PDA

View Full Version : Kansas City Smoking Ban vote next Tuesday...


wazu
04-05-2008, 11:29 AM
For those of you not living in the area or who haven't heard, here is some basic info:

KC's city council already passed a ban that goes into effect this month on smoking in restaurants without liquor licenses as well as Truman Sports Complex. It also says that even the bars and restaurants with liquor licenses will no longer permit smoking prior to 9:00 p.m. Smoking-allowed restaurants are actually supposed to kick out people under the age of 21 at 9:00!

Now a NEW ban is going to be on the ballot next Tuesday for voters that would potentially replace the ban passed by City Council. It is a full-time ban for all bars, restaurants, etc, but would actually repeal the ban at Truman Sports Complex! (This is because the city council's ban would be eliminated and replaced by the ballot issue.)

Here is the text of "Question 3" as it is referred to:

QUESTION 3

Shall the City of Kansas City prohibit smoking in
enclosed places of employment, enclosed public
places and on public sidewalks abutting acute
care hospitals, while allowing it in casino gaming
areas until all casinos located in the Missouri
counties of Jackson, Platte and Clay, and the
Kansas counties of Johnson and Wyandotte are
obligated by ordinance, statute or law to prohibit
smoking within the casino areas where gambling
games are allowed, as set forth in Ordinance No.
080073, for the purpose of promoting public health
by decreasing citizen’s exposure to secondhand
smoke and creating smoke free environments for
workers and citizens through regulation in the
work place and all public places?

YES
NO

Here is the best link I am aware of outlining how we arrived at this bizarre choice between different smoking bans.

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/9661

I am a non-smoker, but generally don't support smoking bans. In this case, though, I am inclined to support it just so that it will repeal the ban at Arrowhead and Kaufman stadiums. We don't need to give people yet another reason to not bother going to the games, and some of my friends smoke. It's outdoors anyway and already not allowed in the stands.

Brock
04-05-2008, 11:32 AM
I'll bet it passes quite easily.

jAZ
04-05-2008, 11:45 AM
...but would actually repeal the ban at Truman Sports Complex! (This is because the city council's ban would be eliminated and replaced by the ballot issue.)...

I am inclined to support it just so that it will repeal the ban at Arrowhead and Kaufman stadiums. We don't need to give people yet another reason to not bother going to the games, and some of my friends smoke. It's outdoors anyway and already not allowed in the stands.
Where is banned at Arrowhead while also outdoors but not in the stands?

On the breezways and ramps? In line at the concession stand? That's often undercover, and somewhat indoors.

alanm
04-05-2008, 12:30 PM
Why not come out with the ballot that's coming shortly along. Making the possession and sales of tobacco illegal.
What this country needs is a thriving resurgence of organized crime. :spock:

Bowser
04-05-2008, 12:31 PM
I'll bet it passes quite easily.

Hopefully.

alanm
04-05-2008, 12:33 PM
Why not come out with the ballot that's coming shortly along. Making the possession and sales of tobacco illegal.
What this country needs is a thriving resurgence of organized crime. :spock:
All Hail the Anti Smoking Nazi's
Seig Heil!!

Bowser
04-05-2008, 12:52 PM
Why not come out with the ballot that's coming shortly along. Making the possession and sales of tobacco illegal.
What this country needs is a thriving resurgence of organized crime. :spock:
All Hail the Anti Smoking Nazi's
Seig Heil!!

LMAO

How many times did you hack up a lung cookie trying to type that, smoker? :D

Brock
04-05-2008, 01:06 PM
Why not come out with the ballot that's coming shortly along. Making the possession and sales of tobacco illegal.
What this country needs is a thriving resurgence of organized crime. :spock:
All Hail the Anti Smoking Nazi's
Seig Heil!!

You're just going to have to face the fact that your numbers are dwindling. It's over.

eazyb81
04-05-2008, 01:25 PM
Do KC's bars still allow smoking? It seems like most major cities have enacted a smoking ban in practically all public places, including bars and restaurants.

