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.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

So tell me, Dane, are they "Publicly owned areas/properties?" No. They are not. They are owned by PRIVATE companies or individuals. That's what makes them Private areas, open to the public.


As for Zoning laws, WTF does that have to do with anything? I've never seen a zoning law that made private property the property of the government.

If the business owner owns the property, then they should be allowed to decide for themselves. If a landlord owns the property, they should get to decide. Simple.



See my response to this same question in my previous posts.



Public property is owned by the government. Private property is not.

Sorry that's too difficult a concept for a Californian to get.

You REALLY just don't understand the concept of business ownership and it's applicable laws, do you?

Thanks for pointing out, AGAIN, that I live in California. It's only listed in my avatar, but thanks for reminding me. The NEXT time that ANYONE says that there isn't a negative bias of Californians, I can point to this thread (as it happens every so often on the 'Planet.).

If I start a business, get a loan, create an LLC and enter a lease agreement with property owner, I am BOUND to all of the laws that exist in that city. It's not a residence. It's a building that has certain laws exclusive to that city. I just can't avoid things like business insurance, sprinkler systems, permitted HVAC system and any other items required by the city.

If the CITY requires that my establishment be non-smoking, it doesn't matter if it's a privately held business or a publicly held business. My business is not a sanctuary, immune to the laws set forth by the state and local government.

Responding to you like responding to a ten year-old who knows absolutely nothing about the law or business ownership. I'm not going to detail every facet of every topic just so that you can refute it with your inane drivel.

Good day to you, Mr. Havelock.

[penchief]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Where is it okay for the government to intrude into your life for the benefit of your long term health?

Outlaw french fries? Outlaw red meat? Make it illegal to serve someone more than one dessert per meal because obesity is a health crisis in the US?

You are attempting to blur the lines between that which you choose to ingest yourself and that which others feel they have the right to impose upon you via the air that we all breathe. Big difference, IMO.

Do you smoke?

[bogey]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Well, like, that's just your opinion, Man.


Ask your doctor the next time you have a physical if he believes that second-hand smoke is harmful.

Do it.

I have A very good friend that is an MD. Anything in excess is bad for you. If your parents sit in the living room and smoke 2 packs a day while you're sitting in the living room for the first 15 years of your life, or if while riding in the car with your windows up while Mom smokes like a chimney, this COULD have a ill effect on you. Walking through someone's second hand smoke in Beverly Hills giving you cancer... TOTAL ****ING BS!

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Cochise

I wonder how long before government tells fast food restaurants that they can't serve fatty foods, because it's a public health hazard.

Are you joking?

The city of New York just last year banned all transfat from being used in any restaurant in NYC.

[Adept Havelock]

Originally Posted by Cochise

I wonder how long before government tells fast food restaurants that they can't serve fatty foods, because it's a public health hazard.

California Looks To Ban Trans Fats In Restaurants

POSTED: 7:33 pm PDT June 8, 2007
UPDATED: 7:43 pm PDT June 8, 2007
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The California State Assembly has passed a bill to ban trans fats in all restaurants statewide.

Last year, New York City became the first city in the country with a ban on the artery-clogging fat, but now California is looking to become the first state, KSBW Action News reported.

When the author of the trans fat bill was speaking to the Assembly on Thursday, he told his colleagues that California needed the bill because it would protect consumers and make restaurant food safer.

The bill banning trans fat has made it through the state Assembly but still has a few more steps before it becomes law -- most importantly, getting past the state Senate, and then the governor's desk.


http://www.ksbw.com/news/13472154/detail.html

Like I've said before in this thread, the busybodies won't stop with Tobacco. I think this one failed, but I'm sure they will keep whining.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

You REALLY just don't understand the concept of business ownership and it's applicable laws, do you?

Thanks for pointing out, AGAIN, that I live in California. It's only listed in my avatar, but thanks for reminding me. The NEXT time that ANYONE says that there isn't a negative bias of Californians, I can point to this thread (as it happens every so often on the 'Planet.).

