KC residents - How are you voting on the smoking ban in April?

[Bowser]

Let's get a definitive look on how the Planet feels about this. Poll on the way.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

I'd be fine with that, but idiots like Dane seem to think they should be able to decide for everyone else.

They're doing something worse than that. They're deciding for the business owner. There are businesses that will fail because of the high-minded self righteousness of fools such as Dane.

Guess what, Dane? There will always be plenty of places to dine that won't permit smoking. Your $1,600 smoke-free dining experience may not be available in every single establishment. But if you're looking to drop that kind of coin, I imagine that someone will be willing to accommodate you.

You might just want to allow that some folks want to have a beer and a smoke after work, and that some business owners might want to cater to that crowd.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

Again, you don't answer a simple question. What's wrong with letting the market decide?

What's wrong? Here's what wrong:

The market WOULDN'T decide.

For hundreds of years, people have been allowed to smoke in bars and restaurants. Non-smokers have had to endure smoking and it's hazardous side-effects. Non-smokers HAD NO CHOICE.

Since it's been proven to be a carcinogen, governments WORLDWIDE have enacted laws restricting smoking in public places. Why? Because, again, for the 10th time, it's a HEALTH HAZARD.

This isn't about a "business owner" deciding to serve only red meat or white meat, or the choice between serving beer or alcohol. It's about invading another person's rights to clean, smoke-free air.

Why can't you understand that?

Here, I'll make it simple for you:

1. Go to a restaurant and have a nice meal.
2. Go to a restaurant, have a nice meal while enduring carcinogenic cigarette smoke while eating.

I'll take number 1.

Under what legal pretense should I be FORCED to inhale second-hand smoke if all I want is a meal? And if I don't want to inhale second-hand smoke, you're telling me my only option is to NOT GO?

Brilliant!

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by penchief

Cars may produce more poison but they don't back the tailpipe up to your face for an hour, either. I agree that we should do something about fossil fuels, however, it would be impractical to ban fossil fuels because greedy interests have made sure that we have no alternative. But why should a single mother have to choose between welfare and a waitress job with long term health hazards and no health benefits?

For people who think they have the right to subject others to the medical consequences of THEIR OWN unhealthy habits, their alternative is to take it outside. See how easy the solution is. There's a big difference between cars and cigarettes when viewed in the proper context, IMO.

Again, this isn't about smokers. It's about business, and property owners being dissallowed to accept legal activities in their place of business. As far as your welfare mom goes, most gas stations, and grocery stores don't allow smoking. Those would be great career choices. Or, she could just go to one of the thousands of non smoking restaurants already in place.

[penchief]

Originally Posted by bkkcoh

Do you really think the government is going try prohibition on tobacco? There is too much money in it for federal and local governments to do that. Besides, we all know or can read how effective prohibition of alcohol went.

A government that was concerned about the public health would probably do a lot more than a government that is concerned about revenues and promoting profit above all else.

[alanm]

Originally Posted by Cochise

I didn't mean to vote yes. That was an accident.


I wonder if, when we get communist health care in this country, if the gubment will just go ahead and ban tobacco altogether? It's a serious drag on the health care system, and once the government death-star takes over health care then smoking related illnesses will be everyone's problem. (well, they already are, but this would just be a more obvious pretext).

Rather than create a poor precedent by which the government tells private businesses in yet another way how they are allowed to run their business, why not just ban tobacco altogether?

They'll just pass the BILLION'S of lost tax revenue on to your property taxes. Then hammer alcohol taxes since that kills more people. It's only fair.

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by bkkcoh

Do you really think the government is going try prohibition on tobacco? There is too much money in it for federal and local governments to do that. Besides, we all know or can read how effective prohibition of alcohol went.

Well, once the government is forcing us all to use cheese-based health care, smoking will be costing them a hell of a lot of money. That's money that takes away from their pet projects and pork barrel spending. They will care.

They could ban it, like they do with other dangerous products. Or they could raise taxes to keep paying for the spiraling costs.

You're right that the same forces who would yoke us with communist health care never saw a tax they didn't like. I was just pointing out that banning it outright as a dangerous chemical makes more sense than the government putting its mitts on private enterprise.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by penchief

Naw, let's stop trying to do better. Let's be content with the status quo even though it has negative consequences. That makes sense. And better yet let's get rid of all the regulations so that they can do with the OUR health as they damn well please.

