PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Rejoice! Smoking Ban wins in KCMO


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

memyselfI
04-08-2008, 10:59 PM
Now I can go to the restaurants there again!!! :clap:

http://www.kansascity.com/383/story/567445.html

BWillie
04-08-2008, 11:02 PM
Soooo how come a bar owner can't decide if it's ok to allow smoking or not in their establishments? Next thing we know they will ban alcohol from restaurants because it causes some people to act like assholes and creates a bad atmosphere.

Sure-Oz
04-08-2008, 11:03 PM
Soooo how come a bar owner can't decide if it's ok to allow smoking or not in their establishments? Next thing we know they will ban alcohol from restaurants because it causes some people to act like assholes and creates a bad atmosphere.

Smoking is disgusting, doesn't bother me but i see your point.

memyselfI
04-08-2008, 11:03 PM
Soooo how come a bar owner can't decide if it's ok to allow smoking or not in their establishments? Next thing we know they will ban alcohol from restaurants because it causes some people to act like assholes and creates a bad atmosphere.

He can decide to own a bar in a less enlightened and more diseased prone part of the state! :doh!:

BWillie
04-08-2008, 11:13 PM
He can decide to own a bar in a less enlightened and more diseased prone part of the state! :doh!:

I don't even smoke. I have probably smoked about four cigarettes in the last year, only spontaneously from friends. Do I enjoy it at the bars? Well not really. I could do with out it, but it drives me crazy why we think we need to regulate this sort of thing.

Yeah, smoking and second hand smoke isn't healthy. Well do you know what else isn't healthy? Eating huge helpings of transfatty fries and eating nine helpings of desserts. While we are at it lets ban that too. You know what else is dangerous? Driving cars. Lets ban that too. I could go on and on.

Ridiculous that this is left to the government to decide and not business owners. If business owners don't want smoking, they can ban it. Plenty voluntarily do. If they feel they want to allow smoking, if it bothers you that much don't f*cking go there.

Frazod
04-08-2008, 11:14 PM
That's nice.

kchero
04-08-2008, 11:14 PM
Soooo how come a bar owner can't decide if it's ok to allow smoking or not in their establishments? Next thing we know they will ban alcohol from restaurants because it causes some people to act like assholes and creates a bad atmosphere.

Agreed, I am a non-smoker and I feel that smoking is an awful habit, but it is the individual's right to smoke. Restaurants have non-smoking sections as is and I feel that with laws like these being passed it takes more and more of our "choices" away. So what is next???

Also if you examine Question #3 in it's entire form you see that it leaves the casino's free of this and in a small way I feel this pushes local bars out of some of that sector of competition against the casinos.

Thats just my 2 cents.

unlurking
04-08-2008, 11:18 PM
Now I can go to the restaurants there again!!! :clap:

http://www.kansascity.com/383/story/567445.html
F*ck You Nazi Gunt.

DJJasonp
04-08-2008, 11:19 PM
I see both sides of this....but in reality.....bar owners arent going to lose any money on this.

California went through this about a decade ago....bar owners bitched that they'd lose money....but in the end...no one lost any money...and people still go to bars and pay 7 dollars for a well drink.

listopencil
04-08-2008, 11:19 PM
That's nice.

Exactly. Isn't it funny how "liberals" think?

Frazod
04-08-2008, 11:21 PM
Exactly. Isn't it funny how "liberals" think?

I'm sure she'd have no problem with illegal aliens or terrorists smoking in bars.

ChiefsFanatic
04-08-2008, 11:21 PM
Soooo how come a bar owner can't decide if it's ok to allow smoking or not in their establishments? Next thing we know they will ban alcohol from restaurants because it causes some people to act like assholes and creates a bad atmosphere.

For every person who bitches about not being able to smoke, there are four people who never went to this or that restaurant because the smoking set-up sucked, or they hate smoke.

I only go to restaurants that CLEARLY separate smoking and non-smoking, or restaurants that are non-smoking. I will spend more money, more often, if it is no smoking.

I hope that a pack of cigarettes eventually becomes $20 a pack.

Direckshun
04-08-2008, 11:22 PM
BOO I WANT TO DESTROY MY LUNGS AND GIVE NONSMOKERS CANCER

WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT RUIN EVERYTHING

Demonpenz
04-08-2008, 11:22 PM
whats going to happen when all the smokers die? here comes the tax on my whiskey :(

SPchief
04-08-2008, 11:23 PM
Sweet, the government is telling me that it's illegal to do something that's legal in a resteraunt. All hail the government

listopencil
04-08-2008, 11:24 PM
I'm sure she'd have no problem with illegal aliens or terrorists smoking in bars.

I'm certain she'd vote for a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing their right to do so. She'll settle for a Federal program to bankroll the effort. For the people, of course.

BWillie
04-08-2008, 11:25 PM
I see both sides of this....but in reality.....bar owners arent going to lose any money on this.

California went through this about a decade ago....bar owners bitched that they'd lose money....but in the end...no one lost any money...and people still go to bars and pay 7 dollars for a well drink.

If bar owners thought that banning smoking would be more profitable or even if their profits would remain unchanged and they would receive publicity of goodwill they would of done it already. Either way, this isn't the point here.

The point is this isn't something that should be up to the government. Smoking is legal. Business should at their discretion allow or disallow smoking in their establishments. It should be COMPLETELY up to them. Nobody says you have to go to their establishment. Do you know what else can be dangerous to people? Hi Def televisions. People with epilepsy should all get together and ban TV's at all public establishments because it is dangerous to them.

I don't even like smelling smoke or reeking of it on my clothes when I get home...but it's my damn choice to go there. If it bothered me that much, I wouldn't f*cking go there.

Fruit Ninja
04-08-2008, 11:26 PM
I see both sides of this....but in reality.....bar owners arent going to lose any money on this.

California went through this about a decade ago....bar owners bitched that they'd lose money....but in the end...no one lost any money...and people still go to bars and pay 7 dollars for a well drink.

Yep, people just go outside and smoke real fast get some air then right back in to the drinks.

listopencil
04-08-2008, 11:26 PM
whats going to happen when all the smokers die? here comes the tax on my whiskey :(

Alcohol, tobacco and firearms. They're just so evil. There should be a special government agency with wide ranging powers to look into it and save people from themselves. I wonder what we'll name it?

Dartgod
04-08-2008, 11:27 PM
Alcohol, tobacco and firearms. They're just so evil. There should be a special government agency with wide ranging powers to look into it and save people from themselves. I wonder what we'll name it?
ROFL Nice.

DJJasonp
04-08-2008, 11:28 PM
If bar owners thought that banning smoking would be more profitable or even if their profits would remain unchanged and they would receive publicity of goodwill they would of done it already. Either way, this isn't the point here.

The point is this isn't something that should be up to the government. Smoking is legal. Business should at their discretion allow or disallow smoking in their establishments. It should be COMPLETELY up to them. Nobody says you have to go to their establishment. Do you know what else can be dangerous to people? Hi Def televisions. People with epilepsy should all get together and ban TV's at all public establishments because it is dangerous to them.

Like I said...I see both sides of the argument....but as the years go by (evident by today's vote)...you see the greater percentage of people are concerned about the health issue, rather than the freedom of choice issue....as it pertains to this specific issue (smoking ban).

Smed1065
04-08-2008, 11:33 PM
F*ck You Nazi Gunt.

No shit but its fine cause they like whatever suits them at the time. Why worry what else it might effect.

Deberg_1990
04-08-2008, 11:43 PM
Smoking just isnt a socially acceptable thing anymore. For better or worse, thats just the way it is. Its not the 60's and 70's anymore. Times have changed..

alanm
04-08-2008, 11:49 PM
I'm sure she'd have no problem with illegal aliens or terrorists smoking in bars.
That would be infringing on their cultural values. :shake:

alanm
04-08-2008, 11:50 PM
whats going to happen when all the smokers die? here comes the tax on my whiskey :(
All the smokers will quit and the price of a 6 pack will cost you $75.00ROFL

Jenson71
04-08-2008, 11:51 PM
Smoking just isnt a socially acceptable thing anymore. For better or worse, thats just the way it is. Its not the 60's and 70's anymore. Times have changed..

Welcome to the tyranny of the majority.

Deberg_1990
04-08-2008, 11:52 PM
Welcome to the tyranny of the majority.

Yea, pretty much.....but thats how it always is.

Demonpenz
04-08-2008, 11:57 PM
ok i wonder if they can skate around the smoking ban by being a private club like "oshay's" In olathe. You have to pay like a 10 dollar membership and you get to smoke there and special drink specials

J Diddy
04-08-2008, 11:57 PM
Now I can go to the restaurants there again!!! :clap:

http://www.kansascity.com/383/story/567445.html

you know i don't smoke, however i'd appreciate it if you'd go suck on a tailpipe until full

Smed1065
04-08-2008, 11:58 PM
Alcohol is legal but I hate to deal with drunk drivers and drunk people.

We need to ban it as well in public.

I thought this was a society to protect the minorities freedom and not the majority thoughts or wants?

SPchief
04-09-2008, 12:02 AM
Alcohol, tobacco and firearms. They're just so evil. There should be a special government agency with wide ranging powers to look into it and save people from themselves. I wonder what we'll name it?



Awesome.

KCChiefsMan
04-09-2008, 12:14 AM
I'm a smoker and I actually prefer the smoking ban. When I lived in Lawrence (smoking ban) I would go out to the bars and smoke a lot less and I mean a lot less. My clothes wouldn't be funky and my lungs weren't shot to hell from the 2nd hand smoke. Every bar in Lawrence that didn't have a patio or some outside smoking area that was connected to the bar would let you step outside for a smoke and come right back in.

Here in OKC, there is no smoking ban and I easily go through an entire pack at the bar. I didn't mind the ban at all. The only time it really made a difference was when it was freezing cold outside, but it still wasn't all that bad.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-09-2008, 01:10 AM
Like I said...I see both sides of the argument....but as the years go by (evident by today's vote)...you see the greater percentage of people are concerned about the health issue, rather than the freedom of choice issue....as it pertains to this specific issue (smoking ban).

Then why not ban all smoking? Oh yeah, because you don't want to pay your taxes. You want to pass them on to someone else. $20 a pack? Perrrrrrrrrfect.

ClevelandBronco
04-09-2008, 01:13 AM
Now I can go to the restaurants there again!!! :clap:

http://www.kansascity.com/383/story/567445.html

And some will close because of this bullshit.

Congratulations. Apparently you understand the market better than the owners.

J Diddy
04-09-2008, 01:14 AM
Then why not ban all smoking? Oh yeah, because you don't want to pay your taxes. You want to pass them on to someone else. $20 a pack? Perrrrrrrrrfect.


****ing Triple A
Bingo
bingo
Bingo

Nail hammer head hit it

If we can pass a ****ing judgement along to an industry why in the **** shouldn't we get rid of the industry.
Sell their shit, pass their asses off to the rest of the world.

J Diddy
04-09-2008, 01:15 AM
And some will close because of this bullshit.

Congratulations. Apparently you understand the market better than the owners.


I don't think it'll be that big of the deal, it's not like they can roll across the street and smoke.

Miles
04-09-2008, 01:19 AM
I'm a smoker and I actually prefer the smoking ban. When I lived in Lawrence (smoking ban) I would go out to the bars and smoke a lot less and I mean a lot less. My clothes wouldn't be funky and my lungs weren't shot to hell from the 2nd hand smoke. Every bar in Lawrence that didn't have a patio or some outside smoking area that was connected to the bar would let you step outside for a smoke and come right back in.

Here in OKC, there is no smoking ban and I easily go through an entire pack at the bar. I didn't mind the ban at all. The only time it really made a difference was when it was freezing cold outside, but it still wasn't all that bad.

I used to smoke and had the same observations as you once they passed the smoking ban in Colorado. I found it was no big deal at all to go outside and while in the bar it was nice not having all that smoke. Also quite nice to have your clothes and jackets funked up.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-09-2008, 01:19 AM
I don't think it'll be that big of the deal, it's not like they can roll across the street and smoke.

There are businesses that close down in every city these bans go into effect for. Mostly because a bunch of people who were never going to go there in the first place all got together and decided what was best for those total strangers. Basically, the dives are the ones that suffer the most. We tend to eat our weak in society.

ClevelandBronco
04-09-2008, 01:20 AM
I don't think it'll be that big of the deal, it's not like they can roll across the street and smoke.

It will be that big of a deal. Some bars and restaurants have gone out of business here in the wake of the ban. It'll happen there as well.

Hey, as long as you can smoke on your deck, it doesn't really matter.

That's not going to last either, though.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-09-2008, 01:23 AM
It will be that big of a deal. Some bars and restaurants have gone out of business here in the wake of the ban. It'll happen there as well.

Hey, as long as you can smoke on your deck, it doesn't really matter.

That's not going to last either, though.

Hell no it won't. Open the flood gates and the water will enter. Today, you don't have to stink. Tomorrow you'll be told what to eat in the name of health and children. They're already trying to do it in MS.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338928,00.html


Remember. It's for your health, your kids, and your own good.

