Where does eveyone stand on smoking bans?

[Bob Dole]

Originally Posted by FAX

I don't understand the "rights" argument very well, Mr. RedNeckRaider.

I mean, you still have the "right" to smoke your tail off at home, correct? How is it a "right" to gas your poor neighbors? You have the "right" to stick a croquet mallet up your ass, paint your pecker purple, and walk around naked in your own house, but society has the "right" to curtail that sort of activity in public, do they not?

FAX

So Bob Dole's privately owned business (you know...the one where Bob Dole assumes all the financial risk) is now "public"?

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

So Bob Dole's privately owned business (you know...the one where Bob Dole assumes all the financial risk) is now "public"?

Is Bob Dole allowed to refuse service to blacks or women? I didn't think so.

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

Is Bob Dole allowed to refuse service to blacks or women? I didn't think so.

Not unless the senator is running a golf club.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

Is Bob Dole allowed to refuse service to blacks or women? I didn't think so.

He is allowed to make them obey the rules of his club.

[Bob Dole]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

Is Bob Dole allowed to refuse service to blacks or women? I didn't think so.

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

[FAX]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

So Bob Dole's privately owned business (you know...the one where Bob Dole assumes all the financial risk) is now "public"?

That's not what I'm saying, Mr. Bob Dole. As I stated in my first post, the market should decide. The smoker's "rights" argument, however, just doesn't make a lot of sense to me because the smoker adversely affects those around him, majority rules, and the majority should be able to kick that smoker's ass. On the other hand, a person who owns a business should be allowed to say whether or not smoking should be allowed in his establishment and should be free to kick the non-smoker's ass.

Then, the government should pay reparations to all of us smokers and ex-smokers for spending billions of tax dollars on tobacco subsidies for the past 200 years. Problem solved.

FAX

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

So Bob Dole's privately owned business (you know...the one where Bob Dole assumes all the financial risk) is now "public"?

Your business has a public responsibility that it must meet. It's not any different than keeping a clean kitchen.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

Your business has a public responsibility that it must meet. It's not any different than keeping a clean kitchen.

Not if it has signs posted warning people smoking is allowed. The non smokers have the right not to enter.

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

Not if it has signs posted warning people smoking is allowed. The non smokers have the right not to enter.

I disagree. Listen, it rubs my conservative (personal liberty) instincts the wrong way to guys but you cannot deny the fact that smoking overall and to a lesser degree in private is a huge burden on public health costs. Personally, I have always found smoking to be offensive. It's a violation of the non-smokers rights to have smoke blown or drafting right into your face. The smoker can't control it and it just flat out stinks.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

I disagree. Listen, it rubs my conservative (personal liberty) instincts the wrong way to guys but you cannot deny the fact that smoking overall and to a lesser degree in private is a huge burden on public health costs. Personally, I have always found smoking to be offensive. It's a violation of the non-smokers rights to have smoke blown or drafting right into your face. The smoker can't control it and it just flat out stinks.

You may have missed this post "I am not saying smoking should be allowed in PUBLIC, I am talking about a a private business Where the OWNER allows smoking and you have the right not to enter! Sorry for yelling"

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

You may have missed this post "I am not saying smoking should be allowed in PUBLIC, I am talking about a a private business Where the OWNER allows smoking and you have the right not to enter! Sorry for yelling"

I hear you amigo. My point is restaurants, bars open to the public are public places which are owned privately. Surely you would not argue that the kitchen of said bar/rest. is a private place therefore it's ok for the owner not to keep up with proper health codes. Same with smoking IMO.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

I hear you amigo. My point is restaurants, bars open to the public are public places which are owned privately. Surely you would not argue that the kitchen of said bar/rest. is a private place therefore it's ok for the owner not to keep up with proper health codes. Same with smoking IMO.

Well I see your point but we will have to agree to disagree

[Chest Rockwell]

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

I disagree. Listen, it rubs my conservative (personal liberty) instincts the wrong way to guys but you cannot deny the fact that smoking overall and to a lesser degree in private is a huge burden on public health costs.

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?

[ChiefaRoo]

Originally Posted by Chest Rockwell

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?

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.

[Chest Rockwell]

Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo

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.

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