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.

[Third Eye]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Actually, no.

Are you kidding? Print- Hearst and a couple other magnates, TV-The big networks own all the little ones, Radio- Clearchannel and a couple other magnates, Movies- The big studios own the little ones. Sure, you have your alternative press, but nobody gives them any real credence in this country.

[Spott]

I imagine that it will pass with more than a 70% approval rating. People that smoke will vote no and people that don't will vote to ban it.

[penchief]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

I thinks it's very clear that I have no respect for you. I wouldn't spit on you if a smoker accidentally set you on fire.

Glad to see that you addressed my comments instead of resorting to a diversion. When was the last time you actually said something meaningful? I'm beginning to think that you're an emotional idiot.

[Nightfyre]

Originally Posted by Third Eye

Are you kidding? Print- Hearst and a couple other magnates, TV-The big networks own all the little ones, Radio- Clearchannel and a couple other magnates, Movies- The big studios own the little ones. Sure, you have your alternative press, but nobody gives them any real credence in this country.

The airwaves are a government mandated monopoly. Cable companies, power companies, radio signals. All distributed by the government to a select few corporations. What a bad example.

[DJJasonp]

Originally Posted by penchief

Actually, it was a huge part of my internship. So I do know quite a bit about the statistics and it is a proven fact that second hand smoke is a cancer causing agent. But citing the details has never been my tact. I would much rather people explain to me their own logic for their positions. I think that my logic for protecting the rights of non-smokers is much stronger than those who defend the rights of smokers to impose the negative health consequences of their choice onto others.

Agreed....and quite frankly, if you are arguing this topic (smoking ban) with individuals who continue to disbelieve the overwhelming research and statistics as they relate to smoking and/or second-hand smoke....well, you're pretty much wasting your breath past that point.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Third Eye

Are you kidding? Print- Hearst and a couple other magnates, TV-The big networks own all the little ones, Radio- Clearchannel and a couple other magnates, Movies- The big studios own the little ones. Sure, you have your alternative press, but nobody gives them any real credence in this country.

I made a joke. You indicated that the media was run by only 2 corporations.

That is simply untrue.

There are dozens and dozens of print, television and radio corporations across this country - not to mention film and music companies.

Do I wish there were more? Absolutely.

But we're far from totalitarian state in regards to our media.

[Nightfyre]

Originally Posted by DJJasonp

Agreed....and quite frankly, if you are arguing this topic (smoking ban) with individuals who continue to disbelieve the overwhelming research and statistics as they relate to smoking and/or second-hand smoke....well, you're pretty much wasting your breath past that point.

Consistent exposure would be a good way to qualify all of your vast generalizations. The vast majority of the non-smoking public doesn't get consistent exposure.

[penguinz]

Restaurants will not lose $ because of no smoking laws. They stand a good chance of increasing their $. Smokers tend to sit around and enjoy a smoke or 20 before, during and after food. The non-smokers tend to eat and then leave. This frees up the table for more customers.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by penchief

...When was the last time you actually said something meaningful?...

Post 272, which I repeated to you later. You still haven't addressed it, you emotional idiot.

[Third Eye]

Originally Posted by penchief

Especially since it's as simple as taking it outside. I mean, com'n. How much of a whiner does a smoker have to be? Just step outside, smoke your cigarette, and shut the **** up. Okay?

Especially since it's as simple as going to a non-smoking restaurant. I mean, com'n. How much of a whiner does a non-smoker have to be? Just go somewhere else, don't smoke your cigarette, and shut the **** up. Okay?

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by penguinz

Restaurants will not lose $ because of no smoking laws. They stand a good chance of increasing their $. Smokers tend to sit around and enjoy a smoke or 20 before, during and after food. The non-smokers tend to eat and then leave. This frees up the table for more customers.

Unless the customers come there because they can smoke.

[Spott]

Originally Posted by penguinz

Restaurants will not lose $ because of no smoking laws. They stand a good chance of increasing their $. Smokers tend to sit around and enjoy a smoke or 20 before, during and after food. The non-smokers tend to eat and then leave. This frees up the table for more customers.

Exactly. The restaurant owners argued that same point when they passed the law state wide here about 5 years ago. The restaurants here are still doing fine and people that smoke just go outside to smoke. If anything, their business increased after the law took effect.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by Spott

Exactly. The restaurant owners argued that same point when they passed the law state wide here about 5 years ago. The restaurants here are still doing fine and people that smoke just go outside to smoke. If anything, their business increased after the law took effect.

Strange. Some bars here went out of business and blamed it on the smoking ban.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

No, it's pretty clear you don't get it.

To inform them? Sure. People need good information so they can make an informed decision for themselves.

Not at all. A knowledgable public will be able to decide if they want to purchase a product made with trans-fats, or it's alternative. It's called "voting with dollars". If enough of the public decides they don't want trans-fats, the company will adapt or die.

Yes, that's how we know "voting with dollars" works. The people that purchased those products pushed the business to adapt to their demands. Thanks for helping me make my case.
Sure. Their customers were voting with their dollars to continue using trans-fats, after the public became aware of the health issues. Or the FDA and the companies were not honest in stating they used trans-fats, but that's a different matter (legal requirements of reporting ingredients). Some would argue we would be better off replacing the FDA with a private organization, but that's a discussion for another day.


I'd prefer One. I personally don't care to have laws passed and give the government expanded power just because a few people are too lazy to take responsibility for what they choose to eat.

You do. In this instance, you get information about the effect of Trans-Fats on your health, and (if complying with the FDA) knowledge of what companies use them. You can use that to make an informed decision for yourself, as can everyone else.

I know it's tough to decide these things for yourself, but nothing worthwhile is easy.

Okay, NOW I get it.

You'd prefer NO regulation of ANY kind. NONE.

As if EVERYONE in America were kind, caring, smart individuals who took personal responsibility for their actions.

As if EVERY corporation in America was filled with kind, caring, smart executives whose driving passions were to think of the consumer first and foremost and profits second.

Well Dude, unfortunately, we don't live in a country like that. Whatsoever.

But let me know if you find one. I'd be up for moving there.

[ClevelandBronco]

I'm glad we've had this discussion and come to an agreement.