Miles
04-09-2008, 01:24 AM
There are businesses that close down in every city these bans go into effect for. Mostly because a bunch of people who were never going to go there in the first place all got together and decided what was best for those total strangers. Basically, the dives are the ones that suffer the most. We tend to eat our weak in society.

A dive bar exception was proposed when they were passing the legislation here. I always figured that made sense.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-09-2008, 01:26 AM
A dive bar exception was proposed when they were passing the legislation here. I always figured that made sense.

That's a first. I wonder how long it will last. I guess it's just amazing to me that people don't think there are enough places that offer non smoking. Let's just ban it. Wait. It's a legal activity. How are you going to ban the location of it's activity? Just ban the product all together. Again though, I smell greed.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-09-2008, 01:28 AM
I'm sure she'd have no problem with illegal aliens or terrorists smoking in bars.

Could we please not lump everyone together?

FFS, I detest smoking, I've seen it kill family members, and it's shortening my parent's lives, but when I had the option to vote on a ban, I voted against it, because I felt like it was an unneccessary legislation of personal choice, and I'm as liberal as they come.

Miles
04-09-2008, 01:36 AM
That's a first. I wonder how long it will last. I guess it's just amazing to me that people don't think there are enough places that offer non smoking. Let's just ban it. Wait. It's a legal activity. How are you going to ban the location of it's activity? Just ban the product all together. Again though, I smell greed.

They at least exempted strip clubs, cigar joints and casinos in Colorado but I guess the dive bars didn't have enough pull.

Valiant
04-09-2008, 02:07 AM
Smoking just isnt a socially acceptable thing anymore. For better or worse, thats just the way it is. Its not the 60's and 70's anymore. Times have changed..

Sweet I can't what for socially acceptable times that tells you that fast food, alcohol, driving while eating is bad and force you to stop.. I hope a time comes that our government has the power to force its will upon us without question..

Or maybe we can have a government that manipulates the questions in voting that does not actually let the populace know what is going on without extreme research..

Go **** yourselves to everybody that voted yes.. Take away personal liberities you useless ****s.. Can't wait until something you cherish that is taken away that is legal or never been actually proven(second hand smoke)

And I am a ****nig nonsmoker..

Mr. Flopnuts
04-09-2008, 02:22 AM
Sweet I can't what for socially acceptable times that tells you that fast food, alcohol, driving while eating is bad and force you to stop.. I hope a time comes that our government has the power to force its will upon us without question..

Or maybe we can have a government that manipulates the questions in voting that does not actually let the populace know what is going on without extreme research..

Go **** yourselves to everybody that voted yes.. Take away personal liberities you useless ****s.. Can't wait until something you cherish that is taken away that is legal or never been actually proven(second hand smoke)

And I am a ****nig nonsmoker..

Anger is a gift.

keg in kc
04-09-2008, 02:31 AM
If it's a matter of personal liberties, then are the personal liberties of the smoker greater than that of the people breathing around them, or vice-versa, and who decides that?

Personally I think it should be up to the business owners, but I really don't have a problem with it, either.

SPchief
04-09-2008, 02:43 AM
If it's a matter of personal liberties, then are the personal liberties of the smoker greater than that of the people breathing around them, or vice-versa, and who decides that?

Personally I think it should be up to the business owners, but I really don't have a problem with it, either.

So you are saying the business owner should be allowed to decide if they should allow something that is legal? Blashphemy

RedDread
04-09-2008, 03:05 AM
I voted yes on the ban today, even though I am a smoker, because of the exemption it gave casinos. That exemption will probably stand for a while because it wouldn't come into play until both the Argosy and Harrah's have smoking banned. We won't see a reduction in business due to the ban now that the playing field is level and either all the casinos or none of the casinos in the KC area will have the ban.

employment > me smoking in public establishments.

mcan
04-09-2008, 03:27 AM
The point is this isn't something that should be up to the government. Smoking is legal. Business should at their discretion allow or disallow smoking in their establishments. It should be COMPLETELY up to them. Nobody says you have to go to their establishment. Do you know what else can be dangerous to people? Hi Def televisions. People with epilepsy should all get together and ban TV's at all public establishments because it is dangerous to them.

I don't even like smelling smoke or reeking of it on my clothes when I get home...but it's my damn choice to go there. If it bothered me that much, I wouldn't f*cking go there.


Playing the trombone is perfectly legal too... But I'm not allowed to do it at a resteraunt or a bar because it bothers everybody who is there. I get the "if it bothers you, don't go" argument. But that's awfully short sighted considering you can smoke at your own home and outdoors as you wish. But as long as you smoke indoors, you make it very uncomfortable for a majority of the patrons (most of whom are too polite to complain, but all too willing to vote for the ban). You also make it impossible for people with certain respiratory conditions and allergies to go out at all.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-09-2008, 03:28 AM
Playing the trombone is perfectly legal too... But I'm not allowed to do it at a resteraunt or a bar because it bothers everybody who is there. I get the "if it bothers you, don't go" argument. But that's awfully short sighted considering you can smoke at your own home and outdoors as you wish. But as long as you smoke indoors, you make it very uncomfortable for a majority of the patrons (most of whom are too polite to complain, but all too willing to vote for the ban). You also make it impossible for people with certain respiratory conditions and allergies to go out at all.

Does the government tell you not to play your trombone in the restaurant? Or do we trust that we wouldn't go to a restaurant that allowed random trombone playing?

SPchief
04-09-2008, 03:31 AM
Playing the trombone is perfectly legal too... But I'm not allowed to do it at a resteraunt or a bar because it bothers everybody who is there. I get the "if it bothers you, don't go" argument. But that's awfully short sighted considering you can smoke at your own home and outdoors as you wish. But as long as you smoke indoors, you make it very uncomfortable for a majority of the patrons (most of whom are too polite to complain, but all too willing to vote for the ban). You also make it impossible for people with certain respiratory conditions and allergies to go out at all.

Sorry to inconvince you with something that is legal.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-09-2008, 03:33 AM
I don't think I'm the only one that doesn't want the government interfering with a business owner's right to allow public trombone playing. Ooh, double negative.

mcan
04-09-2008, 03:55 AM
You guys are right... In a perfect world, each establishment would have their own vote and make a decision based on what their clientel wanted. A public trombone ban is, in general, a bad thing... What if some night I want to have a band come play?

I also occaisionally go to this one resteraunt/bar where the music is so damned loud you have to scream to be heard. It's the most obnoxious thing in the world. But my friends used to go because their underage friends could get in, and they wanted to drink. I've stopped going at all now. What we should have done is complained over and over and over again until they learned.

So, I'll admit that this is a slippery slope. But since it benifits me, I'm going to allow myself to be a hypocrite. Now if only we can get that smoking ban in Manhattan... Auntie Maes is terrible.

keg in kc
04-09-2008, 04:02 AM
Sorry to inconvince you with something that is legal.Similar to the question I asked earlier, how do we decide which inconvenience is the more pertinent violation of personal liberties? The violation of a smoker's personal liberties when we inconvenience them by requiring them to step outside to smoke? Or the violation of the other people in the restaurant or bar's personal liberties when we inconvenience them by requiring them to breathe the smoker's smoke? Which group is the correct group to side with?

ChiefsFanatic
04-09-2008, 04:10 AM
Which group is the correct group to side with?

All this talk about which group to side with is BS. Both groups had a chance to voice their opinions by voting. End of story. If smokers wanted to vote against the ban, they should have. I understand that walking up and down stairs with a lung ailment, and pulling your oxygen tank behind you wherever you go (not you specifically) can be quite troublesome, but that is no excuse for NOT VOTING.

keg in kc
04-09-2008, 04:14 AM
All this talk about which group to side with is BS. Both groups had a chance to voice their opinions by voting. End of story. If smokers wanted to vote against the ban, they should have. I understand that walking up and down stairs with a lung ailment, and pulling your oxygen tank behind you wherever you go (not you specifically) can be quite troublesome, but that is no excuse for NOT VOTING.It's a philosophical question, not "BS". I'm curious about what people think, and why.

Practically-speaking, of course, you're correct. It was up for a vote and those against the ban lost.

Smed1065
04-09-2008, 05:19 AM
I used to smoke and had the same observations as you once they passed the smoking ban in Colorado. I found it was no big deal at all to go outside and while in the bar it was nice not having all that smoke. Also quite nice to have your clothes and jackets funked up.

If you smoke, your clothes are already funky, believe me.

You just do not realize because you smoke. So I think this a cop out on this approach.

Miles
04-09-2008, 06:11 AM
If you smoke, your clothes are already funky, believe me.

You just do not realize because you smoke. So I think this a cop out on this approach.

I no longer smoke so I like not having my clothes reek of it.

stevieray
04-09-2008, 06:11 AM
this isn't about smoking, it's about control...non smokers don't give arats ass if you get lung cancer, if they truly did, cigs be outlawed. this about panty waists who don't like the smell...nothing more.

Casino floors? the hypocrisy is astounding, but not shocking...

memyselfI
04-09-2008, 06:33 AM
I don't even smoke. I have probably smoked about four cigarettes in the last year, only spontaneously from friends. Do I enjoy it at the bars? Well not really. I could do with out it, but it drives me crazy why we think we need to regulate this sort of thing.

Yeah, smoking and second hand smoke isn't healthy. Well do you know what else isn't healthy? Eating huge helpings of transfatty fries and eating nine helpings of desserts. While we are at it lets ban that too. You know what else is dangerous? Driving cars. Lets ban that too. I could go on and on.

Ridiculous that this is left to the government to decide and not business owners. If business owners don't want smoking, they can ban it. Plenty voluntarily do. If they feel they want to allow smoking, if it bothers you that much don't f*cking go there.

The government has a right to enforce laws that impact the public's health and well being especially when it comes to public eating establishments. I'm sure there were business owners who balked at the idea of inspections, food regulations, and alcohol restrictions.

But these are in place to protect the public. A small minority of smokers and their well funded lobbyists have controlled the air for FAR too long and that is finally changing.

Miles
04-09-2008, 06:54 AM
The government has a right to enforce laws that impact the public's health and well being especially when it comes to public eating establishments. I'm sure there were business owners who balked at the idea of inspections, food regulations, and alcohol restrictions.

But these are in place to protect the public. A small minority of smokers and their well funded lobbyists have controlled the air for FAR too long and that is finally changing.

I haven't been to KC in quite a few years but would be somewhat surprised if they allowed smoking outside of a bar area of a restaurant.

Ozarks-Chiefs-Fan
04-09-2008, 07:03 AM
The government has a right to enforce laws that impact the public's health and well being especially when it comes to public eating establishments. I'm sure there were business owners who balked at the idea of inspections, food regulations, and alcohol restrictions.

But these are in place to protect the public. A small minority of smokers and their well funded lobbyists have controlled the air for FAR too long and that is finally changing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but i don't believe there has been any scientific evidence that second hand smoke causes cancer or any other health issues.
Like Stevie Ray said this is a control issue not a health issue.

Dartgod
04-09-2008, 07:06 AM
I'm a smoker and I actually prefer the smoking ban. When I lived in Lawrence (smoking ban) I would go out to the bars and smoke a lot less and I mean a lot less. My clothes wouldn't be funky and my lungs weren't shot to hell from the 2nd hand smoke. Every bar in Lawrence that didn't have a patio or some outside smoking area that was connected to the bar would let you step outside for a smoke and come right back in.

Here in OKC, there is no smoking ban and I easily go through an entire pack at the bar. I didn't mind the ban at all. The only time it really made a difference was when it was freezing cold outside, but it still wasn't all that bad.
You might go through an entire pack of smokes in one night, yet you're concerned about second hand smoke? :spock:

CHIEF4EVER
04-09-2008, 07:20 AM
I don't have a dog in this fight but I think in principle it is wrong to ban this perfectly legal activity. Firstly, we need more government intervention in each of our private lives about as much as each of us need a second rectum. Secondly, it is up to the bar owner whether or not to allow smoking in his/her establishment and he/she takes the risk of the loss of revenue based upon his/her decision. Thirdly, the idiotic argument that was floated out there like a reeking pile of dog poo that it is about "protection of the people against that insidious, offensive and dangerous second hand smoke" (paraphrased) is so stupid it defies logic. People will vote with their dollars and their feet. Noone forced them to go to those "evil smoker allowed places". Noone dragged them in there kicking and screaming and forced them to feed their faces or get liquored up around those evil smokers. Just another way to chip away at individual liberties and the sheep and lemmings in our society are making it happen. PS - I don't smoke.

Malcor
04-09-2008, 07:23 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but i don't believe there has been any scientific evidence that second hand smoke causes cancer or any other health issues.
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html

kc rush
04-09-2008, 07:47 AM
FYI - This smoking ban was not government imposed. KC had a plan in place that allowed smoking after 9:00 in bars and restaurants. This ban was an initiative by the people of KC who got it on the ballot (just like Chastain got light rail on the ballot), and it was voted on by the people.

If you have a problem with this, it should be with the people of the community and not with the KCMO government (for a change).

Baby Lee
04-09-2008, 07:54 AM
Ah jus wanna pickle my liver to oblivion without mah clothes stinkin' AMIRITE!!!!

Skip Towne
04-09-2008, 08:21 AM
I'm glad I don't live in KC.

stumppy
04-09-2008, 08:25 AM
I'm glad I don't live in KC.

