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.

[memyselfI]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

In Beverly Hills smoking has been replaced by elective surgery. But those risks are acceptable.

Good point. But some of those surgeries have made people more beautiful...

can't say the same about smoking.

[Adept Havelock]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

So, you disagree that Transfat clogs arteries?

I didn't realize until today that Chiefsplanet was filled with so many doctors!

Wow, you really are bad at this, aren't you?

The issue isn't whether Transfat clogs arteries.

It's whether that's a proper role of the Government to dictate if we are free to use it because of that.

Sounds like you'd be far happier in a country where the government decides everything for you, and how to protect you from everything.

I'd suggest moving to one, but almost all of them are on the ash-heap of history. Sorry.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Nightfyre

Which is why I support disowning the welfare state. People need to get over insurance as well. I will not have it after I get my career started. It increases medical costs and they still make a profit. Overall, healthcare costs get WAY overinflated compared to what they would be without the middlemen.

You're 23 years old!

What do you think will happen to you at age 60, when you have a pre-existing heart condition due to smoking, transfat, diabetes, etc.

I'll tell you: No insurance. No health care. Nothing.

What can you do? The government will have to provide for you through Medicare, but it's going to be very, very, very, expensive to buy your medicine, provide your surgeries, etc.

You'd better start saving now.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

Wow, you really are bad at this, aren't you?

The issue isn't whether Transfat clogs arteries.

It's whether that's a proper role of the Government to dictate if we are free to use it because of that.

Sounds like you'd be far happier in a country where the government decides everything for you, and how to protect you from everything.

I'd suggest moving to one, but almost all of them are on the ash-heap of history. Sorry.

God, you just don't GET IT.

If the government doesn't ban the use of foods like Transfat, when other options are available and make NO difference in the flavor, in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years - whatever - the Government and the American people will be footing the bill of the healthcare cost associated with foods like Transfat.

Is that what YOU want?

[Eleazar]

Now that I think of it, why does government let people drive, anyway? Those carbon monoxide belching monstrosities are a public health hazard.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by memyselfI

Good point. But some of those surgeries have made people more beautiful...

Uh huh.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

God, you just don't GET IT.

If the government doesn't ban the use of foods like Transfat, when other options are available and make NO difference in the flavor, in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years - whatever - the Government and the American people will be footing the bill of the healthcare cost associated with foods like Transfat.

Is that what YOU want?

Where does the banning stop? Alcohol causes tons of health issues and contributes to increased medical costs. Should it be banned?

[Adept Havelock]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

God, you just don't GET IT.

If the government doesn't ban the use of foods like Transfat, when other options are available and make NO difference in the flavor, in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years - whatever - the Government and the American people will be footing the bill of the healthcare cost associated with foods like Transfat.

Is that what YOU want?

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.

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Where does the banning stop? Alcohol causes tons of health issues and contributes to increased medical costs. Should it be banned?

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

[Bill S Preston]

I've voted no on these measures in the past. What I don't understand about those that vote yes on these issues is, why they aren't honest about their real purposes. The truth of the matter is, they just don't like the smell of smoke. All this crap about cancer 40 years from now is bull shit, they're not worried about that. Reality is, they just don't like the smell of smoke, and they don't like the people that do smoke, and that's why they want it gone from all of the places that they like to frequent. Like I said, I've voted no on similar things here in California.

[penchief]

Originally Posted by Mr Flopnuts

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.

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.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Mr Flopnuts

I use very EXTREME examples. Things that sound ridiculous to the average person as smoking bans do to me. Are they serious questions? Not at all, rather they are designed to try and provoke some thought over something I find equally ridiculous.

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.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by penchief

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

As do you, asshole.

[Nightfyre]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

You're 23 years old!

What do you think will happen to you at age 60, when you have a pre-existing heart condition due to smoking, transfat, diabetes, etc.

I'll tell you: No insurance. No health care. Nothing.

What can you do? The government will have to provide for you through Medicare, but it's going to be very, very, very, expensive to buy your medicine, provide your surgeries, etc.

You'd better start saving now.

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?

[Nightfyre]

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.

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

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Where does the banning stop? Alcohol causes tons of health issues and contributes to increased medical costs. Should it be banned?

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.