How about drunken driving? Let's ban alcohol.

1. You aren't the person at whom this was directed.

2. I really wonder how much your wish of good luck will mean to Smitty if he loses his business and ends up stocking shelves at HyVee. Can he cash your luck in for food stamps?

3. PLEASE, SOMEBODY explain to me why YOU GIVE A SHIT about people smoking in a bar YOU'LL NEVER SET FOOT IN? Seriously, who the hell are you to dictate to some bar owner in La Plata, Missouri whether or not he and his patrons can smoke? Were you recently elected Fuhrer? Did I miss something?

4. I think people squealing like stuck pigs over smoking bans are a JOKE. I think people stupid enough to buy into the notion that a wisp of secondhand smoke will strike them dead are a JOKE. I think people who mask their dislike for the smell of cigarettes behind overblown, ridiculous health concerns are a JOKE. And I don't really give a shit how "the World" feels about it. And by the way, when did you become spokesman for the "the World"? Gee, I keep missing these things.

5. Perhaps the bar scene in LA Plata is a bit different than the bar scene in LA. I don't think anybody down at Smitty's is interested in downing $20 cosmopolitans, discussing their latest tummy-tuck, or rubbing shoulders with Don Henley. It's more likely that they want to drink cheap beer, smoke, relax with friends and watch the game on the big screen TV. Most of us (even rednecks from La Plata) have big TVs at home now. So if you take away the smoking thing, what's to keep these people from just buying a six pack and staying home? Apparently, NOTHING. Not a problem if you're some Hollywood hotshot. Big problem if you own a bar in Northeast Missouri.

Again, I will point out that I don't smoke. As an ex-smoker, I don't like the smell of smoke. I went out to a bar Saturday night, and I personally had no problem returning home not reeking of smoke. But if people had been smoking, and I did come home smelling of it, I COULD LIVE IT. It's not going to kill me or cause me to require therapy from some Kalifornia psykhiatrist. It would just have been the reasonable outcome of going to a place where people smoked. I know you think that is the end of the world, but I can assure you, it is not.

I argue for tolerance, reason and personal choice in situations that affect me. You argue for totalitarian imposition of policies that affect everybody. Smoke smell or not, my side stinks much less.

You and Dane should get a room and kvetch about smokers together.

Who the hell has ever "forced" you to go someplace where someone was smoking?

They didn't. You chose to go someplace that permitted it, and whined about it later.

To you, I'll say what Bearcat didn't deserve.

QFT.

I also want to ban knives. I could get stabbed, and there are people out there that would harm me with one. Let's ban knives from all public places in the name of public health.


Disclaimer: Yes, I understand that is quite dramatic. Really though, it's no different. It's preventative measures to protect public safety, just like smoking bans.

I am an X smoker. I fully understand those that are bothered by the smell of smoke because, well, it's disgusting. However, I do not buy for a minute that second hand smoke in a restaurant will literally have a negative effect on your health. I believe it is over-reaction on the part of people that are bothered by the smell. It's only a matter of time that you smokers won't be allowed to smoke outside of a restaurant. This whole second hand smoking thing is being taken to a ridiculous extreme. Whatever. Unfortunately, it is what it is, but come on people, stop overreacting for a cause. Call it what it is. The smoke smells horrible to non-smokers and ex-smokers and I fully agre with this. But it is NOT a realistic health risk.

As a non-smoker, I still disagree with these bans. If you don't like smoking, vote with your $$$$$. If there is such a HUGE market for a smoke-free environment, it seems to me that MAYBE one of you nitwits should capitalize on the opportunity and open a restaurant/bar/whatever and MAKE MONEY in that market instead of asking the government to intervene on "your behalf" and having it destroy that market.

You CLEARLY don't understand what is at stake in the smoking bans.

Do you know ANYTHING about health insurance? The upward spiral of insuring the elderly? The more than 400,000 people who are hospitalized each year with smoking-related illnesses?

Why is health insurance on the continual rise? Because of smoking-related illnesses. Who pays for these smokers?

The American public.

How? Through higher insurance premiums as well as Medicare and state Medicaid.

Once a smoker with a pre-determined condition is no longer employed by a company that has group health-care, that person has almost NO chance of securing health insurance.

The result? The American people foot the bill. More importantly, the 82% of the American People who DO NOT SMOKE.

So, what can state and local governments do to reduce the number of smoking-related deaths and illnesses? Well for starters, how about banning smoking in public places, like shopping malls, bars and restaurants.

This issue is FAR deeper than just "letting the business owners decide" or just "Go Somewhere Else".

It's a matter of public safety, whether you're aware of it or not.

Ok, so that is one but the numbers of people affected by drunken driving are thankfully MUCH LESS than those affected by sitting or standing next to someone smoking.

You can't buy or drink alcohol everywhere and yet until recently in most places you could be stuck in the vicinity of someone smoking.

But there is a difference. If the legislation comes from the government, it is from the republic form of government, but if it comes from a public vote, then it is a democratic form because the majority gets to make the decision on the law.

Isn't that true?


I can understand why the founding fathers didn't really like democracy for the majority of things. Democracy requires the public to be somewhat informed and just because there a multitude of information out there doesn't mean the public is more informed.

They would still have to be able to decifer the information and make an informed decision.

That's a crock of shit. You're telling me that you're more concerned with the possible dangers of 2nd hand smoke 40 years from now, than you are with people who die in the ****ing blink of an eye because some jackass was out drinking and driving? Wow.

It's hugely different. It's possible for me to keep my knife to myself. It's not possible for a smoker to do the same.

Okay, I take back the Slayer accusation. :D

I agree to an extent, but sometimes they have to step in for the good of the vast majority. It's hard to draw the line, but public places is a good place to start, IMO, with the exception of places where smoking is prevalent and there's an equivalent option for nonsmokers (bars vs. bar & grills).

Within 5-10 minutes of being around smoke my eyes start to swell. My throat tightens. If I'm exposed to it longer than a half our or so I'll have an asthma attack. If I am exposed to it for more than a couple of hours then I'll can literally be sick with bronchitis for a couple of weeks.

You can imagine it's all in my head all you want. I wish it were. Unfortunately for me it's in my chest.

I think you and others are totally overreacting on this. I understand smoking is bad. Second hand smoke in restaurants is total BS.

Which one does your opinion represent? The smoker or the business owner?

Because if you represented the business owner you would only have to look at the data to see that wherever these bans have been enforced, businesses have prospered. Plus, offering services to the public doesn't come without responsibilities.

Also, that low class person could get a "real break," like being educated in a quality public school by teachers who are well-compensated for sowing the seeds of imagination and possibility within our ALL of our youth. Instead, she has to accept whatever menial job she can get and has to breathe in carcinogens all day because she is too proud to be on welfare and wants her children to have more options than she has.