I'm with you. I guess there are advantages to living in a small town.

Chief Chief
04-09-2008, 08:37 AM
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.

But, then again, I've never heard of anyone dying from second-hand pee.

Iowanian
04-09-2008, 08:38 AM
Then why not ban all smoking? Oh yeah, because you don't want to pay your taxes. You want to pass them on to someone else. $20 a pack? Perrrrrrrrrfect.

I'm going to use my Counter-bommerang pokemon to answer this.

If noone smoked, there would be less cancer, and the govt wouldn't have to come up with as much money to hospitalize, treat, and medicate the thousands of people dying of lung cancer each year, and there would be less need for taxes collected by tobacco products.


Tobacco products will never be banned though....if nothing else because of the impact on the SE US economy.


Iowa also passed legislation on this subject yesterday...but made exemptions for the Casinos and AmVets/VFW halls.

BigChiefFan
04-09-2008, 08:46 AM
I don't have a dog in this fight but I think in principle it is wrong to ban this perfectly legal activity. Firstly, we need more government intervention in each of our private lives about as much as each of us need a second rectum. Secondly, it is up to the bar owner whether or not to allow smoking in his/her establishment and he/she takes the risk of the loss of revenue based upon his/her decision. Thirdly, the idiotic argument that was floated out there like a reeking pile of dog poo that it is about "protection of the people against that insidious, offensive and dangerous second hand smoke" (paraphrased) is so stupid it defies logic. People will vote with their dollars and their feet. Noone forced them to go to those "evil smoker allowed places". Noone dragged them in there kicking and screaming and forced them to feed their faces or get liquored up around those evil smokers. Just another way to chip away at individual liberties and the sheep and lemmings in our society are making it happen. PS - I don't smoke.
Great post!:clap:

tyton75
04-09-2008, 08:49 AM
I think this whole thing is asinine and the only REAL victims here are going to be some really fun bars that aren't going to be able to keep their heads above water because a LOT of their business came from people just wanting to hang out and smoke and drink.

I was at Houlihans last weekend, my friends older brother is the GM and he was saying that the smoking issue is already killing their business.. as of then, you couldn't smoke in the place until 9. I was there watching the basketball games and the freaking place was a ghost town till around 8:30ish when people started rolling in... and at 9 there was a cloud in the place.. lol

I'm a smoker and the fact that I can't smoke somewhere doesn't bother me... but the fact that their is a LAW stating that I can't smoke somewhere upsets me; I'm not a jackass smoker, if someone says that its bothering them, I'll put it out... and I don't smoke if someone near me is eating, thats just common courtesy in my book.

but the fact that there is a LAW... wtf?!? aren't there more important things in life to worry about?!?

tyton75
04-09-2008, 08:50 AM
I don't have a dog in this fight but I think in principle it is wrong to ban this perfectly legal activity. Firstly, we need more government intervention in each of our private lives about as much as each of us need a second rectum. Secondly, it is up to the bar owner whether or not to allow smoking in his/her establishment and he/she takes the risk of the loss of revenue based upon his/her decision. Thirdly, the idiotic argument that was floated out there like a reeking pile of dog poo that it is about "protection of the people against that insidious, offensive and dangerous second hand smoke" (paraphrased) is so stupid it defies logic. People will vote with their dollars and their feet. Noone forced them to go to those "evil smoker allowed places". Noone dragged them in there kicking and screaming and forced them to feed their faces or get liquored up around those evil smokers. Just another way to chip away at individual liberties and the sheep and lemmings in our society are making it happen. PS - I don't smoke.

If I had seen this post.. i woudln't have bothered to post mine.. Totally what i was trying to say

StcChief
04-09-2008, 08:52 AM
If the restraurants would have just put in good ventilation and smoker eaters, right now this wouldn't be happening.

markk
04-09-2008, 08:55 AM
i wonder why the government wont just ban cigarettes as a hazardous material if they want to protect us? oh yeah, because they make tax money off of it.

KC2004
04-09-2008, 08:56 AM
http://www.nycclash.com/BillofRightsVoid.gif

biggunns
04-09-2008, 09:05 AM
BAR OWNERS WILL LOSE MONEY THEY PASSED A SMOKING BAN IN KV WHERE I LIVE AND EVERY BAR IN TOWN IS FOR SALE!!!THIS USED TO BE A FREE COUNTRY, THIS IS A BUNCH OF BS, YOU CANT SMOKE, WHERE YOUR SEAT BELT ECT....ECT.....I AM AN ADULT I CAN MAKE MY OWN DESSIONS...F**k UNCLE SAM AND ALL WHO WORK FOR HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:bang::bang::bang::bang:

Deberg_1990
04-09-2008, 09:06 AM
Sweet I can't what for socially acceptable times that tells you that fast food, alcohol, driving while eating is bad and force you to stop.. I hope a time comes that our government has the power to force its will upon us without question..

Or maybe we can have a government that manipulates the questions in voting that does not actually let the populace know what is going on without extreme research..

Go **** yourselves to everybody that voted yes.. Take away personal liberities you useless ****s.. Can't wait until something you cherish that is taken away that is legal or never been actually proven(second hand smoke)

And I am a ****nig nonsmoker..

Dude, it was legally put to a public vote. The majority won. Accept it and move on.

R&GHomer
04-09-2008, 09:08 AM
Now I can go to the restaurants there again!!! :clap:

http://www.kansascity.com/383/story/567445.html

**** YOU

Frazod
04-09-2008, 09:19 AM
If the restraurants would have just put in good ventilation and smoker eaters, right now this wouldn't be happening.

Bullshit. There is no reasoning with these facsist turds. Next they'll be crying about people who dare to smoke within ten feet of the bar door. Those bars that can somehow manage to stay in business, that is.

chasedude
04-09-2008, 09:25 AM
Welcome to Democracy people!

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Winston Churchill


I'm an ex-smoker going on 4 months now. I'm glad I quit and don't want to have anything to do with cigarettes again. I visited Colorado after they instituted their ban. I was a smoker then and didn't have a problem with stepping outside for a smoke. The same with NY when I visited there this last year, I didn't have a problem stepping outside. As a smoker I didn't realize the cloud of death I inhaled also could claim others. I applaud KC moving forward. Not smelling of smoke everywhere I go is nice :)

Iowanian
04-09-2008, 09:26 AM
I don't see that the law is telling you you can't smoke.

Its telling you that you can't force other people to smoke your cigarettes while they eat or have a beer. In Iowa, the big soundbites were all about the health hazards to wait staff and employees in those establishments and repeated exposure to 2nd hand smoke and the associated health problems they suffer. In Iowa, its legislators and the governor doing it.....if there was a vote in Kansas and the Public chose the smoking ban...I'd say the constitution and bill of rights some of you are quoting worked just fine, just not in your favor.

I have a more sensitive stomoch than 99% of the world due to a thing....but I can tell you that I have barfed a half eaten $50 meal more than once because someone too close lit up, even though I was across the railing in the non-smoking section.

Skip Towne
04-09-2008, 09:28 AM
I don't see that the law is telling you you can't smoke.

Its telling you that you can't force other people to smoke your cigarettes while they eat or have a beer. In Iowa, the big soundbites were all about the health hazards to wait staff and employees in those establishments and repeated exposure to 2nd hand smoke and the associated health problems they suffer.

I have a more sensitive stomoch than 99% of the world due to a thing....but I can tell you that I have barfed a half eaten $50 meal more than once because someone too close lit up, even though I was across the railing in the non-smoking section.

Pussy

Iowanian
04-09-2008, 09:30 AM
Pussy


Now there is a word you haven't been close to since Jimmy Carter was in office.


Its really unfortunate that Pussy isn't like smoking.....then guys like you and gochiefs could get
2nd hand laid once in a while.

markk
04-09-2008, 09:30 AM
i really dont care about smoking, i just think it's BS that the government thinks it can regulate anything just because they can find enough people to vote yes on it. that is not the way government is supposed to work. if it was we wouldn't have need or use for a constitution to limit the power of government to its intended duties

Iowanian
04-09-2008, 09:31 AM
They find enough people to vote on something, because its the will of the majority who vote on that item. Welcome to democracy.


Asbestos was a pretty decent insulator for a few decades until "those bastards" decided it was causing cancer and killing people.....too.

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 09:57 AM
Sweet I can't what for socially acceptable times that tells you that fast food, alcohol, driving while eating is bad and force you to stop.. I hope a time comes that our government has the power to force its will upon us without question..

Or maybe we can have a government that manipulates the questions in voting that does not actually let the populace know what is going on without extreme research..

Go **** yourselves to everybody that voted yes.. Take away personal liberities you useless ****s.. Can't wait until something you cherish that is taken away that is legal or never been actually proven(second hand smoke)

And I am a ****nig nonsmoker..

My thoughts exactly, and I too am a nonsmoker.

Let the business owner decide for themselves, and let the patrons choose for themselves if they want to patronize or work at a business that permits smoking. WTF is wrong with letting the market decide?

IMO, "I want to go there but they permit smoking, so I'm going to try to get the city to ban it" is about the most inane rationale for legislation I've ever seen. Geh Kak Afen Yam, and go someplace else.

As for the Health Risks, it's a legal activity. Again, why not let people make up their own minds?

Skip Towne
04-09-2008, 09:59 AM
Now there is a word you haven't been close to since Jimmy Carter was in office.


Its really unfortunate that Pussy isn't like smoking.....then guys like you and gochiefs could get
2nd hand laid once in a while.

Settle down, Alice. Since smoke rises you shouldn't experience much down at the 4 foot level.

tyton75
04-09-2008, 10:02 AM
FWIW.. I never thought I would see the day that MEME and Iowanian agreed on anything.. lol

keg in kc
04-09-2008, 10:03 AM
FWIW.. I never thought I would see the day that MEME and Iowanian agreed on anything.. lolThat was a little bizarre.

Skip Towne
04-09-2008, 10:08 AM
FWIW.. I never thought I would see the day that MEME and Iowanian agreed on anything.. lol

They make a cute couple.

Bob Dole
04-09-2008, 10:12 AM
Agreed, I am a non-smoker and I feel that smoking is an awful habit, but it is the individual's right to smoke. Restaurants have non-smoking sections as is and I feel that with laws like these being passed it takes more and more of our "choices" away. So what is next???

Also if you examine Question #3 in it's entire form you see that it leaves the casino's free of this and in a small way I feel this pushes local bars out of some of that sector of competition against the casinos.

Thats just my 2 cents.

Nah. Everyone who voted yes will immediately run out and start supporting all those local businesses they had no interest in supporting prior to imposing their will on everyone else. Really. They will.

stumppy
04-09-2008, 10:20 AM
Nah. Everyone who voted yes will immediately run out and start supporting all those local businesses they had no interest in supporting prior to imposing their will on everyone else. Really. They will.

Riiiiight

chief husker
04-09-2008, 10:22 AM
Smoking is pure death in a stick. Are we in agreement? Any one think smoking is heplful? Even nuetral? They kill. Having said that, why should people be forced to breath that shit? Personal rights? What about mine?
Oh, the bars will all close? Been to California? Colorado?
July 1st in Iowa. Can't wait. Free at last, free at last.

I hope all smokers die a hacking liquid lung death -- Husker's Dogs

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 10:35 AM
Smoking is pure death in a stick. Are we in agreement? Any one think smoking is heplful? Even nuetral? They kill. Having said that, why should people be forced to breath that shit? Personal rights? What about mine?
Oh, the bars will all close? Been to California? Colorado?
July 1st in Iowa. Can't wait. Free at last, free at last.

I hope all smokers die a hacking liquid lung death -- Husker's Dogs

:rolleyes:

Bravo Foxtrot Delta. Saturated fats are death too. I suppose you want the government to save you and everyone else from those too? Car Exhaust is far more of a pollutant than second hand smoke. Where's your outrage, if it's all about health with you?

Personal Rights? Who ever forced you to go someplace where smoking was permitted? If someone did, why didn't you file a police complaint over it, as that's at least kidnapping? Why should your desire for a smoke-free environment trump the personal rights of a business owner who wants to permit it? No one is forcing you to patronize that business.

The fact you claim this makes you "free at last" truly shows the boundless depths of your ignorance. Increasing Government restrictions on how you can use your property and run your business isn't freedom. Perhaps you should buy a dictionary and get reacquainted with the term, as you obviously don't have a clue what it means.

This non smoker finds you utterly full of meme.


IMO, "I want to go there but they permit smoking, so I'm going to try to get the city to ban it" is about the most inane rationale for legislation I've ever seen. Geh Kak Afen Yam, and go someplace else.

Saggysack
04-09-2008, 10:39 AM
Smoking is pure death in a stick. Are we in agreement? Any one think smoking is heplful? Even nuetral? They kill. Having said that, why should people be forced to breath that shit? Personal rights? What about mine?
Oh, the bars will all close? Been to California? Colorado?
July 1st in Iowa. Can't wait. Free at last, free at last.

I hope all smokers die a hacking liquid lung death -- Husker's Dogs

Been to Charleston? It's had quite the impact on local bars there. 80% less business from the previous year. How many jobs do think that affects?