Adept Havelock
04-05-2008, 01:28 PM
Why not come out with the ballot that's coming shortly along. Making the possession and sales of tobacco illegal.
What this country needs is a thriving resurgence of organized crime. :spock:

But just think of all the extra funding for Law Enforcement when Tobacco gets added to to the War on Drugs!

Facetiousness aside, IMO you're correct.

The next step will probably be banning smoking in private residences "for the sake of children and visitors".

Bowser
04-05-2008, 03:01 PM
Do KC's bars still allow smoking? It seems like most major cities have enacted a smoking ban in practically all public places, including bars and restaurants.

Yes, but with an aside. You can smoke in bars or restaurants, but only after 9 p.m. Yes, I know. Stupid.

Halfcan
04-05-2008, 03:03 PM
Ban ALL smoking, drinking, titties, and KU fans-Time to clean up Cow town!!!

Bowser
04-05-2008, 03:03 PM
And as I've said before, if cities like Chicago, New York, LA, and the entire countries of England and Ireland (ESPECIALLY those two) can enable smoking bans and procede normally, it shouldn't be a problem here, nervous nagging from bitchy smokers having nic fits notwithstanding. ;)

Halfcan
04-05-2008, 03:03 PM
Okay the Titties and drinking can stay.

eazyb81
04-05-2008, 03:09 PM
Yes, but with an aside. You can smoke in bars or restaurants, but only after 9 p.m. Yes, I know. Stupid.

Odd rule.

Anyways, it's just a matter of time before smoking is outright banned in every establishment. People don't smoke as much as they used to, and the people who don't smoke are sick of being around it. Most major cities have banned it and KC will follow suit.

Baby Lee
04-05-2008, 03:34 PM
But just think of all the extra funding for Law Enforcement when Tobacco gets added to to the War on Drugs!

Facetiousness aside, IMO you're correct.

The next step will probably be banning smoking in private residences "for the sake of children and visitors".

Or a smoker's tax on home and auto sales

Bowser
04-05-2008, 03:40 PM
Odd rule.

Anyways, it's just a matter of time before smoking is outright banned in every establishment. People don't smoke as much as they used to, and the people who don't smoke are sick of being around it. Most major cities have banned it and KC will follow suit.

Agree with all.

Adept Havelock
04-05-2008, 03:48 PM
Odd rule.

Anyways, it's just a matter of time before smoking is outright banned in every establishment. People don't smoke as much as they used to, and the people who don't smoke are sick of being around it. Most major cities have banned it and KC will follow suit.

Yeah, because letting a business owner decide for themselves if they want to permit smoking or letting people decide for themselves whether or not to patronize or work in a smoking establishment is just so unfair.

We need the government to make those decisions for all of us, damnit! :rolleyes:

For the record I don't smoke.

mlyonsd
04-05-2008, 04:10 PM
Yeah, because letting a business owner decide for themselves if they want to permit smoking or letting people decide for themselves whether or not to patronize or work in a smoking establishment is just so unfair.

We need the government to make those decisions for all of us, damnit! :rolleyes:

For the record I don't smoke.

Completely agree.

BucEyedPea
04-05-2008, 04:11 PM
Anyways, it's just a matter of time before smoking is outright banned in every establishment. People don't smoke as much as they used to, and the people who don't smoke are sick of being around it. Most major cities have banned it and KC will follow suit.
Yup! Fascism has come to America! No more private property rights!

banyon
04-05-2008, 04:11 PM
Yeah, because letting a business owner decide for themselves if they want to permit smoking or letting people decide for themselves whether or not to patronize or work in a smoking establishment is just so unfair.

We need the government to make those decisions for all of us, damnit! :rolleyes:

For the record I don't smoke.

