KC residents - How are you voting on the smoking ban in April? - Page 23

**Bowser** · 01-27-2008, 02:56 PM

Let's get a definitive look on how the Planet feels about this. Poll on the way.

RJ · 01-28-2008, 05:19 PM

In most cities I've visited over the past 20 or so years or so smoking is banned in virtually every type of business as well as on the airplane and the shuttle bus and in the cab and in most of the hotel rooms. I don't get why bars and restaurants would be exceptions.

Granted, if I still hung out in bars and smoked I'd probably see it differently but right now it just seems inconsistent to me.

penchief · 01-28-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

There's a difference between "asking" and "ordering".

IMO, you're stomping on the property rights of the establishments owners when you dictate to them they must order smokers to go outside, even if the owners would prefer it otherwise.

Do you believe that anyone who chooses to make his money off the public should have a code of conduct? Somewhat like lawyers and doctors? I do.

**bogey** · 01-28-2008, 05:22 PM

Quote:

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 think designated smoking in outside areas in Disneyland is goofy (pun intended) but I'll still attend Disneyland. I think outlawing smoking outside in all of Beverly Hills or on the beach is also wrong, but I'll still shop in BH's and I'll still go to the beach. For the record, I do think throwing your cigarette butt down on the beach or in the street is littering. I believe the effects of 2nd hand smoke on our health is sensationalized, but Americans have bought in to it, therefore new laws are created. I fear the day Americans buy in to gun control.

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-28-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

Except when it inconveniences you. Got it.

Whatever.

Just because you choose to ignore or fail to recognize the widespread public health risks involved with public smoking (and its long term effect to the economy, specifically health care) doesn't mean that we all should.

Adept Havelock · 01-28-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by penchief

Do you believe that anyone who chooses to make his money off the public should have a code of conduct? Somewhat like lawyers and doctors? I do.

I'm pretty sure everyone (other than a subsistence farmer) makes their lving off the "public", ultimately. Even a congresscritter, by virtue of taxing the "public".

I think they should be empowered to decide for themselves if they want to permit a legal activity (consumption of tobacco) within their own business. I'm pretty sure I made that clear somewhere in this thread. Pity you missed it.

BTW- Who gets to establish that "code of conduct"? Smokers?

Also, I've never seen a private business that didn't reserve the right to refuse service (outside of a few govt. mandated protected groups).

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-28-2008, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bogey

I think designated smoking in outside areas in Disneyland is goofy (pun intended) but I'll still attend Disneyland. I think outlawing smoking outside in all of Beverly Hills or on the beach is also wrong, but I'll still shop in BH's and I'll still go to the beach. For the record, I do think throwing your cigarette butt down on the beach or in the street is littering. I believe the effects of 2nd hand smoke on our health is sensationalized, but Americans have bought in to it, therefore new laws are created. I fear the day Americans buy in to gun control.

If smoking wasn't banned at the beach, smokers would turn it into a virtual ashtray, polluting not only the beach but the ocean as well.

My parents were in town two weeks ago. I took them to both Mulholland viewing areas (the one that over looks Los Angeles and the other, Studio City).

In BOTH instances, there were huge signs indicating that these were Fire Zones and that Smoking is Not Allowed.

Guess what was lying around, everywhere?

Cigarette butts.

So please, spare me the idea that people are personally responsible in regards to smoking.

penchief · 01-28-2008, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

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

Actually, I have answered that many times over. My general position suggests it. If an individual is going to go into business to serve the public he cannot discriminate in any way, shape, or form. That is part of the price of doing business with the public.

You can own as much property as you want but as soon as you open shop to the public you have responsibilities to that public. You can't discriminate and you can't knowingly do harm. Those are the ground rules and that's how it should be. If your prejudices preclude you from respecting the rights of others then you ALSO have a choice not to open your doors to the public.

ClevelandBronco · 01-28-2008, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Whatever.

Just because you choose to ignore or fail to recognize the widespread public health risks involved with public smoking (and its long term effect to the economy, specifically health care) doesn't mean that we all should.

For the record, I ignore them.

RJ · 01-28-2008, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

:
I think they should be empowered to decide for themselves if they want to permit a legal activity (consumption of tobacco) within their own business. I'm pretty sure I made that clear somewhere in this thread. Pity you missed it.