Fat Elvis
04-09-2008, 10:42 AM
I fully support the right of smokers to smoke when and where they want. I hope they respect my right to spray thier stinky asses with Lysol when and where I want. I mean, if they don't want Lysol burning thier eyes, they don't have to frequent the restaurants where I eat.

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 10:44 AM
I fully support the right of smokers to smoke when and where they want. I hope they respect my right to spray thier stinky asses with Lysol when and where I want. I mean, if they don't want Lysol burning thier eyes, they don't have to frequent the restaurants where I eat.

:rolleyes:

If the business owner permits you to spray Lysol when and where you want, you have a point.

If the owner doesn't, you really couldn't have come up with a more inane analogy without meme's help.

stumppy
04-09-2008, 10:45 AM
Smoking is pure death in a stick. Are we in agreement? Any one think smoking is heplful? Even nuetral? They kill. Having said that, why should people be forced to breath that shit? Personal rights? What about mine?
Oh, the bars will all close? Been to California? Colorado?
July 1st in Iowa. Can't wait. Free at last, free at last.

I hope all smokers die a hacking liquid lung death -- Husker's Dogs


While I 2cnd AH's post I'd just like to add a heartfelt **** You.

chief husker
04-09-2008, 10:48 AM
:rolleyes:

Bravo Foxtrot Delta. Saturated fats are death too. I suppose you want the government to save you and everyone else from those too? Car Exhaust is far more of a pollutant than second hand smoke. Where's your outrage, if it's all about health with you?

Personal Rights? Who ever forced you to go someplace where smoking was permitted? If someone did, why didn't you file a police complaint over it, as that's at least kidnapping? Why should your desire for a smoke-free environment trump the personal rights of a business owner who wants to permit it? No one is forcing you to patronize that business.

The fact you claim this makes you "free at last" truly shows the boundless depths of your ignorance. Increasing Government restrictions on how you can use your property and run your business isn't freedom. Perhaps you should buy a dictionary and get reacquainted with the term, as you obviously don't have a clue what it means.

This non smoker finds you utterly full of meme.

And you find saturated fats floating in the air often? Nice analogy. And I do consider the ability to breathe cleaner air a freedom. Time to reduce your viewing of Fox TV.

chief husker
04-09-2008, 10:50 AM
While I 2cnd AH's post I'd just like to add a heartfelt **** You.


Tough shit. ROFL

markk
04-09-2008, 10:50 AM
when i hear of the government protecting me from myself, i unhinge the safety-catch on my Browning

Bowser
04-09-2008, 10:51 AM
From the looks of this thread, I'd say most of you need to step outside, have a smoke, and settle the **** down.

Bowser
04-09-2008, 10:53 AM
when i hear of the government protecting me from myself, i unhinge the safety-catch on my Browning

A better idea - hunt down everyone who voted yes on this thing, on summarily execute THEM. The gubment would not have done anything at all about this, had the majority not voted yes for it.

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 10:54 AM
From the looks of this thread, I'd say most of you need to step outside, have a smoke, and settle the **** down.
I don't smoke, but some of these ijit's have really pushed my anti-ignorance button. Granted, I wouldn't petition the government to keep them from being ignorant. It's their right. Rather than forcing them to give up their ignorance, I'd probably choose to avoid them. It seems a more personally responsible way of dealing with it to me.
And you find saturated fats floating in the air often? Nice analogy. And I do consider the ability to breathe cleaner air a freedom. Time to reduce your viewing of Fox TV.
The point was fools like you who think the job of the government is to protect people from their own decisions.

I'd agree about cleaner air. I want to breathe cleaner air, so I don't patronize businesses that permit smoking. I don't try to force everyone else to live according to my beliefs. Tell me this, who ever forced you to go to a business that permitted smoking? If you chose to go, that's your ignorance, not the smokers or the business owner that permits it.

WTF does Fox TV have to do with anything? Well, considering you're enough of an idiot to see new Government regulations restricting private business as making you "free at last", I think I have my answer.

.

chief husker
04-09-2008, 10:58 AM
The point was fools like you who think the job of the government is to protect people from their own decisions.

I'd agree about cleaner air. I want to breathe cleaner air, so I don't patronize businesses that permit smoking. I don't try to force everyone else to live according to my beliefs. Tell me this, who ever forced you to go to a business that permitted smoking? If you chose to go, that's your ignorance, not the smokers or the business owner that permits it.

WTF does Fox TV have to do with anything? Well, considering you're enough of an idiot to see new Government regulations restricting private business as making you "free at last", I think I have my answer.

.

I always enjoy personal attacks. They let you know the true depth of the individual you are dealing with.

Fat Elvis
04-09-2008, 10:58 AM
:rolleyes:

If the business owner permits you to spray Lysol when and where you want, you have a point.

If the owner doesn't, you really couldn't have come up with a more inane analogy without meme's help.

I have yet to come across a business owner that expressly prohibits it. Inane? Perhaps, but not any more inane than trying to tie notions of personal freedoms to smoking in enclosed public spaces.

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 11:00 AM
I always enjoy personal attacks. They let you know the true depth of the individual you are dealing with.

LMAO

I hope all smokers die a hacking liquid lung death

Yeah buddy, you're sure taking the high road wishing death on millions of people. :rolleyes:

C'mon tell me, who ever forced you (in violation of your personal rights) to go to a business that permits smoking? Again, if it's such a health concern with you, what have you done about Car Exhaust? It's far more of a pollutant than secondhand smoke, but I bet it doesn't outrage you in the least.

I have yet to come across a business owner that expressly prohibits it. Inane? Perhaps, but not any more inane than trying to tie notions of personal freedoms to smoking in enclosed public spaces.

Do you actually believe your rights as a patron trump the rights of the business owner? :spock:

If they aren't willing to prohibit it (and I've not seen that to be the case), what does that tell you? The market (their customers) must prefer it, or they would. Why not let the market decide?

Sorry, but "they permit smoking and I want to go there" is a craptacular rationale to pass a law.

What's next? "They permit drinking in that restaurant, but I'm a teetotaler, so let's get a citywide ban on alcohol?" After all, drunk people can be a serious public health risk!

Saggysack
04-09-2008, 11:01 AM
I always enjoy personal attacks. They let you know the true depth of the individual you are dealing with.

Aren't you the one wishing for smokers to have a painful death?

Bowser
04-09-2008, 11:01 AM
http://www.nycclash.com/BillofRightsVoid.gif

Possibly the dumbest response yet, and that's saying something.

stumppy
04-09-2008, 11:02 AM
Tough shit. ROFL

:D
What can I say, I usually speak what's on my mind.

chief husker
04-09-2008, 11:04 AM
:D
What can I say, I usually speak what's on my mind.


That's OK. It's a great big world, plenty of room for opinions.

Frazod
04-09-2008, 11:05 AM
Smoking is pure death in a stick. Are we in agreement? Any one think smoking is heplful? Even nuetral? They kill. Having said that, why should people be forced to breath that shit? Personal rights? What about mine?
Oh, the bars will all close? Been to California? Colorado?
July 1st in Iowa. Can't wait. Free at last, free at last.

I hope all smokers die a hacking liquid lung death -- Husker's Dogs

Yeah, pure death on a stick. Pure. Death. On a stick. One puff and BOOM YOU'RE DEAD. ON A STICK! HAHAHAHA! We should use cigarettes to execute condemned criminals. Just put them in a little room with cigarettes, and with any luck, in 50 or 60 years, they MIGHT develop cancer and die. BRILLIANT!

I love all the pathetic little lemming drama queens that act like breathing in a wisp of f#cking smoke will make you DROP. DEAD. INSTANTLY.

If only it was that easy.

You should go have lunch with DEnise in KC (or Iowa!) once the ban passes. You can breathe deeply, embrace immortality (since you'll never have to breathe smoke again, obviously you'll live forever) and compare armbands.

:shake:

markk
04-09-2008, 11:07 AM
anyone who thinks this is about health is fooling themselves. people voted for this just because they don't like the smell.

chief husker
04-09-2008, 11:07 AM
Yeah, pure death on a stick. Pure. Death. On a stick. One puff and BOOM YOU'RE DEAD. ON A STICK! HAHAHAHA! We should use cigarettes to execute condemned criminals. Just put them in a little room with cigarettes, and with any luck, in 50 or 60 years, they MIGHT develop cancer and die. BRILLIANT!

I love all the pathetic little lemming drama queens that act like breathing in a wisp of f#cking smoke will make you DROP. DEAD. INSTANTLY.

If only it was that easy.

You should go have lunch with DEnise in KC (or Iowa!) once the ban passes. You can breathe deeply, embrace immortality (since you'll never have to breathe smoke again, obviously you'll live forever) and compare armbands.

:shake:

I will breathe deeply, often, and enjoy the smell of smoke free air.

Frazod
04-09-2008, 11:16 AM
anyone who thinks this is about health is fooling themselves. people voted for this just because they don't like the smell.

Mainly, but you shouldn't forget the people who like to impose their will upon others just because it's fun.

Demonpenz
04-09-2008, 11:19 AM
I heard now the ban retracts the smoking at arrowhead or the K or some shit. On the radio there was an add to say no to the smoking ban because it allows people to smoke at the ball parks. I was confused which i often am. The add was really stupid too it was like WHY LET THEM SMOKE WHERE THE CHILDREN ARE AT SAY NO. I was like there aren't too many children at arrowhead anymore because it is 80 bucks a pop

Fat Elvis
04-09-2008, 11:19 AM
Do you actually believe your rights as a patron trump the rights of the business owner? :spock:

If they aren't willing to prohibit it (and I've not seen that to be the case), what does that tell you? The market (their customers) must prefer it, or they would. Why not let the market decide?

Sorry, but "they permit smoking and I want to go there" is a craptacular rationale to pass a law.

What's next? "They permit drinking in that restaurant, but I'm a teetotaler, so let's get a citywide ban on alcohol?"

Have you ever heard of zoning regulations? Owning a business does not give you carte blanche "rights" to do whatever you want inside your own business. Cities and municipalities have the right to define what occurs in a business within their boundaries. The issue was put up for a LOCAL vote. If smokers, or defenders of "personal freedom" were so concerned, why didn't they get the majority of the votes?

As for citywide alcohol bans, yes; there have been city, if not statewide, alcohol bans. For a long time in Kansas, you couldn't purchase alcohol on Sunday. It wasn't for health reasons, either. But you know what? People voted, and in many (if not most) localities, alcohol can now be sold on Sunday.

If you want people to be able to smoke in bars and restaurants again, bring it up on the next ballot, get the word out and vote. If you aren't willing to do that, quit bitching.

Bowser
04-09-2008, 11:23 AM
Have you ever heard of zoning regulations? Owning a business does not give you carte blanche "rights" to do whatever you want inside your own business. Cities and municipalities have the right to define what occurs in a business within their boundaries. The issue was put up for a LOCAL vote. If smokers, or defenders of "personal freedom" were so concerned, why didn't they get the majority of the votes?

As for citywide alcohol bans, yes; there have been city, if not statewide, alcohol bans. For a long time in Kansas, you couldn't purchase alcohol on Sunday. It wasn't for health reasons, either. But you know what? People voted, and in many (if not most) localities, alcohol can now be sold on Sunday.

If you want people to be able to smoke in bars and restaurants again, bring it up on the next ballot, get the word out and vote. If you aren't willing to do that, quit bitching.

Those who voted for the ban are nothing more than a bunch of bored control freak fascists, with Illumanti-esque political powers over the poor, weak, persecuted smoker. Haven't you heard?

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 11:27 AM
Have you ever heard of zoning regulations? Owning a business does not give you carte blanche "rights" to do whatever you want inside your own business. Cities and municipalities have the right to define what occurs in a business within their boundaries. The issue was put up for a LOCAL vote. If smokers, or defenders of "personal freedom" were so concerned, why didn't they get the majority of the votes?

As for citywide alcohol bans, yes; there have been city, if not statewide, alcohol bans. For a long time in Kansas, you couldn't purchase alcohol on Sunday. It wasn't for health reasons, either. But you know what? People voted, and in many (if not most) localities, alcohol can now be sold on Sunday.

If you want people to be able to smoke in bars and restaurants again, bring it up on the next ballot, get the word out and vote. If you aren't willing to do that, quit bitching.

Yes, we're aware there was an election. Thanks for the newsflash and civics lesson.

IMO, It's a shame that few people are willing to take personal responsibility for the environment they put themselves in, and feel a need to call on the government to do it for them. After all, no one was forcing non-smokers to patronize a business that permits smoking.

We could have a nice city where smoking and non-smoking businesses competed against each other, and people were free to make the decision of which to patronize for themselves.

Instead, that decision has now been made for you. :shake:

Anybody want to guess how long until some folks start pushing to ban smoking outside on your property or in your own home? After all, it's a health threat to children and visitors.

Enjoy your "victory" folks. Enjoy it right up until it's something you enjoy that becomes the next target.

JBucc
04-09-2008, 11:30 AM
Good Guys-1

Evil, cancer spewing, smoke exhaling Satan worshiping pedophiles-0

Skip Towne
04-09-2008, 11:31 AM
Fat people should be banned from all eating establishments. They are a health risk and they ruin my appetite.

