicare benefits for the elderly, managed care costs, etc. People die, Dolph. And when they die, be it from old age, or smoking, it costs money. The difference is, old age costs more money over decades of care. Smoking related deaths cost money over a year of so of medical care.
A biased report saying that smoking costs medicare xx billion dollars a year is meaningless. How much would medicare have spent on those same people in the two decades of elderly care they would have needed had they lived? How much SS did they not collect because they died early? That link tells you nothing of that. Do you have any idea how much it costs to support someone for two decades of elderly care? Do you have any idea how much managed care costs? How much the average person collects in SS benefits if they live to be 80 or 90?
Keep trying.
your principle vs practicality argument fails miserabley here. as i said before, the right to smoke is superceded by the right to not be exposed to smoke. if i don't go into that building, it is because i would be putting my health at risk unnecessarily. as long as they're around, the government is going to protect people from themselves. bitch about it all you want, they're doing what's in everyone's best interest so you can either take it, campaign to change it, or move.
how many more links do you want?
oh, ok. the study from philip morris that says that smokers save the government money by dying early.
personally, i don't like what government is doing to the tobacco industry. they're keeping it barely legal, just to get money out of it. they don't want to kill the goose that's laying the golden eggs. but as long as medicare exists, they will be paying for the harmful effects of cigarette smoke, and part of that will come from my wallet. so, overall, it does affect me, regardless of whether i go into that building or not.
furthermore, yes, people die. does that mean we should sit idle? cease all medical research? close hospitals? what the hell, it's not like we're going to win in the end.
I had to sit in a cloud of smoke during my lunch at work even though signs were up prohibiting smoking. Yet the lady was nice enough to relocate herself when asked by a couple of our associates. It did clear up the air...
LOL.. I agree with Dolph.
If you don't smoke, how come you have this strong viewpoint? I mean, I understand what you're saying.. of course you can just not do business with them, but that's not the point..I would think it would be kinda common sense that if you go into an enclosed area with something burning, the air quality in the enclosed area would be less than that of the air outside. No?
As a non-smoker, I also think that the decision should be left up to the owner. I have done reports on this issue and found that ventilation systems are efficient and heavy losses in business can result from such a GOVERNMENT regulation. Last time I checked, the gov. is supposed to encourage entrepreneurs, and not make it tougher for them to succeed. Bottom line is leave the businesses alone. If you don't want to be exposed to smoke, don't goto that establishment. If the owner feels a need, he will then ban smoking on his own... lets let the markets decide people...
How does banning smoking in a public building making it tougher for the owner of the building?
They aren't going to lose any business, since the ruling is state wide. People just can't smoke inside a public building anymore.
They could, however, lose or gain business if the owner of the building decided to make up their own rules regarding smoking.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Intel processors crashing Unreal engine games (and others)- Started by BFG10K
- Replies: 2K
Facebook
Twitter