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.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

The extreme doesn't really apply. It's like replying to "I wish Herm wasn't so conservative" with "it's not like we can throw it down field 30 yards on every play". There are miles in between, with the ideal solution being more about playing smart than aggressive or conservative.

Should all smoking in every bar, restaurant, casino, etc; be banned? No. Should nonsmokers be able to enjoy some of those places without the smoke? Yes.

There are restaurants where, if I didn't know better, I'd not know they had a smoking section. There are others where smoking and non are seperated by a row of plants between booths. Like I said before, the best places for entertainment within a bar or restaurant are usually smoking... where the game is on, where the music is playing, etc. There are things that can be done without using the all-or-nothing mentality.

So it's the bar owners fault that everyone goes to his bar that allows smoking? He should be forced to disallow it because it's the most popular place in town? You can't be serious.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by penchief

Well, it sounds like the state of Washington has a problem with private property.

Public businesses, by definition, cater to the public. The public consists of both smokers and non smokers. Public businesses have, imo, the obligation to respect the rights of all the public. Smoking harms others who don't smoke (even those in the public who occasionally choose to patron public businesses with the expectation of not being poisoned). By establishing outside smoking you are both respecting the health of non-smokers and also the right of patrons to smoke. When smoking is the source of the problem, why punish those who don't smoke? How is it any different than public health ordinances?

The choice to smoke belongs to the smoker. But that doesn't give he or she the right to impose the negative consequences of his or her choice onto others, IMO. Why should the rights of smokers and their unhealthy habits be protected when it imposes on the rights of non-smokers to enjoy their community without the risk of being harmed? Why should the non-smoker have to stay home? Why should the smoker have more rights than the non-smoker?

Hell, I should just go take a crap on the kitchen floor of a restaurant and say that I am doing so because it's my God-given right. Even though there are established areas for taking shits and pisses I should have the right to impose my urges on the rest of society. Right?

If a business owner makes money off of the public he has to abide by the laws of human dignity. NO ONE person has the right to negatively affect the lifespan or quality of life of another person. Smoking may be legal but it isn't God. And even though the republican party has established that profit IS God, apparently the tobacco industry and the drug companies haven't quite yet convinced the states that profit is God.

Tell you what, dickhead. Why don't you go into an establishment that caters to the public, sit down at a table and order nothing. Just refuse to order. Tell them that all you want to do is breathe the clean air.

It's not your table. It's not your business.

Get the hell out. You don't belong there.

[Adept Havelock]

Originally Posted by Nightfyre

Quoted for Truth. I can't believe the state of America.

Thank you kindly. That also goes to all the folks who left the nice rep comments I just found.

Originally Posted by Cochise

No kidding. The world would definitely be a better place if alcohol disappeared from the earth. No fetal alcohol syndrome, nobody killed by drunk drivers. Less crime, spousal abuse, family breakdown, abandoned children, children of alcoholics becoming alcoholics, cirrhosis of the liver, and all the other potential problems.

True, but I'd be such a cranky bastard that it would probably balance out all that good.

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

Tell you what, dickhead. Why don't you go into an establishment that caters to the public, sit down at a table and order nothing. Just refuse to order. Tell them that all you want to do is breathe the clean air.

It's not your table. It's not your business.

Get the hell out. You don't belong there.

Yep. Silly me, all this time I thought they were Private businesses catering to the public. I didn't realize the state owned them all, making them "Public".

[memyselfI]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

Uh huh.

OMG, is that Joan Van Aark??? Yikes.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by penchief

Well, it sounds like the state of Washington has a problem with private property.

Public businesses, by definition, cater to the public. The public consists of both smokers and non smokers. Public businesses have, imo, the obligation to respect the rights of all the public. Smoking harms others who don't smoke (even those in the public who occasionally choose to patron public businesses with the expectation of not being poisoned). By establishing outside smoking you are both respecting the health of non-smokers and also the right of patrons to smoke. When smoking is the source of the problem, why punish those who don't smoke? How is it any different than public health ordinances?

So butchers should close shop to cater to the vegetarians of the world?

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Nightfyre

By the time I'm 60, my government will be bankrupt twice over at this rate. They won't PAY for anything. Listen here, asswipe. Medicare/Medicaid doesn't actually pay for shit. You know what medicare/medicaid in illinois gives a hospital for holding a pregnant woman for 3 days at a hospital and delivery? $500. That doesn't even match costs. Hospitals and Doctors subsidize the costs. Not you. Pull the stick out of your ass. Secondly, I don't believe in entitlements and I certainly will not allow my family or the government to bear the financial burden of putting me through a bunch of procedures to prolong my life by another 5 years. Fourthly, my BP is 110/80. Yet you want to tell me how to eat?

Oh, so I'm an asswipe now?

Wow. Good luck with your health and career.

You're gonna need it.

[BucEyedPea]

This is what I call conflicting rights. Whose rights come first the property owner's or the customer's particularly when the customer can practice buyer beware, can see if the restaurant is too smokey and leave. Whose rights come first?