If I start a business, get a loan, create an LLC and enter a lease agreement with property owner, I am BOUND to all of the laws that exist in that city. It's not a residence. It's a building that has certain laws exclusive to that city. I just can't avoid things like business insurance, sprinkler systems, permitted HVAC system and any other items required by the city.

If the CITY requires that my establishment be non-smoking, it doesn't matter if it's a privately held business or a publicly held business. My business is not a sanctuary, immune to the laws set forth by the state and local government.

Responding to you like responding to a ten year-old who knows absolutely nothing about the law or business ownership. I'm not going to detail every facet of every topic just so that you can refute it with your inane drivel.

Yes I get it. Where we disagree is you feel the government is justified in passing that inane regulation, and I do not.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Good day to you, Mr. Havelock.

.

[penchief]

Originally Posted by Mr Flopnuts

Well if I spread my butt cheeks open and let them have their way with it, and they have aids, I could die. I don't though. You have the same choice with smoking establishments. Don't go there.

Not necessarily so. Some people can be around just smoke residue and still clog up like a 18" lawn mower in a cow pasture during a rain storm.

The arrogance it takes to resist going outside just because you've been told to do so by the state doesn't justify the physical harm that is done to others who want to enjoy the same public establishments as much as those who smoke.

As far as the owner goes, if he wants to open a private club that allows smoking, I don't think there are any laws prohibiting that, are there? But if he is going to profit from the public he has to take the public's welfare into account when opening up shop, IMO. It's just part of the cost of doing business with the general public. One has responsibilities to others not just his own bank account. That's a virtue that is currently lacking in this country and that is exactly what the hell is wrong with this country.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by bogey

I have A very good friend that is an MD. Anything in excess is bad for you. If your parents sit in the living room and smoke 2 packs a day while you're sitting in the living room for the first 15 years of your life, or if while riding in the car with your windows up while Mom smokes like a chimney, this COULD have a ill effect on you. Walking through someone's second hand smoke in Beverly Hills giving you cancer... TOTAL ****ING BS!

Now you're changing your view. You earlier mentioned Disneyland. Now you're changing it to include the city of Beverly Hills.

Disneyland is a place for children. Smoking should not be allowed in such place, IMO.

Beverly Hills has decided that smoking isn't allowed in outdoor restaurant areas or outdoors. This was a decision made by the people of Beverly Hills. My wife works in Beverly Hills and there has been no outrage or uprising related to this ban. Beverly Hills has the reputation of being one of the nicest cities in America (if not the world) and the absence of cigarette smoke and cigarette butts in the trash and on the streets will only enhance its image.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by penchief

Not necessarily so. Some people can be around just smoke residue and still clog up like a 18" lawn mower in a cow pasture during a rain storm.

The arrogance it takes to resist going outside just because you've been told to do so by the state doesn't justify the physical harm that is done to others who want to enjoy the same public establishments as much as those who smoke.

As far as the owner goes, if he wants to open a private club that allows smoking, I don't think there are any laws prohibiting that. Are
there?

Yes, yes there are. In WA state I know for a fact that you CAN NOT smoke indoors in any public place. People have tried to do the private club thing, and have been fined by the government. It's not an option for a business owner. Again though, my stance has nothing to do with "my right to smoke". It has everything to do with telling a business owner he may not permit a legal activity on his property. My stance again, is ban smoking, not where it can be done. I wouldn't like a ban on tobacco consumption, but it would be more justifiable than telling a man that it's okay for people to cuss in his bar, but not smoke. Neither activity is illegal.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by penchief

You are attempting to blur the lines between that which you choose to ingest yourself and that which others feel they have the right to impose upon you via the air that we all breathe. Big difference, IMO.

Do you smoke?

Nope. Never smoked other than an occassional cigarette while drinking heavily at bars many years ago.