When the ban came to Lawrence, one of the most vocal opponents of it was the owner of a nonsmoking bar. He had specifically invested into the bar to make it appeal to non-smokers and said the ban would kill his business. He shut down just a couple of months after the ban.

banyon
04-05-2008, 04:14 PM
Yup! Fascism has come to America! No more private property rights!

http://ncaabbs.com/images/smilies/03-yawn.gif

Bowser
04-05-2008, 04:15 PM
If the people vote for it, why the anger?

Bowser
04-05-2008, 04:18 PM
When the ban came to Lawrence, one of the most vocal opponents of it was the owner of a nonsmoking bar. He had specifically invested into the bar to make it appeal to non-smokers and said the ban would kill his business. He shut down just a couple of months after the ban.

A good litmus is to know how Johnny's Tavern out on K-10 is doing. IIRC, that was a non-smoking bar. I'd be curious to know how their business has been impacted, now that Lenexa is smoke free.

banyon
04-05-2008, 04:23 PM
If the people vote for it, why the anger?

Here's my beef with it. In smoking bans you are essentially asking a bunch of people who have nothing to do with an activity to vote on what other people will do. I'm not against reasonable regulations (like not until after 9PM at bars, or you have to have certain type of separated ventiliation facilities), but when you say people can't smoke in bars, ever, basically it is a bunch of elderly and Johnson County types (we want things to be NICE) who see a ballot proposal and say "ooh I don't like smoking" and check the box, knowing that since they never go to bars anyway, it won't impact their lives one iota.

Smokers, OTOH, aren't exactly the most energetic voting bloc.

It's the same folks who run uptight housing associations run amok.

banyon
04-05-2008, 04:24 PM
A good litmus is to know how Johnny's Tavern out on K-10 is doing. IIRC, that was a non-smoking bar. I'd be curious to know how their business has been impacted, now that Lenexa is smoke free.

Johnny's has always had a patio on the back porch that was easy ingress/egress,but as far as I know, it's doing swell, even without the weekly trivia show I used to put on there.

Bowser
04-05-2008, 04:30 PM
Here's my beef with it. In smoking bans you are essentially asking a bunch of people who have nothing to do with an activity to vote on what other people will do. I'm not against reasonable regulations (like not until after 9PM at bars, or you have to have certain type of separated ventiliation facilities), but when you say people can't smoke in bars, ever, basically it is a bunch of elderly and Johnson County types (we want things to be NICE) who see a ballot proposal and say "ooh I don't like smoking" and check the box, knowing that since they never go to bars anyway, it won't impact their lives one iota.

Smokers, OTOH, aren't exactly the most energetic voting bloc.

It's the same folks who run uptight housing associations run amok.

I get what you're saying, but I still feel this way about it -

And as I've said before, if cities like Chicago, New York, LA, and the entire countries of England and Ireland (ESPECIALLY those two) can enable smoking bans and procede normally, it shouldn't be a problem here, nervous nagging from bitchy smokers having nic fits notwithstanding. ;)

I guess I can just be happy that I never got hooked on cigs. Nicotine is one bastard of an addictive drug, obviously. It's probably high time someone else got a class action going against RJR again. :)

Adept Havelock
04-05-2008, 04:30 PM
If the people vote for it, why the anger?

Ever heard the phrase "Tyranny of the Majority"?

What's wrong with letting people make that decision for themselves? Can you tell me that?

If a business owner wants to allow it or not it should be up to them. I'm equally free to decide if I want to patronize someplace that permits smoking. I'm also free to decide if I want to work in an environment that permits smoking. At least I would be if the government hadn't presumed to decide that for me. Thanks anyway, but I don't need or want the government to be my nanny. I'm capable of making that decision for myself.

banyon
04-05-2008, 04:31 PM
I get what you're saying, but I still feel this way about it -



I guess I can just be happy that I never got hooked on cigs. Nicotine is one bastard of an addictive drug, obviously. It's probably high time someone else got a class action going against RJR again. :)

I'm a nonsmoker too, FTR.