Bowser
04-09-2008, 11:32 AM
Good Guys-1

Evil, cancer spewing, smoke exhaling Satan worshiping pedophiles-0

LMAO

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 11:34 AM
Good Guys-1

Evil, cancer spewing, smoke exhaling Satan worshiping pedophiles-0

Heh. That was pretty good. LMAO

Fat Elvis
04-09-2008, 11:35 AM
Yes, we're aware there was an election. Thanks for the newsflash and civics lesson.

IMO, It's a shame that few people are willing to take personal responsibility for the environment they put themselves in, and feel a need to call on the government to do it for them. After all, no one was forcing non-smokers to patronize a business that permits smoking.

We could have a nice city where smoking and non-smoking businesses competed against each other, and people were free to make the decision of which to patronize for themselves.

Instead, that decision has now been made for you. :shake:

Anybody want to guess how long until some folks start pushing to ban smoking outside on your property or in your own home? After all, it's a health threat to children and visitors.

Enjoy your "victory" folks. Enjoy it right up until it's something you enjoy that becomes the next target.


What an arbitrary line in the "personal freedom" sand.

Seriously.

Smoking in enclosed public places?

dirk digler
04-09-2008, 11:36 AM
.if there was a vote in Kansas and the Public chose the smoking ban...I'd say the constitution and bill of rights some of you are quoting worked just fine, just not in your favor.



Yep totally agree. The people got the bill on the ballot and the people voted yes for it.

This is democracy at its finest IMO whether you voted yes or no you were given a voice to decide the outcome.

You really can't bitch too much about it IMO.

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 11:37 AM
What an arbitrary line in the "personal freedom" sand.

Seriously.

Smoking in enclosed public places?

I don't see anything "arbitrary" about the right of a business owner to choose to permit or deny a legal activity under Federal Law (consumption of tobacco) within their business. They are free with another public health risk, alcohol, as long as they follow a set of local regulations concerning it's distribution and consumption. Thanks to (IMO) foolish legislation like this, they don't have that right when it comes to tobacco.

I don't see "dry states" as an analogy, because in a "dry" area, Alcohol is prohibited. Tobacco is still legal to buy and sell in Kansas City.

I don't accept that the imagined "right" of the patron to be smoke free trumps the "right" of the business owner to permit or deny a federally permitted activity. Hence, my belief that people should be allowed to make that decision for themselves.

Also, define "Public Spaces". If you are speaking of a Government owned building, that certainly qualifies. However, an enclosed restaurant or bar is a private space, which the owner has opened to the public. It's not a "public space", or the owner wouldn't have the right to refuse service. :shrug:

Seriously.

Fat Elvis
04-09-2008, 11:41 AM
You really can't bitch too much about it IMO.

You'd be surprised.

Dartgod
04-09-2008, 11:43 AM
anyone who thinks this is about health is fooling themselves. people voted for this just because they don't like the smell.
Yep.

crazycoffey
04-09-2008, 11:44 AM
I like smoking at a bar, but I also see the point of second hand smoke, the problem I have with all this is it's a knee jerk reaction. Just a straight across the board ban for all establishments. No concession for some resturants or bars to allow smoking.

IIRC - Dallas did this, then had it admended to a ban to all establishments that so much of the percentage of gross sales was based on food sales (say like 60% or whatever), and allowed the establishments that had the same percentage of sales based on alcohol sales, to keep it's smoking sections. This at least allows for some compromise.

Bowser
04-09-2008, 11:45 AM
Adept, you know I think you make good, valid points, but Dirk's post (responding to Iowanian's) right above yours pretty much trumps the argument you're making.

smittysbar
04-09-2008, 11:45 AM
They will loose businesses from the ban, don't kid yourselves. It happened here.

markk
04-09-2008, 11:45 AM
What an arbitrary line in the "personal freedom" sand.

Seriously.

Smoking in enclosed public places?

a restaurant is not a public place.

Frazod
04-09-2008, 11:46 AM
Perhaps we should get Kyle to filter the word "smoke" so that when anybody types the word it will be instantly replaced with a picture of a kitten, or a flower, or perhaps a box of tampons, or anything that won't offend certain of our more delicate, sensitive and intolerant members. After all, I wouldn't want the mere thought of the act of accidently breathing in a wisp of smoke to emotionally scar anyone, or cause them to vomit all over their monitor.

That would be wrong.

chasedude
04-09-2008, 11:46 AM
I don't accept that the imagined "right" of the patron to be smoke free trumps the "right" of the business owner to permit or deny a federally permitted activity. Hence, my belief that people should be allowed to make that decision for themselves.

Seriously.

The patron trumps the owner with money, if the business doesn't get it, no business.

Bowser
04-09-2008, 11:46 AM
a restaurant is not a public place.

Really? I need an invitation to go to Outback Steakhouse?

markk
04-09-2008, 11:48 AM
Really? I need an invitation to go to Outback Steakhouse?

It's privately owned and on private property. No different than your house.

chasedude
04-09-2008, 11:48 AM
Perhaps we should get Kyle to filter the word "smoke" so that when anybody types the word it will be instantly replaced with a picture of a kitten, or a flower, or perhaps a box of tampons, or anything that won't offend certain of our more delicate, sensitive and intolerant members. After all, I wouldn't want the mere thought of the act of accidently breathing in a wisp of smoke to emotionally scar anyone, or cause them to vomit all over their monitor.

That would be wrong.

Wow Fraz, you really carry sh*t to the most extremes sometimes.

Bowser
04-09-2008, 11:48 AM
Perhaps we should get Kyle to filter the word "smoke" so that when anybody types the word it will be instantly replaced with a picture of a kitten, or a flower, or perhaps a box of tampons, or anything that won't offend certain of our more delicate, sensitive and intolerant members. After all, I wouldn't want the mere thought of the act of accidently breathing in a wisp of smoke to emotionally scar anyone, or cause them to vomit all over their monitor.

That would be wrong.

LMAO Nice.

Dude, you sound like you're still hooked on a two and a half pack a day habit. :D

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 11:49 AM
The patron trumps the owner with money, if the business doesn't get it, no business.

:BS:

That doesn't give the patron greater rights than the owner. That simply means the owner should run his business in accordance with the desires of his patrons if he wants to stay in business.

Really? I need an invitation to go to Outback Steakhouse?

Is it privately owned or publicly owned? Does the business have the right to refuse service? If it's privately owned, it's a private space the owner has opened conditionally to the public.

Do you have the right to go to a restaurant that has a minimum purchase, and simply sit there drinking water? Same argument.

Bowser
04-09-2008, 11:50 AM
It's privately owned and on private property. No different than your house.

Horseshit. By your logic, you could walk into a Wendy's and witness a Roman Orgy taking place, because it's "private property".

markk
04-09-2008, 11:52 AM
Horseshit. By your logic, you could walk into a Wendy's and witness a Roman Orgy taking place, because it's "private property".

By what logic do you reason that restaurants are legally public space?

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 11:53 AM
By what logic do you reason that restaurants are legally public space?

I'm curious about this too. :hmmm:

Iowanian
04-09-2008, 11:53 AM
:rolleyes:

Bravo Foxtrot Delta. Saturated fats are death too. .

Your consumption of twinkey filling by the gallon kills you. I have no health risks by sitting in the same room you're eating ringdings like Kobiashi.

When you're chainsmoking accross the table from me, it does. Even if it doesn't give me cancer that day, it does make my hair and clothes stink, maybe makes my eyes burn and occasionally does make me barf.

Do non-smokers have the right to NOT smoke the cigarette you are enjoying?

I've always thought that non-smokers should go to the smoking section to fart in restaraunts. Its not like smokers have a great sense of smell anyway.

I don't care if people choose to smoke. Double up on the packs and save long term social security...keep those florists, backless suit makers, walker and oxygen distributors in business.

Bowser
04-09-2008, 11:53 AM
Goddamn, people. Do people really feel their "rights" have been stolen by the gubment if you have to go outside to have a smoke? I had no idea people would be so put out by that. Do you protest at your work, if they don't allow smoking in the building?

Frazod
04-09-2008, 11:54 AM
LMAO Nice.

Dude, you sound like you're still hooked on a two and a half pack a day habit. :D

Nope. Haven't lit up since August of 2005.

I oppose smoking by NOT SMOKING.

Sort of like how I oppose abortion by NOT PARTAKING IN ABORTION.

If others choose to do these things, as a non-facsist, I deem it to not be any of my business.

All part of that America-free-country-thing I've read about in history books.

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 11:54 AM
When you're chainsmoking accross the table from me, it does. Even if it doesn't give me cancer that day, it does make my hair and clothes stink, maybe makes my eyes burn and occasionally does make me barf.

Do non-smokers have the right to NOT smoke the cigarette you are enjoying?


Who forced you to go someplace where the owner chose to permit smoking?

If you chose to go there, knowing they permit smoking, IMO, that's on you and your decision making. :shrug:

Nope. Haven't lit up since August of 2005.

I oppose smoking by NOT SMOKING.

Sort of like how I oppose abortion by NOT PARTAKING IN ABORTION.

If others choose to do these things, as a non-facsist, I deem it to not be any of my business.

All part of that America-free-country-thing I've read about in history books.

I quit quite a few years before that, but... :clap:

chasedude
04-09-2008, 11:55 AM
That doesn't give the patron greater rights than the owner. That simply means the owner should run his business in accordance with the desires of his patrons if he wants to stay in business.



Well in my book money talks and :BS: walks!

Bowser
04-09-2008, 11:55 AM
By what logic do you reason that restaurants are legally public space?

I'd guess that whatever chain restaurant isn't "owned" by the person that particualar franchise, and that the land isn't "owned" by the person running said franchise, but leased from the city. That is a shot in the dark, since I am no lawyer.

markk
04-09-2008, 11:55 AM
I'm curious about this too. :hmmm:

I'm going to go into Outback tonight in a g-string with a bullhorn and read political literature in the middle of the dining room. Since it's a public place and all, they shouldn't be able to do anything.

markk
04-09-2008, 11:57 AM
I'd guess that whatever chain restaurant isn't "owned" by the person that particualar franchise, and that the land isn't "owned" by the person running said franchise, but leased from the city. That is a shot in the dark, since I am no lawyer.

i feel bad for picking on you now.

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 11:59 AM
Do you protest at your work, if they don't allow smoking in the building?

No, because I don't own the business/building. If I did, that would be a far different matter. :shrug:


I'm going to go into Outback tonight in a g-string with a bullhorn and read political literature in the middle of the dining room. Since it's a public place and all, they shouldn't be able to do anything.

LMAO :clap:


Post pictures here on the planet...but only from the neck up please. :D

Well in my book money talks and :BS: walks!

I'd agree, but it has bugger all to do with the "rights" of a patron or business owner.

Bowser
04-09-2008, 12:00 PM
Nope. Haven't lit up since August of 2005.

I oppose smoking by NOT SMOKING.

Sort of like how I oppose abortion by NOT PARTAKING IN ABORTION.

If others choose to do these things, as a non-facsist, I deem it to not be any of my business.

All part of that America-free-country-thing I've read about in history books.

You mean the part where Americans, of their own free will, chose to go out and vote yes on a smoking ban? And really, I think it's the "BAN" part of this that gets people worked up. Nobody is taking your privledge of smoking away, just don't do it indoors in public places. Get up and walk the twenty or thirty feet to get outside to smoke. SUCH REPRESSION!

(And I knew you had kicked the habit, I was just busting your balls)

Bowser
04-09-2008, 12:02 PM
i feel bad for picking on you now.

Yes. I feel so inadequate with witty comebacks like this. Well done.

Iowanian
04-09-2008, 12:03 PM
If a smoker refuses to attend a restaraunt or bar because they can't smoke at any given moment, then I think that says much more about the selfish attitudes of smokers than anyone else.

Your rights aren't being trampled on...smoking is legal, you just have to "gasp" *not while walking ALL THE WAY TO THE DOOR...the horrors of having to step outside where your smoke will disapate and not bother people who didn't pay for your cigs.

I see the pro-smokers throwing the "you don't have to go there"...guess what...as a non-smoker, it turns out I have RIGHTS too.

Waaaaaaaah.

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 12:05 PM
If a smoker refuses to attend a restaraunt or bar because they can't smoke at any given moment, then I think that says much more about the selfish attitudes of smokers than anyone else.

I suppose that could be seen as far more selfish attitude than letting business owners decide whether to permit it or not, and letting patrons decide which establishment to patronize for themselves.



I see the pro-smokers throwing the "you don't have to go there"...guess what...as a non-smoker, it turns out I have RIGHTS too.


Seriously, IYO does a business have the right to refuse service to anyone?

Bowser
04-09-2008, 12:08 PM
I suppose that could be seen as far more selfish attitude than letting business owners decide whether to permit it or not, and letting patrons decide which establishment to patronize for themselves.

This is the stance you've been holding onto throughout. Why do you think more business owners didn't choose to go smoke free?

Iowanian
04-09-2008, 12:09 PM
Been to Charleston? It's had quite the impact on local bars there. 80% less business from the previous year. How many jobs do think that affects?


Anyone who won't attend a bar because the air is too clean is a douchebag.