[Third Eye]

Originally Posted by Nightfyre

By the time I'm 60, my government will be bankrupt twice over at this rate. They won't PAY for anything. Listen here, asswipe. Medicare/Medicaid doesn't actually pay for shit. You know what medicare/medicaid in illinois gives a hospital for holding a pregnant woman for 3 days at a hospital and delivery? $500. That doesn't even match costs. Hospitals and Doctors subsidize the costs. Not you. Pull the stick out of your ass. Secondly, I don't believe in entitlements and I certainly will not allow my family or the government to bear the financial burden of putting me through a bunch of procedures to prolong my life by another 5 years. Fourthly, my BP is 110/80. Yet you want to tell me how to eat?

That is exactly right. I had a loved one get sick, needed countless surgeries and procedures. Blue Cross/Blue Shield eventually dropped her and she was forced to get Medicaid. It was explained to us by her doctors and specialists that the government rarely pays any of their claims, and the majority of her work would mostly be pro bono.

[Nightfyre]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Oh, so I'm an asswipe now?

Wow. Good luck with your health and career.

You're gonna need it.

Wow. Good luck winning an argument. You're gonna need it.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

This is what I call conflicting rights. Whose rights come first the property owner's or the customer's particularly when the customer can practice buyer beware, can see if the restaurant is too smokey and leave. Whose rights come first?

Originally Posted by Rausch

How far are we as a society willing to go, in order to avoid being inconvenienced.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

I get it. What I want is for busybodies like you and your ilk to let people decide such things for themselves.

If they don't take responsibility for the smaller decisions (like smoking and trans fats) how can we expect people to make the big life-changing decisions?

All you are doing is encouraging a nanny-state, "government should take care of me" mind-set. That's the exact opposite of what built this nation, and what we need, IMO.

Put the information out there, but let people make up their own damn minds.

What you are pushing is a hand-over of self-responsibility to the government. Self-responsibility is an absolute good, and should be encouraged. I'll never understand why that's such a tough thing for you to accept, and I'm glad of that.



Exactly the point guys like Dane will never "get". It NEVER stops. First smoking, then trans-fats, then something else.

Okay, Mr. Havelock. Have it your way.

Why don't we just go away with agencies like the FDA, which are supposed to regulate food and drug. We ALL know that the corporations that create and sell these products are trustworthy and only look out for our best interests.

Why don't we just do away with the FAA? All the airlines no what to do. And as a matter of point, why is smoking no longer allowed on airline flights? Pesky government!

Maybe we should get rid of the FCC as well. That way, ONE or TWO corporations would be able to control the news, information and entertainment broadcast. Who the hell needs the FCC, anyway?

But why stop there? Let's get rid of local programs like the Better Business Bureau. I mean, businesses are all good and NO ONE EVER treats people with disrepect or could POSSIBLY be dishonest.

I finally get it now: Don't trust the Government. Don't trust ANYONE.

ANARCHY RULES!!!!

[Adept Havelock]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

This is what I call conflicting rights. Whose rights come first the property owner's or the customer's particularly when the customer can practice buyer beware, can see if the restaurant is too smokey and leave. Whose rights come first?

IMO, the owner takes precedence. It's a private business with the right to refuse service. I don't believe the customer has the right to demand service.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Okay, Mr. Havelock. Have it your way.

Why don't we just go away with agencies like the FDA, which are supposed to regulate food and drug. We ALL know that the corporations that create and sell these products are trustworthy and only look out for our best interests.

Why don't we just do away with the FAA? All the airlines no what to do. And as a matter of point, why is smoking no longer allowed on airline flights? Pesky government!

Maybe we should get rid of the FCC as well. That way, ONE or TWO corporations would be able to control the news, information and entertainment broadcast. Who the hell needs the FCC, anyway?

But why stop there? Let's get rid of local programs like the Better Business Bureau. I mean, businesses are all good and NO ONE EVER treats people with disrepect or could POSSIBLY be dishonest.

I finally get it now: Don't trust the Government. Don't trust ANYONE.

ANARCHY RULES!!!!

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

I really doubt you could misrepresent my position any more if you tried, but the evening is still young.

You actually managed to pull it off. Congrats, you must be proud.

Originally Posted by Nightfyre

Wow. Good luck winning an argument. You're gonna need it.

No kidding. I think he took his debate lessons from Talk Radio.

[penchief]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

As do you, asshole.

Check it out bro. Explain to me where I'm wrong.

Who's imposing on who? Who's choice is it to ingest carcinogens? The child who doesn't smoke? The citizen who doesn't smoke? Who really should have the rights in this situation? The majority public who doesn't smoke or the minority public who thinks that harming others is their god-given right?

Love it or leave it, right? Is that what you're trying to say? Just because you don't like being held accountable doesn't mean that the rest of society is wrong. If businesses want to make a buck off the public then they are obligated not to do harm. That is just one example of the fundamental principles that historically distinguish this country's stated ideals from other less enlightened civilizations.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Nightfyre

Wow. Good luck winning an argument. You're gonna need it.

Well fortunately for me, I'm not concerned with "winning" an argument with an inexperienced, 23 year-old know it all from Montana.

And for the record, the smoking ban will pass in Missouri, just like it has everywhere else in the country.

So I really don't need to be concerned with how anyone else views my opinions on this issue anyway.

[Third Eye]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Maybe we should get rid of the FCC as well. That way, ONE or TWO corporations would be able to control the news, information and entertainment broadcast. Who the hell needs the FCC, anyway?

They pretty much already do.