Bowser
04-05-2008, 04:37 PM
Ever heard the phrase "Tyranny of the Majority"?

No. But I am a self admitting ignoramous, though.

What's wrong with letting people make that decision for themselves? If a business owner wants to allow it or not should be up to them. I'm equally free to decide if I want to patronize someplace that permits smoking. I don't need the government to be my nanny or nursemaid. We've already got enough of that nonsense, IMO.

Well, how about this - if it's good enough to have cigar bars, have "smoking bars", where the whole spectrum is covered for those who want to smoke. I'm not sure what the qualifications are to have a cigar bar (no food, only certain hours, no dancing?), but surely they can make it work somehow? I will say for the record that it's hypocrytical crap to allow it on casino floors but ban it everywhere else.

And personally, I don't feel threatened by too much gubment intervention. I just look forward to having places smoke free.

Bowser
04-05-2008, 04:40 PM
I'm a nonsmoker too, FTR.

I've never, ever tried it. No cigs, cigars, dip - nothing. I grew up with two semi-heavy smokers for parents. As soon as I got out on my own, I realized I could actually smell and taste things, and that my clothes didn't stink anymore. Rather nice.

banyon
04-05-2008, 04:41 PM
No. But I am a self admitting ignoramous, though.



Well, how about this - if it's good enough to have cigar bars, have "smoking bars", where the whole spectrum is covered for those who want to smoke. I'm not sure what the qualifications are to have a cigar bar (no food, only certain hours, no dancing?), but surely they can make it work somehow? I will say for the record that it's hypocrytical crap to allow it on casino floors but ban it everywhere else.

And personally, I don't feel threatened by too much gubment intervention. I just look forward to having places smoke free.

Just to let you know how invasive the Lawrence ban is, you could not own or operate a cigar or smoking bar, unless there are no employees or indoor spaces where business is conducted (which basically means it has to be in your house). I used to smoke a cigar every once in a while, went nice with scotch, but now you can't take your drink outside or your cigar inside, so there's really no way to do that. And it was kind of lame to say "hey guys I'm going to go out and smoke this cigar, see you in an hour".

As you say though, the clothes thing is nice the next day. Also, Girls usually say that about their hair not getting clogged with smoke.

Adept Havelock
04-05-2008, 04:42 PM
Well, how about this - if it's good enough to have cigar bars, have "smoking bars", where the whole spectrum is covered for those who want to smoke. I'm not sure what the qualifications are to have a cigar bar (no food, only certain hours, no dancing?), but surely they can make it work somehow? I will say for the record that it's hypocrytical crap to allow it on casino floors but ban it everywhere else.
It's crap to dictate this to a privately owned business, casino or not. :shrug:

As for "smoking bars", it appears the owners aren't free to decide that for themselves under the new ban.

And personally, I don't feel threatened by too much gubment intervention.
Only because the sandyvag's haven't set their sights on forbidding a legal activity you enjoy...yet. ;)

I just look forward to having places smoke free.

Again I ask you: What is wrong with leaving that decision to the Business owner, the patron, and the market?

You want a law passed just because you might want to go somewhere the owner would otherwise permit smoking? GMAFB.

eazyb81
04-05-2008, 04:44 PM
Yeah, because letting a business owner decide for themselves if they want to permit smoking or letting people decide for themselves whether or not to patronize or work in a smoking establishment is just so unfair.

We need the government to make those decisions for all of us, damnit! :rolleyes:

For the record I don't smoke.

Wow, reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

Anyways, it's just a matter of time before smoking is outright banned in every establishment. People don't smoke as much as they used to, and the people who don't smoke are sick of being around it. Most major cities have banned it and KC will follow suit.

Where in this post did I say restaurants should not be allowed to make their own decision on this issue?

I simply pointed out that it was inevitable that KC would follow suit behind other major cities that have had a smoking ban.

Adept Havelock
04-05-2008, 04:47 PM
Wow, reading comprehension is not your strong suit.