You don't own the business, you socialist dickhead. Shut the **** up. You have nothing to say in this discussion.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

As I stated in the other thread, I began going to bars at age 18 and frequented at least 5 times a week up until the age of 27 in Kansas and Missouri.

Did I "Like" the smoking in bars? No. But it didn't prevent me from going. Once I moved to Los Angeles, I immediately noticed how smoking was barely present - it was almost as if smoking wasn't allowed but it hadn't been banned until 4 years later. People out here, on whole, are more health conscious.

I am happy that smoking in bars and restaurants has been banned in most countries across the globe but for me, smoking in restaurants and places that serve food is ten times more annoying than smoking in bars. If I spend $10 or $100 on a meal, I would most certainly enjoy it much more in a smoke-free atmosphere.

Interesting. I guess that I would agree with banning smoking in restaurants for the most part. I'd say that smoking detracts from a restaurant environment fairly substantially. In addition, the average meal only lasts an hour or two, which most smokers that I know of can last without a cigarette. Also, I'd imagine that the incidence rate of smokers for people who go to restaurants is near the incidence rate for the general population (18 percent).

It's bars that get me, though. While I do agree that smoking tends to detract from the environment a bit, it doesn't seem to me that it's near as big of a deal as it is in restaurants. People are also there for longer periods of time - sometimes as much as 6 hours or more - so the likelihood that a smoker would be able to just "go without" is far smaller. Finally, I could be wrong on this, but I would guess that the incidence rate of smokers for people who go to bars is much larger than the incidence rate of the general population since alcohol and smoking tend to go hand in hand for many people.

I guess that, to me, it's far less likely that a smoking ban will harm the business of a restaurant than the business of a bar. That's a lot of the reason why I think smoking bans in bars are going a bit too far.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by penchief

Naw, let's stop trying to do better. Let's be content with the status quo even though it has negative consequences. That makes sense. And better yet let's get rid of all the regulations so that they can do with the OUR health as they damn well please.

Well, the alternative is to ban every single substance that contributes to the death of innocent people. How about no smokes, alcohol, fast food, fast cars, etc.? Let's keep it real. When you personally are making a sacrifice you'll be more qualified to tell everyone else what they should give up.

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by Mr Flopnuts

Good news, you're allowed to be selfish in this country, just don't expect anyone to give a shit, when it's you that loses your rights. This isn't about smokers, it's about business and property owners.

That ship sailed long, long ago. Look no further than the ADA for shining example.

Besides, how far are you willing to go? Can I, as a proprietor, ban blacks? How about just people over 6 feet tall? Can I hire all female pygmies? Everyone has a line about what is or isn't acceptable in certain circumstances. They just happen to be crossing one of yours right now.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by bkkcoh

Nope, that is democracy in action. The will of the people, in most cases the majority gets the rights, not the minority.

There's a reason we're not a democracy, sir.

[sd4chiefs]

Study says Smoking damages IQ.

http://puzzles.about.com/b/2004/12/1...damages-iq.htm

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by Cochise

I didn't mean to vote yes. That was an accident.


I wonder if, when we get communist health care in this country, if the gubment will just go ahead and ban tobacco altogether? It's a serious drag on the health care system, and once the government death-star takes over health care then smoking related illnesses will be everyone's problem. (well, they already are, but this would just be a more obvious pretext).

Rather than create a poor precedent by which the government tells private businesses in yet another way how they are allowed to run their business, why not just ban tobacco altogether?

I think if we have govt run healthcare then smokers should get no lung-related treatment, drinkers no liver related treatment, etc.

Sure it's stupid, but it's no dumber than govt. run healthcare.

[BucEyedPea]

Actually there have been market forces deciding.
Perkins alternates evenings for smokers and non-smokers.
Village Inn put in it's own ban...occassionally has a smokers' night or day. I see this as private enterprise trying to find a way to please both publics.

Besides eating in a restaurant is a discretionary action.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

You don't own the business, you socialist dickhead. Shut the **** up. You have nothing to say in this discussion.