You're absolutely right. It should be defined as a preexisting condition. Where do we draw the line on "addiction" issues...how much of it is "my" issue, and how much of it is "societal?" I drink...I pay taxes and insurance premiums. I understand that at some point drinking becomes detrimental to my health, yet I'm a productive member (ostensibly) of society. What should be covered and what should not?

Believe it or not, this is an honest question...I've my own opinions on it, but their rationality (as is the nature of opinions) is suspect..what's your(in the general, not only ChifaRoo's) opinion?

Because the smoke cannot be directionally controlled and the non-smoker inhales it.

Well, here's the best way I can describe it my dad in law just recently had a heart attack and already has the early stages of lung disease (he's at 45% lung capacity). He smoked for 35 years. Fact is he now has several stints in his heart and he's going to have to take a lot of meds and get treatments that a personal with a health heart and lungs wouldn't have to worry about. He's quit cold turkey and says he's glad he did. He still wheezes when he laughs but at least he looks better. The fact is though he is going to die 10 years or so earlier than he needed to and his health care costs are higher because of his former habit.

Case number two the guy who mentored me had 18 stints in his body. He had two major heart attacks directly attributable to smoking and he refused to quit eventhough his docs begged him to. He died last summer. We buried a good friend of our family business and a good man. He was 69.

As an EX-smoker, I say, TAKE IT OUTSIDE!

Governments keep increasing tax on tobacco. Why don't they just ban it? Its headed there anyway.

I'm a smoker and I like the smoking bans. No 2nd hand smoke, clothes don't smell bad, I smoke a LOT less at bars. So as long as they are fine with people stepping outside to smoke and coming right back in and have a good system for that, I'm all for the smoking ban

The problem is that business owners are by and large too chicken s**t to tell a certain group (smokers) to not bother showing. Frankly they're just begging to get sued by a smoker.

It's hard to believe you just went there...

Bob Dole still thinks there is a grant opportunity in this whole thing. Big Tobacco ought to be willing to fund a study of 2 identical restaurant/bars on either side of a common parking lot, with rotating staff, where one business is smoke-free and the other has a smoking section. Compare apples to apples and see what kind of results come out of it.

My sincere condolences and best wishes to you and your father-in-law. I have no doubt if I were an active smoker, my story would be similar (I'm asthmatic, and without my meds I'm a 50% lung capacity type, with a history of heart issues on my father's side of the family. I had no real idea about this (the asthma) until I moved to altitude (4 years in Salt Lake City, and 6 (currently) in Colorado Springs). I also sympathize with active smokers, as when I do smoke, I do so compulsively. I (thankfully) have no cravings or desires, but chain smoke on the occasions I indulge). There but for the "grace of god" go I, and such... I'm conflicted as to what the proper benefits/costs should be as I do (when I really need it, winter, mostly) take advantage of the asthma meds. I also feel that once my contribution to my health care program runs out, I should be on my own, but am not sure if that is a reasonable/fair assesment in general.

I'm completely conflicted as to this opinion as I'm completely at a loss as to others...i.e. where does their responsiblity begin and society's end...

P.S. I'm also an utterly insufferable and proud asshole in general (goddamnit). Please do not let any description of emotion/compassion and/or emotional termoil proceed beyond this thread as I'm also 100% insecure.

TIA.

XXOO

Chest

I'd really like to see some solid numbers on the fiscal effects of these bans. I have no idea where to even start looking for information that isn't coming from one side or the other.

What a croc of a response.

What about my right to enjoy a night out without putting my health at risk (asthma)?

What about the right of the employee to go to work and not be forced to inhale someone else's smoke?

What amazes me is that OSHA hasn't stepped in an forced this a long time ago. There are thousands of regulations in the work place that wouldn't have been put in place if the "owner" got to make the decision.

History has shown that in most cases "owners" do not give a shit about the workers as long as the profits are good.

I am all for the STATE wide ban in Colorado - casinos were forced to join the ban as of 1/1. :)

Bob Dole is completely serious. If you could set up multiple situations geographically where there were otherwise equivalent choices, with the only difference being that one was completely smoke-free and the other had a smoking section, it could provide some interesting data.

You'd have to have one parking lot with a central entrance, identical decor and layout, rotate all the staff, etc... But you could track all sorts of data comparing the business of the two and come close to "settling" all this bullshit for good with actual numbers instead of opinion and anecdotal evidence.

Right. So now they've impeded on our rights, but not yours. Way to open the door for you to be next. Rausch once said this, and it rings true. "How far are we willing to go as a society to avoid inconvenience?"

Umm. Are you serious? Here's an idea that you have said yourself, "If you don't like it, get a job somewhere else."

I just found a study that says that in 2003 18% of the US population over 15 years old smoked daily. I think the smoking place would take a beating.

Also, that doesn't account for the fact that when not given a completely non-smoking choice people would still eat out. I know I ate at restaurants that had smoking sections. I hated it, but I did it.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/58/41/35625042.pdf