Where in this post did I say restaurants should not be allowed to make their own decision on this issue?

I simply pointed out that it was inevitable that KC would follow suit behind other major cities that have had a smoking ban.

So you oppose government mandated smoking bans? Good for you. Thunderous applause. :clap:

banyon
04-05-2008, 04:48 PM
Wow, reading comprehension is not your strong suit.



Where in this post did I say restaurants should not be allowed to make their own decision on this issue?

I simply pointed out that it was inevitable that KC would follow suit behind other major cities that have had a smoking ban.

Where in his post did he say that you said that?

I took it as his indignation at your complacency to just let things keep going the way they were going.

eazyb81
04-05-2008, 04:51 PM
So you oppose government mandated smoking bans? Good for you. Thunderous applause. :clap:

I don't care one way or the other. I don't smoke, but I will still go to a place that allows smoking.

But the fact remains that smoking is less popular than it has been in decades, and smoking bans will continue.

Bowser
04-05-2008, 04:53 PM
Again I ask you: What is wrong with leaving that decision to the Business owner, the patron, and the market?

Nothing, other than the business owner probably feels like he wouldn't profit from it, which is why I'm curious about how Johnny's is doing these days.

I for one can't debate logically on this issue, as it's more of an emotional deal for me. I don't like it and want it gone, end of story. I think the frazod's of the world go overboard when they offer me some thigh high boots to practice my nazi march, though.

Bowser
04-05-2008, 04:56 PM
Only because the sandyvag's haven't set their sights on forbidding a legal activity you enjoy...yet. ;)


If they take away free internet porn, I'm loading this bitch up and going hunting.....

Adept Havelock
04-05-2008, 04:59 PM
I for one can't debate logically on this issue, as it's more of an emotional deal for me. I don't like it and want it gone, end of story.
I appreciate you being honest enough to say that.

I think the frazod's of the world go overboard when they offer me some thigh high boots to practice my nazi march, though.
I'd agree. Jackboots are bit much. This only calls for the gift of a brown shirt or an armband. ;)

If they take away free internet porn, I'm loading this bitch up and going hunting.....

Hey now, that stuff is destructive to our society. We can't trust you to make that decision for yourself. :p

That said, it's a decent example. Plenty of people don't like porn. Do you think they have the right to ban all businesses from carrying/selling it (as long as age restrictions are obeyed)? Or should the business be free to sell it or not, as you are free to patronize or not patronize that business?

JMO.

Bowser
04-05-2008, 05:06 PM
If they can have a masturbation ban at bars, then they can goddamned well have a smoking ban, as far as I'm concerned. :D

Adept Havelock
04-05-2008, 05:09 PM
If they can have a masturbation ban at bars, then they can goddamned well have a smoking ban, as far as I'm concerned. :D

Most places, smoking in public is legal to some degree.

If you can find me a single place that permits public masturbation, I'll accept that analogy.

I'll also avoid that place like the plague. :p

Bowser
04-05-2008, 05:19 PM
Most places, smoking in public is legal to some degree.

If you can find me a single place that permits public masturbation, I'll accept that analogy.

I'll also avoid that place like the plague. :p

I refuse to wander around town looking for bars that offer wanking in the corner. Hell, a smoky bar sounds pretty good compared to that.

I guess you could make the comparison - don't blow smoke my way, and I won't blow my wad at you!

Bowser
04-05-2008, 05:22 PM
I refuse to wander around town looking for bars that offer wanking in the corner. Hell, a smoky bar sounds pretty good compared to that.

I guess you could make the comparison - don't blow smoke my way, and I won't blow my wad at you!

Yeah, ok. I just grossed myself out.

BucEyedPea
04-05-2008, 08:11 PM
If the people vote for it, why the anger?

I'm not angry I just like to give him a harder time 'cause he does me.