Please stop saying the "air we all breathe" when a person can make a decision to not eat in a restaurant that allows smoking.

[memyselfI]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Now you're changing your view. You earlier mentioned Disneyland. Now you're changing it to include the city of Beverly Hills.

Disneyland is a place for children. Smoking should not be allowed in such place, IMO.

Beverly Hills has decided that smoking isn't allowed in outdoor restaurant areas or outdoors. This was a decision made by the people of Beverly Hills. My wife works in Beverly Hills and there has been no outrage or uprising related to this ban. Beverly Hills has the reputation of being one of the nicest cities in America (if not the world) and the absence of cigarette smoke and cigarette butts in the trash and on the streets will only enhance its image.

I'm thinking the demographic that frequents Beverly Hills is not consistent with the one that smokes in the first place.

40 years ago, maybe. Not now.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

California Looks To Ban Trans Fats In Restaurants

POSTED: 7:33 pm PDT June 8, 2007
UPDATED: 7:43 pm PDT June 8, 2007
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The California State Assembly has passed a bill to ban trans fats in all restaurants statewide.

Last year, New York City became the first city in the country with a ban on the artery-clogging fat, but now California is looking to become the first state, KSBW Action News reported.

When the author of the trans fat bill was speaking to the Assembly on Thursday, he told his colleagues that California needed the bill because it would protect consumers and make restaurant food safer.

The bill banning trans fat has made it through the state Assembly but still has a few more steps before it becomes law -- most importantly, getting past the state Senate, and then the governor's desk.


http://www.ksbw.com/news/13472154/detail.html

Like I've said before in this thread, the busybodies won't stop with Tobacco. I think this one failed, but I'm sure they will keep whining.

As mentioned, this has already passed in NYC.

Are you actually arguing that this ban is a bad thing? Banning an known, artery-clogging fat when non artery-clogging fats are available?

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

California Looks To Ban Trans Fats In Restaurants

POSTED: 7:33 pm PDT June 8, 2007
UPDATED: 7:43 pm PDT June 8, 2007
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The California State Assembly has passed a bill to ban trans fats in all restaurants statewide.

Last year, New York City became the first city in the country with a ban on the artery-clogging fat, but now California is looking to become the first state, KSBW Action News reported.

When the author of the trans fat bill was speaking to the Assembly on Thursday, he told his colleagues that California needed the bill because it would protect consumers and make restaurant food safer.

The bill banning trans fat has made it through the state Assembly but still has a few more steps before it becomes law -- most importantly, getting past the state Senate, and then the governor's desk.


http://www.ksbw.com/news/13472154/detail.html

Like I've said before in this thread, the busybodies won't stop with Tobacco. I think this one failed, but I'm sure they will keep whining.

Oh, well, thank God... those poor people can't be trusted to think for themselves and use those foods in moderation... If government weren't here to save us from ourselves, what would we ever do...

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by memyselfI

I'm thinking the demographic that frequents Beverly Hills is not consistent with the one that smokes in the first place.

40 years ago, maybe. Not now.

According to the statistics, if only 18% of the American public smokes, then demographic states that an OVERWHELMING majority of the people that frequent ANY business doesn't smoke in the first place.

California or not.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Cochise

Oh, well, thank God... those poor people can't be trusted to think for themselves and use those foods in moderation... If government weren't here to save us from ourselves, what would we ever do...

So you feel that these restaurants should use Transfat when non-artery clogging oils are available?

Believe it or not, in some cases, government regulations can be a GOOD thing.

[memyselfI]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

According to the statistics, if only 18% of the American public smokes, then demographic states that an OVERWHELMING majority of the people that frequent ANY business doesn't smoke in the first place.

California or not.

Well, the statistics point out that ethnicity, residence, education, and income level also impact smoking rates so I think Beverly Hills would be one of the places in the world where smoking would almost non-existent save for outsiders.