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 12:10 PM
This is the stance you've been holding onto throughout. Why do you think more business owners didn't go smoke free?

I'd suspect it's because their patrons are spending their money which would lead the owner to continue their current policy. If the patrons opposed smoking, they wouldn't go there, and the business owner should probably change if he wants to remain in business.

If you don't see the difference between letting the business owner decide that for themselves, and forcing that decision on the owner, I don't know what to tell you.

As for me, I prefer to leave such decisions to individuals, in an effort to teach people self-responsibility.

Don't like smoke? Don't smoke.

Don't like being around smokers? Patronize businesses that don't permit it.

Like to smoke? Don't patronize businesses that don't permit it.

:shrug:

markk
04-09-2008, 12:13 PM
for those of you who feel this way, can you answer this question for me - by what authority do you have a RIGHT to patronize a business? must they by law serve everyone who wishes to be served however they wish to be served? because that seems to be the legally laughable (to say the least) idea some people have

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 12:14 PM
for those of you who feel this way, can you answer this question for me - by what authority do you have a right to patronize a business? must they by law serve everyone who wishes to be served however they wish to be served? because that seems to be the legally laughable (to say the least) idea some people have

AFAIK, most businesses I've seen reserve the right to refuse service. I'm wondering where the "right" of someone to patronize a privately owned business comes from too.

Bowser
04-09-2008, 12:15 PM
I'd suspect it's because their patrons are spending their money which would lead the owner to continue their current policy. If the patrons opposed smoking, they wouldn't go there, and the business owner should probably change if he wants to remain in business.

If you don't see the difference between letting the business owner decide that for themselves, and forcing that decision on the owner, I don't know what to tell you.

As for me, I prefer to leave such decisions to the individuals, in an effort to teach people self-responsibility.

Maybe, just maybe, they'll pick up in lost revenue what they lose from their regulars from people who feel like they can go out to the bar and enjoy a night out, without the smoke.

I know where you're going. Is it really government repression, when it's the will of the people?

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-09-2008, 12:15 PM
It's interesting sitting on the fence on this one.

On the one hand, I detest smoking thoroughly, hate going out to bars where you can smoke, and am genuinely disgusted by the smell "of the bars" that are on my clothes after I get home.

Conversely, I realize that what this is in fact doing is legislating behavior on behalf of the majority because they don't like what the minority is doing. That makes me very uncomfortable. It's also why politics is such a sticky and confusing arena and why democracy is at best inefficient and hypocritical (but the best we can hope for).

However, before we start comparing the people who voted for the ban to jack-booted thugs, could we at least take a deep breath (well those of us who don't smoke ;) ) and realize that we aren't totally ostracizing these people or preventing them from doing what they want to do, just within certain public spaces??

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 12:16 PM
However, before we start comparing the people who voted for the ban to jack-booted thugs, could we at least take a deep breath (well those of us who don't smoke ;) ) and realize that we aren't totally ostracizing these people or preventing them from doing what they want to do, just within certain public spaces??

I certainly don't think they are trying on jackboots, but again there's the issue.

What constitutes a "public" space? Ownership?

Maybe, just maybe, they'll pick up in lost revenue what they lose from their regulars from people who feel like they can go out to the bar and enjoy a night out, without the smoke.
Maybe, maybe not. Why should the owner be forced to take that risk and forbid a federally permitted activity within his/her premises?

I know where you're going. Is it really government repression, when it's the will of the people?

What's wrong with "the people" expressing their will by deciding to patronize a smoking establishment or a non-smoking establishment? That way, everybody has a choice.

Instead, that choice has been made for everyone. :shake:

This is going in circles.

markk
04-09-2008, 12:17 PM
people here dont seem to realize that. i wonder if they show up at the chiefs game demanding to be let in without a ticket because they have a right to be there, its public. and those stadiums are probably city property unlike restaurants which are on private property

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-09-2008, 12:21 PM
Instead, that choice has been made for everyone. :shake:

Which is why democracy isn't a very good system, but the best we can hope for. It'd be awesome if we had a philosopher king, but it's just as likely we'd end up with Stalin.

The Forms of Gub'ment is timeless, bra.

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 12:24 PM
Which is why democracy isn't a very good system, but the best we can hope for. It'd be awesome if we had a philosopher king, but it's just as likely we'd end up with Stalin.

The Forms of Gub'ment is timeless, bra.

Yes. Sir Winston certainly hit that nail squarely on the head.

Bowser
04-09-2008, 12:26 PM
Adept's right - this is going in circles.

The better way to see the good and bad of this, imo, is to re-visit this thread in a year, armed with info over that year, and see just what kind of effect this smoking ban has on this city over that timespan.

The gives markk a year's worth of time to think up more Evil Kinevil jumps-over-the Grand Canyon-to-conclusions scenarios. :)

markk
04-09-2008, 12:28 PM
judging by my reputation now it is more like the jump of the snake river canyon!

penguinz
04-09-2008, 12:28 PM
It is a shame to know that all the bars and restaurants in LA and NYC have gone out of business because you can't smoke in them.

Dartgod
04-09-2008, 12:29 PM
Why are the casinos exempt? Seems rather hypocritical to me.

Bowser
04-09-2008, 12:33 PM
judging by my reputation now it is more like the jump of the snake river canyon!

Heh.

And the rep thing can be fixed......

Bowser
04-09-2008, 12:36 PM
Why are the casinos exempt? Seems rather hypocritical to me.

Extremely hypocritical. They didn't want the casinos throwing their monies at opposing a smoking ban. There is some BS statement about the casino's will go smoke free when the casino's in "neighboring cities" go smoke free. WTF does that mean? If St. Joe and Omaha go smoke free, they will?

Bowser
04-09-2008, 12:36 PM
It is a shame to know that all the bars and restaurants in LA and NYC have gone out of business because you can't smoke in them.

And not to mention all of England and Ireland, as well.

suds79
04-09-2008, 12:38 PM
It is a shame to know that all the bars and restaurants in LA and NYC have gone out of business because you can't smoke in them.

Well they've had the smoking ban here in Lincoln, NE for some time now and bars & restaurants seem to do just fine.

Congrats KC. You'll love it. :thumb:

Iowanian
04-09-2008, 12:54 PM
I love all the pathetic little lemming drama queens that act like breathing in a wisp of f#cking smoke will make you DROP. DEAD. INSTANTLY.


:shake:

Coming from someone who spent several of my childhood years watching 2 of my grandparents and 2 other family members coughing up blood, chunks of lung, black tar flem and in between surgeries and chemo and radiation as they died slowly and miserably...**** you Fraz.

Iowanian
04-09-2008, 12:58 PM
Why are the casinos exempt? Seems rather hypocritical to me.

I agree its bullshit. They've just got a strong enough Lobby to carry weight. Its crap.

I've got a hole in the fleece pullover I'm wearing right now, from a dumbass smoking at a blackjack table next to me
who wasn't cautious enough with his burning ember.

Brock
04-09-2008, 12:59 PM
Anybody ever tried Snus?

bogey
04-09-2008, 01:07 PM
I'm a reformed smoker. I think this is ridiculous. Let the owners make their own decision.

Iowanian
04-09-2008, 01:11 PM
Seriously, IYO does a business have the right to refuse service to anyone?

can a business not serve someone because they are black, hispanic, gay, a woman, a midget? See what happens if a business did that.

IMO, a non-smoker doesn't ever infringe on a smoker by not smoking in the same building. Can a person smoking, honestly feel like what they are doing has no effect on the non-smoker? Does the non-smoker have a right to eat at the same restaraunt? Should a pregant woman really have to change the establishments she eats at because someone thinks its too big of a deal to go outside to smoke?

bogey
04-09-2008, 01:13 PM
can a business not serve someone because they are black, hispanic, gay, a woman, a midget? See what happens if a business did that.

IMO, a non-smoker doesn't ever infringe on a smoker by not smoking in the same building. Can a person smoking, honestly feel like what they are doing has no effect on the non-smoker? Does the non-smoker have a right to eat at the same restaraunt? Should a pregant woman really have to change the establishments she eats at because someone thinks its too big of a deal to go outside to smoke?

The next step will be that smokers can't go outside to smoke either.

alanm
04-09-2008, 01:20 PM
LMAO


Yeah buddy, you're sure taking the high road wishing death on millions of people. :rolleyes:

C'mon tell me, who ever forced you (in violation of your personal rights) to go to a business that permits smoking? Again, if it's such a health concern with you, what have you done about Car Exhaust? It's far more of a pollutant than secondhand smoke, but I bet it doesn't outrage you in the least.



Do you actually believe your rights as a patron trump the rights of the business owner? :spock:

If they aren't willing to prohibit it (and I've not seen that to be the case), what does that tell you? The market (their customers) must prefer it, or they would. Why not let the market decide?

Sorry, but "they permit smoking and I want to go there" is a craptacular rationale to pass a law.

What's next? "They permit drinking in that restaurant, but I'm a teetotaler, so let's get a citywide ban on alcohol?" After all, drunk people can be a serious public health risk!I'm up for the banning of alcohol. After all it causes more death and destruction to people than cigarettes. :thumb:

markk
04-09-2008, 01:25 PM
The next step will be that smokers can't go outside to smoke either.

i would guess that next would be within X feet of the building. but some place in california already tried to ban smoking outside in any public space. someplace else was trying to ban it in apartments or any building where more than one person lives even if they all smoke or don't mind.

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 01:25 PM
I'm up for the banning of alcohol. After all it causes more death and destruction to people than cigarettes. :thumb:

Heh. You just want to become the new Elliot Ness. :p

can a business not serve someone because they are black, hispanic, gay, a woman, a midget? See what happens if a business did that.
If the owner is ignorant enough to say that's why he's refusing service, that's his problem. However, I've never seen a private business like a bar or restaurant that didn't reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. That tells me the business owners rights trump any imagined "right" a patron might claim.

IMO, a non-smoker doesn't ever infringe on a smoker by not smoking in the same building. Can a person smoking, honestly feel like what they are doing has no effect on the non-smoker? Does the non-smoker have a right to eat at the same restaraunt? Should a pregant woman really have to change the establishments she eats at because someone thinks its too big of a deal to go outside to smoke?
I'd agree. However, IMO, that does not justify dictating to a private business owner that they are not free to permit smoking within their establishment if they choose to.

Should a pregnant woman have to change establishments? No.

Should she do it? If she's concerned about the health of her child and the right of the business owner, IMO, yes.

Sorry, I don't see this as anything but an exercise in personal responsibility.

If you smoke and want to smoke, don't go places that forbid it.

If you don't smoke and don't want to be around it, don't go places that permit it.

I just don't seee "I want to go there but they do something I don't like, so they should be forced to change that" as a legitimate basis for a law.

JMO.

markk
04-09-2008, 01:25 PM
I'm up for the banning of alcohol. After all it causes more death and destruction to people than cigarettes. :thumb:

alcohol causes more suffering on earth than any other substance, far and away

Frazod
04-09-2008, 01:25 PM
Coming from someone who spent several of my childhood years watching 2 of my grandparents and 2 other family members coughing up blood, chunks of lung, black tar flem and in between surgeries and chemo and radiation as they died slowly and miserably...**** you Fraz.

My grandfather died of emphysema, hooked up to an oxygen tank, bedridden for three years. And he would still crawl into the living room occasionally to sneak a smoke.

And I don't recall anybody putting a gun to his head making him do it.

I'm sorry that a puff of smoke makes you barf up your $50 steaks :deevee: but at the end of the day, your freakish afflictions are not my problem.

So f#ck you back.

dirk digler
04-09-2008, 01:28 PM
What's wrong with "the people" expressing their will by deciding to patronize a smoking establishment or a non-smoking establishment? That way, everybody has a choice.

Instead, that choice has been made for everyone. :shake:


This is the way democracy works. I don't get the outrage when the people of KC got this bill on the ballot and the people of KC voted yes to ban smoking. The will of the people spoke and that is what America is all about.

markk
04-09-2008, 01:36 PM
This is the way democracy works.

This country is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 01:37 PM
This is the way democracy works. I don't get the outrage when the people of KC got this bill on the ballot and the people of KC voted yes to ban smoking. The will of the people spoke and that is what America is all about.

I'd still like to see an explanation of what's wrong with letting businesses and people decide this for themselves on an individual basis, instead of either group imposing their will on everyone else?

For the record, I'd be just as opposed to a law that mandated all places had to allow smoking.
That would just be the other side of the same coin, IMO.

memyselfI
04-09-2008, 01:40 PM
Extremely hypocritical. They didn't want the casinos throwing their monies at opposing a smoking ban. There is some BS statement about the casino's will go smoke free when the casino's in "neighboring cities" go smoke free. WTF does that mean? If St. Joe and Omaha go smoke free, they will?

Prolly because most families don't go to casinos whereas they do go to restaurants and even sports bars.

Jenson71
04-09-2008, 01:40 PM
This is the way democracy works. I don't get the outrage when the people of KC got this bill on the ballot and the people of KC voted yes to ban smoking. The will of the people spoke and that is what America is all about.