But voted for it? This is something I don't think voters have any right voting on even if the majority wants it. Our system is supposed to check such things by protecting rights and that includes private property rights. Sure there's conflicting rights here, but it's not like a smoker has to go into a joint that's filled with smoke either. It's purely a discretionary action and one knows before they go—or soon after entering whereby they can leave. If those places want to keep the business of the non-smoker who won't enter they'll find their own way to service them.

Logical
04-05-2008, 08:21 PM
If they can have a masturbation ban at bars, then they can goddamned well have a smoking ban, as far as I'm concerned. :DWhat a weird analogy, what made you think of it?

alanm
04-05-2008, 09:00 PM
Most places, smoking in public is legal to some degree.

If you can find me a single place that permits public masturbation, I'll accept that analogy.

I'll also avoid that place like the plague. :p
Have you been to San Francisco lately? ROFL

Adept Havelock
04-05-2008, 09:32 PM
Have you been to San Francisco lately? ROFL

Heh. Thankfully, no.

wazu
04-05-2008, 09:41 PM
Where is banned at Arrowhead while also outdoors but not in the stands?

On the breezways and ramps? In line at the concession stand? That's often undercover, and somewhat indoors.

Back by the concession stands. Completely outdoors. It lets people feed the addiction, but doesn't really bother anybody.

Bowser
04-05-2008, 10:08 PM
I'm not angry I just like to give him a harder time 'cause he does me.

But voted for it? This is something I don't think voters have any right voting on even if the majority wants it. Our system is supposed to check such things by protecting rights and that includes private property rights. Sure there's conflicting rights here, but it's not like a smoker has to go into a joint that's filled with smoke either. It's purely a discretionary action and one knows before they go—or soon after entering whereby they can leave. If those places want to keep the business of the non-smoker who won't enter they'll find their own way to service them.

What "right" are you referring to?

wazu
04-06-2008, 09:12 AM
What "right" are you referring to?

I think she is basically referring to the right to do what you want on your own property. Of course, this "right" is trimmed and reduced very frequently in this country with regulations, many of which are probably a good thing.

Anyway, these bans ultimately hurt KC bars and restaurants. There's no way they don't. And they are going to hurt the sports teams as well. How many season ticket holders smoke? How many smokers are going to be excited about the prospect of going to a Royals game and being "smoke free" for 3-4 hours on a Friday night?

BucEyedPea
04-06-2008, 12:16 PM
What "right" are you referring to?

The right to ownership which means the right to control and use something as you want without stepping on the rights of others. It's called private property rights. Even if some regs are necessary, too many begin to curb ownership. In other words there are so many mandates on use of your property you don't really own it in actual practice but it's more a function of the state for the alleged greater good. Although, too many regs don't help the greater good on closer examination.

I mean really, there's a difference between serving a steak that's toxic or gives one immediate food posioning which is a kind of fraud and violates the terms of sale/contract and a discretionary action such as stepping foot inside a smoke filled joint. It's another thing to have slippery floors whereby one can be sued for negligence if someone falls and gets hurt.

But knowingly entering a place that allows smoking is one's own responsibility or you do not patronize. If these places lose too much business they will act accordingly if they're smart. I mean Village Inn's already instituted their won ban and Perkins alternates smoking nights with non-smoking rights. The govt is not needed for such improvements, especially when what you do is fully under your own control ( unlike a toxic steak or slippery floor).

In a case like a smoking ban, your substituting you're own personal responsibility for the state taking responsibility for your own personal actions. This is not the essence of liberty but nanny statish.

BucEyedPea
04-06-2008, 12:21 PM
Here's the other thing, where does this type of regulation stop? Now trans-fats are being banned in restaurants. More will follow...until we are no longer free but completely run by the state. You may own title to your property but if you have little control remaining it's not really yours as owneship should still lead to more control not less in the owner's hands. ....it's owned by the state indirectly for the public welfare. That's fascism. That's the problem with this type of regulation.