Are you of the opinion that all business owners should be able to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking on their property? Or is that your opinion for bar owners only?

ClevelandBronco · 01-28-2008, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by penchief

Do you believe that anyone who chooses to make his money off the public should have a code of conduct? Somewhat like lawyers and doctors? I do.

You would do more than have a code of conduct. You would have a law of conduct.

Adept Havelock · 01-28-2008, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RJ

Are you of the opinion that all business owners should be able to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking on their property? Or is that your opinion for bar owners only?

I think it should be left to the business owner, in any case.

I think it should be left to the customers to decide if they want to vote with their dollars in a non-smoking or smoking establishment.

I think it should be left to employees to decide for themselves if they want to work in a non-smoking or smoking environment.

JMO.

penchief · 01-28-2008, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

I'm pretty sure everyone (other than a subsistence farmer) makes their lving off the "public", ultimately. Even a congresscritter, by virtue of taxing the "public".

I think they should be empowered to decide for themselves if they want to permit a legal activity (consumption of tobacco) within their own business. I'm pretty sure I made that clear somewhere in this thread. Pity you missed it.

BTW- Who gets to establish that "code of conduct"? Smokers?

Well, I guess somebody has to decide which road we're going to take. And that is what our representative government is for. So, we the people, can facilitate our collective will. Environmental regulations are the result of our collective will.

It sounds to me like you're buying into the whole government is evil schtick. When government is being corrupted by greedy commercial forces, it can be evil. But, our government was set up by our founding fathers to work in favor of the popular will. In other words, to represent the will of the people. Unfortunately that purpose has been corrupted.

The only thing those interests would like more than corrupting the peoples government is to get rid of it entirely. Then they would have a free hand without any interferrence. Our only redress would be armed rebellion. That's not what I want. I'd prefer a people's government that isn't rife with corruption.

Codes of Conduct are nothing more than regulations. There is nothing wrong with regulations because regulation is derived at via the will of the people. There is nothing wrong with codes of conduct, IMO.

ClevelandBronco · 01-28-2008, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by penchief

Actually, I have answered that many times over. My general position suggests it. If an individual is going to go into business to serve the public he cannot discriminate in any way, shape, or form. That is part of the price of doing business with the public.

You can own as much property as you want but as soon as you open shop to the public you have responsibilities to that public. You can't discriminate and you can't knowingly do harm. Those are the ground rules and that's how it should be. If your prejudices preclude you from respecting the rights of others then you ALSO have a choice not to open your doors to the public.

The doors aren't open to the public. They are open to that segment of the public that chooses to enter. In the case of a bar in particular, the doors aren't open to anyone who isn't old enough to be there. And granny, if they're old enough to choose to enter, then they're old enough to choose to walk out if they smell something they don't care for.

penchief · 01-28-2008, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

You would do more than have a code of conduct. You would have a law of conduct.

What is worse? Having to go outside to get your fix or imposing the consequences of your habit onto others?

Is it really that big of a deal for you to go outside? Man, you must be a real pussy (and a self-centered pussy, to boot).

penchief · 01-28-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

The doors aren't open to the public. They are open to that segment of the public that chooses to enter. In the case of a bar in particular, the doors aren't open to anyone who isn't old enough to be there. And granny, if they're old enough to choose to enter, then they're old enough to choose to walk out if they smell something they don't care for.

Do you or don't you believe in health code enforcement?

View Poll Results: Smioking Ban in KC - Ye or No?
I will vote YES on the smoking ban	47	59.49%
I will vote NO on the smoking ban	32	40.51%
Voters: 79. You may not vote on this poll

01-27-2008, 02:56 PM
Bowser sorta mod-ish Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: KC North Casino cash: $-188384	KC residents - How are you voting on the smoking ban in April? Let's get a definitive look on how the Planet feels about this. Poll on the way.
Posts: 106,826

01-28-2008, 05:19 PM	#331
RJ Supporter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: In a shotgun shack Casino cash: $9895202	In most cities I've visited over the past 20 or so years or so smoking is banned in virtually every type of business as well as on the airplane and the shuttle bus and in the cab and in most of the hotel rooms. I don't get why bars and restaurants would be exceptions. Granted, if I still hung out in bars and smoked I'd probably see it differently but right now it just seems inconsistent to me.
Posts: 14,938