I don't agree. This is majority tyranny. America has a tendency to fall into the trappings of this tyranny. But that is not what America is all about. We are not a pure democracy. We are a nation of structural checks and balances, of protecting personal rights and liberties with an independent court system and representatives. Might does not make right, and in this particular issue, I believe that is what's happening. We are taking personal decisions and markets and outlawing them where there was already before personal decisions and markets to avoid them. I don't really like it.

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 01:41 PM
Prolly because most families don't go to casinos whereas they do go to restaurants and even sports bars.

Bullshit. How many "families" patronized bars after 9:00 PM (where smoking was legal under the ban that was supplanted by this one)?

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-09-2008, 01:44 PM
Yes. Sir Winston certainly hit that nail squarely on the head.

Err...Plato...

Frazod
04-09-2008, 01:48 PM
I don't agree. This is majority tyranny. America has a tendency to fall into the trappings of this tyranny. But that is not what America is all about. We are not a pure democracy. We are a nation of structural checks and balances, of protecting personal rights and liberties with an independent court system and representatives. Might does not make right, and in this particular issue, I believe that is what's happening. We are taking personal decisions and markets and outlawing them where there was already before personal decisions and markets to avoid them. I don't really like it.

Bravo. :clap:

memyselfI
04-09-2008, 01:49 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but i don't believe there has been any scientific evidence that second hand smoke causes cancer or any other health issues.
Like Stevie Ray said this is a control issue not a health issue.

Perhaps you should borrow my lungs after I've spent three or four hours in a smoking establishment. I have to use an inhaler and if I'm lucky I'll only be sick the next day. Other times it turns into an URI and I'll be sick for a week.

For me it IS a health issue. The fact that it smells worse than ass is secondary...

er, should I say butt.

bogey
04-09-2008, 01:50 PM
JMO, Anyone that supports banning smoking, probably should also support banning guns.

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 01:51 PM
Perhaps you should borrow my lungs after I've spent three or four hours in a smoking establishment. I have to use an inhaler and if I'm lucky I'll only be sick the next day. Other times it turns into an URI and I'll be sick for a week.

For me it IS a health issue. The fact that it smells worse than ass is secondary...

er, should I say butt.

How about exercising a little personal responsibility and just don't go to a smoking establishment?

Nah, personal responsibility is clearly not your style. You'd rather force everyone else to live in a manner you personally approve of.

Err...Plato...

I figured this was what you were alluding to:

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

If Plato made a similar statement, or that's what Sir Winston was referring to, I certainly support giving credit where it is due. :shrug:

bogey
04-09-2008, 01:51 PM
Perhaps you should borrow my lungs after I've spent three or four hours in a smoking establishment. I have to use an inhaler and if I'm lucky I'll only be sick the next day. Other times it turns into an URI and I'll be sick for a week.

For me it IS a health issue. The fact that it smells worse than ass is secondary...

er, should I say butt.

I totally understand. Then don't go to those establishments.

Dartgod
04-09-2008, 01:52 PM
Prolly because most families don't go to casinos whereas they do go to restaurants and even sports bars.
ROFL

If you want to believe that is the real reason behind providing an exemption for the casinos, then please be my guest.

memyselfI
04-09-2008, 01:52 PM
Bullshit. How many "families" patronized bars after 9:00 PM (where smoking was legal under the ban that was supplanted by this one)?

Ours does if my son's band is playing. I'm sure there were families watching the Jayhawks at sports bars the other night.

Look as long as your car remains parked in the restaurant parking lot then you addicts have a place to smoke and you have no reason to be complaining.

memyselfI
04-09-2008, 01:53 PM
ROFL

If you want to believe that that is the real reason behind providing an exemption for the casinos, then please be my guest.

No, the real reason is the gambling lobby has more and bigger dice than does the smoking lobby. Too bad.

Dartgod
04-09-2008, 01:55 PM
No, the real reason is the gambling lobby has more and bigger dice than does the smoking lobby. Too bad.
Right. It's hypocrisy at its finest. That tells me this law is NOT about public safety, as they sold it to the uneducated masses.

If the majority of the public were really concerned about their health, they would have demanded that the casinos be included in the ban. Instead, its about imposing their will on other citizens so their clothes aren't stinky when they get home from a night at the bars.

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 01:56 PM
Look as long as your car remains parked in the restaurant parking lot then you addicts have a place to smoke and you have no reason to be complaining.

Geh Kak Afen Yam, meme. I don't smoke.

Look, as long as there are non-smoking establishments to compete with smoking establishments, you presumptive busybodies have a place to not smoke and you have no reason to be complaining.

Then again, expecting you to understand the concept of personal responsibility would be like expecting recxjake to understand why someone would look down on GM. It's a concept so far out of your worldview you can't even begin to comprehend it. Rather sad, really.

stevieray
04-09-2008, 01:57 PM
I don't agree. This is majority tyranny. America has a tendency to fall into the trappings of this tyranny. But that is not what America is all about. We are not a pure democracy. We are a nation of structural checks and balances, of protecting personal rights and liberties with an independent court system and representatives. Might does not make right, and in this particular issue, I believe that is what's happening. We are taking personal decisions and markets and outlawing them where there was already before personal decisions and markets to avoid them. I don't really like it.

very wise, grashopper..

bogey
04-09-2008, 01:57 PM
Ours does if my son's band is playing. I'm sure there were families watching the Jayhawks at sports bars the other night.

Look as long as your car remains parked in the restaurant parking lot then you addicts have a place to smoke and you have no reason to be complaining.

Like I said, this is not dissimilar from banning guns. Unfortunately, with fanatics, if you give an inch, they'll take a mile. Where does it stop? Soon people won't be able to smoke anywhere except in there houses and that's wrong, IMO.

Iowanian
04-09-2008, 02:02 PM
I don't see the big deal...

Smokers sure as hell waste twice the time of a nonsmoker in the workplace, and have no problem going outside to puff away twice as often as the normal person takes a break...but thanks for clogging the arteries and adding stroke and heart disease risk to the insurance rates. Awesome work!

Its not too big of a deal to walk outside 8 times per day at work...I can't see that its so torturous to have to do it after you chow down on your endless bowl of spaghetti, fatzod

memyselfI
04-09-2008, 02:03 PM
Right. It's hypocrisy at its finest. That tells me this law is NOT about public safety, as they sold it to the uneducated masses.

If the majority of the public were really concerned about their health, they would have demanded that the casinos be included in the ban. Instead, its about imposing their will on other citizens so their clothes aren't stinky when they get home from a night at the bars.

Oh waaaaaaaaaa. For decades the smoking lobby was so powerful and effective in convincing people that the right to smoke was more important and superceded the right not to have someone else's addiction invade your personal space. Now, the pendulum has swung and most people are mighty pleased about it.

Seriously, if some people put the effort to quitting that they do into defending their addiction they'd be healthier and happier people.

FTR, It's not about the smell for me. It's about being made physically ill from cigarette smoke.

Iowanian
04-09-2008, 02:04 PM
oh..and just to wash off this icky doo doo feeling of being on the same side of the fense as dense.....fark you too Denise. Just because.

ottawa_chiefs_fan
04-09-2008, 02:05 PM
Like I said, this is not dissimilar from banning guns. Unfortunately, with fanatics, if you give an inch, they'll take a mile. Where does it stop? Soon people won't be able to smoke anywhere except in there houses and that's wrong, IMO.

You want to know where it is headed? This is where:

Ontario to ban smoking in cars carrying children
Last Updated: Wednesday, March 5, 2008 | 6:44 PM ET Comments27Recommend62CBC News
The Ontario government plans to introduce legislation this spring to ban smoking in cars where young children are present.

Premier Dalton McGuinty announced in Toronto on Wednesday that the law will be brought in for the spring session of the legislature, which is scheduled to begin March 17.

Premier Dalton McGuinty says a child breathing second-hand smoke in a car for an hour receives exposure equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes.
(CBC) "We know that this is harmful to children," McGuinty said. "We need to do everything we can to keep our children safe and healthy."

Children exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to suffer sudden infant death syndrome, asthma and cardiac disease, the premier said.

McGuinty said that being exposed to one hour of second-hand smoke in a car is the same for a young child as smoking an entire pack of cigarettes.

Ontario doctors welcomed the decision. The Ontario Medical Association said in a news release that it has been calling for such a ban since it released a report on the issue in 2004.

Dr. Janice Willett, president of the OMA, said Ontario doctors have tried to educate the public about the dangers to children of second-hand smoke in vehicles and build public support for a ban on smoking in cars carrying children.

"We have seen tremendous leadership from the province and are looking forward to seeing children benefit when this legislation is put into action," she said.

The premier said he was originally reluctant to ban smoking in cars carrying children, but was swayed by arguments made by his minister of health promotion and a backbencher.

He had promised last week that his Liberal government would take another look at the idea. He said Wednesday he hopes the opposition parties will pass the legislation quickly.

But he acknowledged that some drivers may see the ban as an invasion of their privacy.

Premier looks to balance rights, responsibilities
"You've got to continue to look to ensure you are striking an appropriate balance between the rights of individuals, the right to exercise personal freedoms and liberties, and our collective responsibility as a society to protect the interests of our most vulnerable," he said.


McGuinty declined to specify how the province would define child in terms of age or the amount of the fine to be levied against the driver.

In a private member's bill introduced by Liberal MPP David Orazietti in December 2007, which called for a similar ban, a child is defined as anyone under 16 and the fine for drivers who violate the ban is $200. The bill has passed first reading.

McGuinty said the government will introduce its own bill but it will not go beyond the scope of the private member's bill.

Doctors say the risks to children from exposure to second-hand smoke include respiratory illnesses, middle ear disease, lower respiratory tract infections and sudden infant death syndrome. They say exposure can also lead to increased incidences of cancer and heart disease in adulthood.

Dr. Suzanne Strasberg, board chair of the OMA, said the concentration of smoke in cars can be up to 60 times greater than the concentration of smoke in a room inside a house.

"The need for such a ban is undeniable," she said.

Nova Scotia banned smoking in cars where children are present in January and the B.C. government pledged in its recent throne speech to enact a similar ban. New Brunswick and Manitoba are also considering bans.

Dartgod
04-09-2008, 02:06 PM
FTR, It's not about the smell for me. It's about being made physically ill from cigarette smoke.
Yet, you CHOSE to spend over 4 hours in a smoking establishment. :shake:

And FTR, I quit over two years ago. I'll still smoke one or two on occasions, but I consider myself a non-smoker.

BigChiefFan
04-09-2008, 02:07 PM
I don't agree. This is majority tyranny. America has a tendency to fall into the trappings of this tyranny. But that is not what America is all about. We are not a pure democracy. We are a nation of structural checks and balances, of protecting personal rights and liberties with an independent court system and representatives. Might does not make right, and in this particular issue, I believe that is what's happening. We are taking personal decisions and markets and outlawing them where there was already before personal decisions and markets to avoid them. I don't really like it.

Great post. You are exactly right. Land of the free, my ass.

memyselfI
04-09-2008, 02:08 PM
You want to know where it is headed? This is where:

Ontario to ban smoking in cars carrying children
Last Updated: Wednesday, March 5, 2008 | 6:44 PM ET Comments27Recommend62CBC News
The Ontario government plans to introduce legislation this spring to ban smoking in cars where young children are present.



I wish I could be upset about this but nothing pisses me off more than to see some trash smoking in the front seat with the kids in back seat and the windows are closed...

it's almost as bad as a trash woman smoking while pregnant.

Dartgod
04-09-2008, 02:10 PM
I wish I could be upset about this but nothing pisses me off more than to see some trash smoking in the front seat with the kids in back seat and the windows are closed...

it's almost as bad as a trash woman smoking while pregnant.
No argument here.

memyselfI
04-09-2008, 02:10 PM
Yet, you CHOSE to spend over 4 hours in a smoking establishment. :shake:

And FTR, I quit over two years ago. I'll still smoke one or two on occasions, but I consider myself a non-smoker.

No, I don't. If my son is playing in one of those places then I miss his show. Which sucks but it's better than being sick for a week. But I resent the hell out of the fact that some addict is enjoying my son while I'm stuck at home and that person is enabled to partake of their addiction at my expense.

BigChiefFan
04-09-2008, 02:10 PM
Oh waaaaaaaaaa. For decades the smoking lobby was so powerful and effective in convincing people that the right to smoke was more important and superceded the right not to have someone else's addiction invade your personal space. Now, the pendulum has swung and most people are mighty pleased about it.

Seriously, if some people put the effort to quitting that they do into defending their addiction they'd be healthier and happier people.

FTR, It's not about the smell for me. It's about being made physically ill from cigarette smoke.WTF would you spend FOUR HOURS in a place that would make you physically ill? That is borderline moronic.

ottawa_chiefs_fan
04-09-2008, 02:12 PM
I wish I could be upset about this but nothing pisses me off more than to see some trash smoking in the front seat with the kids in back seat and the windows are closed...

it's almost as bad as a trash woman smoking while pregnant.

Problem is - by over-regulating, you are messing with Darwin's theory of natural selection - you want all segments of society making decisions on their own (within reason) don't you?

Iowanian
04-09-2008, 02:14 PM
How will the poor, downtrodden smokers ever shake the chains of the burdens of smoking outside a restaraunt.


Woah! Woooooooooaaaaaaah is Meeeeeeeee. Spike thou to the woaaaah tree.