Bowser
04-06-2008, 10:17 PM
Like I told Adept, I can't debate this issue logically. I don't make the connect of smoking bans = fascism. Maybe I'm just suffering from fingers in the ears, eyes closed yelling LALALALALALALA syndrome, until something I like is taken away from me, like Adept suggested. I just look forward to not smelling like an ashtray when I get back from a bar.

wazu
04-06-2008, 11:00 PM
Like I told Adept, I can't debate this issue logically. I don't make the connect of smoking bans = fascism. Maybe I'm just suffering from fingers in the ears, eyes closed yelling LALALALALALALA syndrome, until something I like is taken away from me, like Adept suggested. I just look forward to not smelling like an ashtray when I get back from a bar.

I know what you are saying. Personally I would rather there be no smoking in bars or restaurants that I go to. It's the principle of the issue, though. It feels slimy to go along with taking away the rights of a group that I don't belong to just because I am in the "non-smoking" majority.

Of course, in the case of this election, it's pretty much pick your poison. I personally would rather restore smoking rights to people in outdoor stadiums than defend them for people in indoor bars. The stadiums cannot possibly affect anybody negatively.

Logical
04-06-2008, 11:20 PM
Here's the other thing, where does this type of regulation stop? Now trans-fats are being banned in restaurants. More will follow...until we are no longer free but completely run by the state. You may own title to your property but if you have little control remaining it's not really yours as owneship should still lead to more control not less in the owner's hands. ....it's owned by the state indirectly for the public welfare. That's fascism. That's the problem with this type of regulation.
Wow you throw terms out that often are pure hyperbole the way you insert them. Fascists value Nation above state with severe Federal regimentation, often led by dictators. Ownership by the state is typically communistic or possibly socialistic (and characterrstically are led by Committee).

ClevelandBronco
04-07-2008, 02:59 AM
I'm opposed to smoking bans.

I'm also opposed to government health inspections of restaurants.

I believe that most restaurants would happily pay for a well respected private certification that they are operating in a way that makes it unlikely that their customers will die consuming their wares, just as I believe that most restaurants and bars will increasingly offer nonsmoking environments simply because most people don't smoke.

On the other hand, I wouldn't shut down restaurants that agreed to prominently post a warning that they don't refrigerate their meat, or that they allow smoking.

If the consumer chooses to walk in and pay, bully for him.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

(I ain't got 'em. I don't smoke.)

ClevelandBronco
04-07-2008, 03:02 AM
Wow you throw terms out that often are pure hyperbole the way you insert them. Fascists value Nation above state with severe Federal regimentation, often led by dictators. Ownership by the state is typically communistic or possibly socialistic (and characterrstically are led by Committee).

She's objectively correct on this one, Logical. Governmental control of privately owned business is one of the characteristics of fascism. That's the way I read her post, anyway.

BucEyedPea
04-07-2008, 09:35 AM
She's objectively correct on this one, Logical. Governmental control of privately owned business is one of the characteristics of fascism. That's the way I read her post, anyway.

You got it! And yes that is what I meant.

BucEyedPea
04-07-2008, 10:02 AM
Like I told Adept, I can't debate this issue logically. I don't make the connect of smoking bans = fascism. Maybe I'm just suffering from fingers in the ears, eyes closed yelling LALALALALALALA syndrome, until something I like is taken away from me, like Adept suggested. I just look forward to not smelling like an ashtray when I get back from a bar.

It's economic fascism when there are so many there is little control allowed anymore by the owner.

Don't go in that bar and you won't smell like an ashtray either. You are forcing the owner of that establishment to do as you think he ought. Isn't
that running what you consider right on them? How is that a classical liberal concept?

StcChief
04-07-2008, 10:03 AM
new Busch stadium is smoke free, they have spots outside area around the stadium with pass in-out rights

wazu
04-07-2008, 11:49 PM
new Busch stadium is smoke free, they have spots outside area around the stadium with pass in-out rights

Cool. Hopefully if the measure fails Arrowhead and Kaufman will do something similar.