BigChiefFan
04-09-2008, 02:15 PM
Why do YOU ALLOW your son to play in these places? Don't you care about his health?

Dartgod
04-09-2008, 02:15 PM
No, I don't. If my son is playing in one of those places then I miss his show. Which sucks but it's better than being sick for a week. But I resent the hell out of the fact that some addict is enjoying my son while I'm stuck at home and that person is enabled to partake of their addiction at my expense.

I love the way the anti-smoking Nazis throw the word addict around like smokers are sitting around shooting heroin.

memyselfI
04-09-2008, 02:15 PM
WTF would you spend FOUR HOURS in a place that would make you physically ill? That is borderline moronic.

Because my son is playing. He asked me to stop going because he got tired of my being sick afterwards. Thus, I go on rare occasions now.

dirk digler
04-09-2008, 02:15 PM
I'd still like to see an explanation of what's wrong with letting businesses and people decide this for themselves on an individual basis, instead of either group imposing their will on everyone else?

For the record, I'd be just as opposed to a law that mandated all places had to allow smoking.
That would just be the other side of the same coin, IMO.

I don't think there is anything wrong with letting the business decide or on an individual basis. I have no problem with that. But at the same time the voters of KC got the bill on the ballot and voted yes and I think that is perfectly acceptable as well.

BigChiefFan
04-09-2008, 02:16 PM
Because my son is playing. He asked me to stop going because he got tired of my being sick afterwards. Thus, I go on rare occasions now.
Why do you ALLOW him to play there? What about his HEALTH?

memyselfI
04-09-2008, 02:16 PM
Why do YOU ALLOW your son to play in these places? Don't you care about his health?

When you are an up and coming band you don't get to choose where you play. You play where you can get paid and get a name. Now that they are establishing themselves they are playing smoky bars a lot less and try to avoid it.

Dartgod
04-09-2008, 02:17 PM
How will the poor, downtrodden smokers ever shake the chains of the burdens of smoking outside a restaraunt.


Woah! Woooooooooaaaaaaah is Meeeeeeeee. Spike thou to the woaaaah tree.

There are quit a few non-smokers against this ban as well. Don't forget that.

BigChiefFan
04-09-2008, 02:18 PM
When you are an up and coming band you don't get to choose where you play. You play where you can get paid and get a name. Now that they are establishing themselves they are playing smoky bars a lot less and try to avoid it.So the making a name for himself outweighs his health?

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 02:19 PM
No, I don't. If my son is playing in one of those places then I miss his show. Which sucks but it's better than being sick for a week.
Yes, you do. You have a choice to put yourself in that situation or not. You value seeing your son play more than your health, but YOU have made that choice. Accept that, and you are well on your way to understanding the concept of taking personal responsibility for your actions.

But I resent the hell out of the fact that some addict is enjoying my son while I'm stuck at home and that person is enabled to partake of their addiction at my expense.

No, what you really resent is that the Business Owner might decide to operate his business in a manner you personally don't approve of. So of course, we need legislation to force everyone else to live in accordance with your desires. :spock:

There are quit a few non-smokers against this ban as well. Don't forget that.

Indeed.

memyselfI
04-09-2008, 02:19 PM
I love the way the anti-smoking Nazis throw the word addict around like smokers are sitting around shooting heroin.

It's because they act like they are. :doh!:

markk
04-09-2008, 02:20 PM
like a band if they even exist is really going to tell 'smoky bars' no. what a bunch of bs.

Iowanian
04-09-2008, 02:20 PM
He asked me to stop going because he got tired of my being sick afterwards. Thus, I go on rare occasions now.


This isn't true. Its because he got sick.... of chewbacca cock blocking him.

memyselfI
04-09-2008, 02:21 PM
So the making a name for himself outweighs his health?

For the first year plus that they were together, yes. Now they can play in KCMO and not worry about it. :clap:

bogey
04-09-2008, 02:23 PM
How will the poor, downtrodden smokers ever shake the chains of the burdens of smoking outside a restaraunt.


Woah! Woooooooooaaaaaaah is Meeeeeeeee. Spike thou to the woaaaah tree.

I'm surprised you're not getting this. Where does the legislation stop?

BigChiefFan
04-09-2008, 02:24 PM
For the first year plus that they were together, yes. Now they can play in KCMO and not worry about it. :clap:So it isn't a health issue afterall-it's just about your PREFERENCE. What a disgrace and hypocrisy at it's finest.

Iowanian
04-09-2008, 02:25 PM
Apparently at the exits of Restaraunts and bars in Iowa and KCMO.


I think I'm going to tag this thread "smokem if you gottem"

bogey
04-09-2008, 02:26 PM
You want to know where it is headed? This is where:

Ontario to ban smoking in cars carrying children
Last Updated: Wednesday, March 5, 2008 | 6:44 PM ET Comments27Recommend62CBC News
The Ontario government plans to introduce legislation this spring to ban smoking in cars where young children are present.

Premier Dalton McGuinty announced in Toronto on Wednesday that the law will be brought in for the spring session of the legislature, which is scheduled to begin March 17.

Premier Dalton McGuinty says a child breathing second-hand smoke in a car for an hour receives exposure equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes.
(CBC) "We know that this is harmful to children," McGuinty said. "We need to do everything we can to keep our children safe and healthy."

Children exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to suffer sudden infant death syndrome, asthma and cardiac disease, the premier said.

McGuinty said that being exposed to one hour of second-hand smoke in a car is the same for a young child as smoking an entire pack of cigarettes.

Ontario doctors welcomed the decision. The Ontario Medical Association said in a news release that it has been calling for such a ban since it released a report on the issue in 2004.

Dr. Janice Willett, president of the OMA, said Ontario doctors have tried to educate the public about the dangers to children of second-hand smoke in vehicles and build public support for a ban on smoking in cars carrying children.

"We have seen tremendous leadership from the province and are looking forward to seeing children benefit when this legislation is put into action," she said.

The premier said he was originally reluctant to ban smoking in cars carrying children, but was swayed by arguments made by his minister of health promotion and a backbencher.

He had promised last week that his Liberal government would take another look at the idea. He said Wednesday he hopes the opposition parties will pass the legislation quickly.

But he acknowledged that some drivers may see the ban as an invasion of their privacy.

Premier looks to balance rights, responsibilities
"You've got to continue to look to ensure you are striking an appropriate balance between the rights of individuals, the right to exercise personal freedoms and liberties, and our collective responsibility as a society to protect the interests of our most vulnerable," he said.


McGuinty declined to specify how the province would define child in terms of age or the amount of the fine to be levied against the driver.

In a private member's bill introduced by Liberal MPP David Orazietti in December 2007, which called for a similar ban, a child is defined as anyone under 16 and the fine for drivers who violate the ban is $200. The bill has passed first reading.

McGuinty said the government will introduce its own bill but it will not go beyond the scope of the private member's bill.

Doctors say the risks to children from exposure to second-hand smoke include respiratory illnesses, middle ear disease, lower respiratory tract infections and sudden infant death syndrome. They say exposure can also lead to increased incidences of cancer and heart disease in adulthood.

Dr. Suzanne Strasberg, board chair of the OMA, said the concentration of smoke in cars can be up to 60 times greater than the concentration of smoke in a room inside a house.

"The need for such a ban is undeniable," she said.

Nova Scotia banned smoking in cars where children are present in January and the B.C. government pledged in its recent throne speech to enact a similar ban. New Brunswick and Manitoba are also considering bans.

Smoking in a car with your child in the back seat is wrong. Government can't control idiocy. Personally, I think having a loaded gun in your house where some child can pick it up and play cowboys and Indians is wrong too. But we can't control those idiots either.

Brock
04-09-2008, 02:26 PM
If anyone would like the opportunity to fire up a stogey in Denise's general vicinity and enjoy some damn fine teen garage band thrashing, the band's schedule is here:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=52431046

memyselfI
04-09-2008, 02:27 PM
So isn't a health issue afterall-it's just about your PREFERENCE. What a disgrace.

No, it is a health issue. I don't go to smoking establishments. For instance, my husband and I had a wonderful lunch at a restaurant in the River Market district. But I would not go back there because we had to WALK THRU THE SMOKING SECTION to get to the non-smoking section. We didn't know that before we went there. We haven't been back because of it. But with this new law we will go back for sure.

bogey
04-09-2008, 02:29 PM
Apparently at the exits of Restaraunts and bars in Iowa and KCMO.


I think I'm going to tag this thread "smokem if you gottem"

I guarantee you it will not stop there. Guarantee it.

Frazod
04-09-2008, 02:37 PM
I hate the smell of cigarette smoke as much as any other non-smoker. But I'm not enough of a self-absorbed prick to use that as an excuse to tell others that they can't smoke just because I quit.

Iowanian
04-09-2008, 02:39 PM
No one says they can't smoke. They just can't do it in bars and restaraunts in some states and cities.

chief husker
04-09-2008, 02:41 PM
I hate the smell of cigarette smoke as much as any other non-smoker. But I'm not enough of a self-absorbed prick to use that as an excuse to tell others that they can't smoke just because I quit.

I am. Self-absorbed that is.

jeffrho68
04-09-2008, 02:42 PM
I guarantee you it will not stop there. Guarantee it.

Yep. It's a slippery slope:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2010.asp

BigChiefFan
04-09-2008, 02:45 PM
No, it is a health issue. I don't go to smoking establishments. For instance, my husband and I had a wonderful lunch at a restaurant in the River Market district. But I would not go back there because we had to WALK THRU THE SMOKING SECTION to get to the non-smoking section. We didn't know that before we went there. We haven't been back because of it. But with this new law we will go back for sure.
Again, if it's so ****ing bad, why did you ALLOW your son to play there? So you would allow your son to inhale those harmful vapors, knowing that it's detrimental to his health? The answer is obviously yes, so that means you aren't too concerned or you wouldn't have allowed it, now would you?

Valiant
04-09-2008, 03:12 PM
Dude, it was legally put to a public vote. The majority won. Accept it and move on.

If you think the wording of that measure that people read was completely true then you are a moron.. That vote had jack shit in what it was telling the voter, and guess what most of the voters do not research shit before they vote so all they read it was going to ban smoking except in casinos(because casinos put in enough money to get the exemption) Small businesses did not have millions to give to the state to get the exemption..

This is just like how the light rail passed without the populace knowing it was going to cost them 100's of millions of dollars.. When the public finally found out they got pissed and forced the government to stop it and piss off Clay Chastain..

Yeah for us, we stopped privately owned businesses from selling or letting their patrons do a legal activity.. Even though it is still not proven that second hand smoke is dangerous.. ****ing alcohol is 100 times worse then second hand smoke in killing people, lets go after that..

Dartgod
04-09-2008, 03:12 PM
But I would not go back there because we had to WALK THRU THE SMOKING SECTION to get to the non-smoking section.
So how many days did that horrifying experience land you in the hospital?

:rolleyes:

Valiant
04-09-2008, 03:20 PM
I suggest to anybody that owns a bar or restaurant to do what I suggested to my friends bar.. Get a small little section and become a smoke shop also.. It will let you circumvent the ruling or just start charging at the door and become a private establishment. Most bars do this anyway on busy nights, just charge a dollar or five dollars and give them a free drink ticket...

Iowanian
04-09-2008, 03:20 PM
Even though it is still not proven that second hand smoke is dangerous.. ****ing alcohol is 100 times worse then second hand smoke in killing people, lets go after that..

This is bullshit. It is proven that smoking causes cancer. I don't think eating in a restaraunt for 1hr is going to give me cancer, but I think for employees, it can. As for dangerous....far more people die of lung and heart disease than drunkeness.

If you drink alcohol in a restaraunt or bar, no one else has to taste your pina colada because you're at the next table.

Adept Havelock
04-09-2008, 03:27 PM
I suggest to anybody that owns a bar or restaurant to do what I suggested to my friends bar.. Get a small little section and become a smoke shop also.. It will let you circumvent the ruling or just start charging at the door and become a private establishment. Most bars do this anyway on busy nights, just charge a dollar or five dollars and give them a free drink ticket...

Nice. :clap:

Valiant
04-09-2008, 03:27 PM
This is bullshit. It is proven that smoking causes cancer. I don't think eating in a restaraunt for 1hr is going to give me cancer, but I think for employees, it can. As for dangerous....far more people die of lung and heart disease than drunkeness.

If you drink alcohol in a restaraunt or bar, no one else has to taste your pina colada because you're at the next table.

No it is not, there are competing studies that go back and forth.. You only hear about the negative studies.. Just like milk gives you cancer if you drink enough of it.. Smoking is no more harmful then cooks having to smell smoke off the grill day in day out...

The whole nonsmoking argument is second hand smoking being hurtful... More people die or get hurt to drunk drivers then second hand smoke.. We need to ban it... It is harmful to others that do not drink...

I grew up in a home that smoked, It stunk like shit nothing more.. The odds of getting cancer are a tad bit higher then the average chance of getting cancer.. That is your defense?? I am glad we are getting rid of personal liberties over that small chance... All the while drunk drivers and business establishments that sell alcohol get away with it.. We need to ban it, we set the precedent so lets keep it rolling...