Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It is bad for business...depending on the business. For example...Smoke free restaurants...a resounding YES. But have a comfortable heated/cooled patio for those who like to light up while waiting for their meal and having a glass of wine. Bars? Puff away.
What chaps my ass is the continual bombardment on smokers while those bombarding are having a few drinks then get behind the wheel to go vote against smoking somewhere. And college kids sucking up kegs because ads on tv claim its so fun to get snockered.
I am a reformed smoker and everybody knows there is NOTHING worse than that.
I really do prefer a smoke free environment, but if I voluntarily call on a friend who smokes, I expect to smell cigarette or cigar or pipe smoke. (Actually I LOVE the smell of a good cigar or a good pipe tobacco but that's another story.) If I go to a bar or casino or wherever that permits smoking, I expect to be exposed to cigarette smoke. It's my choice to go or not. With modern ventilation and smoke removal systems, there needs be little or no risk from second hand smoke as a health issue, so the rules and regs are more aesthetic than anything these days.
I say leave it up to the individual and the private business whether they wish to have a legal substance present or not.
You expect it, yes but if you don't have to be exposed to it, it's a much better experience. You get used to not having smoke all over the place.
I have a problem with people saying a smoke free environment is bad for business.
I don't think a smoke free environment is bad for business. I look at it this way, if a two bars open up across the street from each other and one allows smoking while the other does not, and the one that does not is always full until well after last call, but the one that does only gets a straggler or two every night, then sooner or later, the one that allows smoking is going to get the idea.
Immie
I am a reformed smoker and everybody knows there is NOTHING worse than that.
I really do prefer a smoke free environment, but if I voluntarily call on a friend who smokes, I expect to smell cigarette or cigar or pipe smoke. (Actually I LOVE the smell of a good cigar or a good pipe tobacco but that's another story.) If I go to a bar or casino or wherever that permits smoking, I expect to be exposed to cigarette smoke. It's my choice to go or not. With modern ventilation and smoke removal systems, there needs be little or no risk from second hand smoke as a health issue, so the rules and regs are more aesthetic than anything these days.
I say leave it up to the individual and the private business whether they wish to have a legal substance present or not.
You expect it, yes but if you don't have to be exposed to it, it's a much better experience. You get used to not having smoke all over the place.
I have a problem with people saying a smoke free environment is bad for business.
I don't think a smoke free environment is bad for business. I look at it this way, if two bars open up across the street from each other and one allows smoking while the other does not, and the one that does not is always full until well after last call, but the one that does only gets a straggler or two every night, then sooner or later, the one that allows smoking is going to get the idea.
Immie
Like some of us couldn't see this one coming from miles away....
Sent to the floor of the Illinois House of Representatives Wednesday was HB1965, a bill that would lift the ban on smoking in all gaming facilities established close to another state that is yet to pass a smoking ban. The provision would sunset if or when that neighboring state decides to ban smoking. Rep. Andre Thapedi, D-Chicago authored and sponsored a similar bill that would have required casinos construct separate, sealed off smoking rooms equipped with ventilation systems. His bill, HB0171, remains in committee, but he says he supports the legislation before the House.
“We are $15 billion dollars in debt, that’s to start,” said Rep. Andre Thapedi, D-Chicago, author and sponsor of the bill, about why it is a good idea to exempt gaming facilities from the ban. “Secondly, people who choose to smoke are going to smoke. It makes no sense from a social analysis and an economic analysis to prohibit people from smoking in a safe way.”
<snip.>
Rep. Jim Durkin, R-Western Springs, supported the 2008 ban, but has changed his stance. Now, he says, consideration comes down to economics.
“The fact of the matter is we are losing revenue,” he said. “People like to smoke when they’re gambling, that is an attraction for individuals. I think we need to be careful when applying things so broadly, we have to consider what kind of impact it is going to have on the industry.”
Fight to Lift Smoking Ban in Casinos, Bars Ignites in Springfield - Bolingbrook, IL Patch
There you have it....After all that paternalistic, finger-wagging crapola about concern for "public health", we find out where the true worship of the almighty buck over "public health" lives; in the ruling class.
You expect it, yes but if you don't have to be exposed to it, it's a much better experience. You get used to not having smoke all over the place.
I have a problem with people saying a smoke free environment is bad for business.
I don't think a smoke free environment is bad for business. I look at it this way, if two bars open up across the street from each other and one allows smoking while the other does not, and the one that does not is always full until well after last call, but the one that does only gets a straggler or two every night, then sooner or later, the one that allows smoking is going to get the idea.
Immie
I agree.
You expect it, yes but if you don't have to be exposed to it, it's a much better experience. You get used to not having smoke all over the place.
I have a problem with people saying a smoke free environment is bad for business.
I don't think a smoke free environment is bad for business. I look at it this way, if two bars open up across the street from each other and one allows smoking while the other does not, and the one that does not is always full until well after last call, but the one that does only gets a straggler or two every night, then sooner or later, the one that allows smoking is going to get the idea.
Immie
There are enough smokers out there to fill a bar in any neighborhood.
I don't think a smoke free environment is bad for business. I look at it this way, if two bars open up across the street from each other and one allows smoking while the other does not, and the one that does not is always full until well after last call, but the one that does only gets a straggler or two every night, then sooner or later, the one that allows smoking is going to get the idea.
Immie
There are enough smokers out there to fill a bar in any neighborhood.
I understand that, but my point was, let the businesses themselves decide. If enough people choose not to go to the bars that allow smokers then some of the bars will willing choose not to allow it.
Immie
Even though I don't smoke cigarettes any more, I do still have a good cigar form time to time.I am a reformed smoker and everybody knows there is NOTHING worse than that.
I really do prefer a smoke free environment, but if I voluntarily call on a friend who smokes, I expect to smell cigarette or cigar or pipe smoke. (Actually I LOVE the smell of a good cigar or a good pipe tobacco but that's another story.) If I go to a bar or casino or wherever that permits smoking, I expect to be exposed to cigarette smoke. It's my choice to go or not. With modern ventilation and smoke removal systems, there needs be little or no risk from second hand smoke as a health issue, so the rules and regs are more aesthetic than anything these days.
I say leave it up to the individual and the private business whether they wish to have a legal substance present or not.
You expect it, yes but if you don't have to be exposed to it, it's a much better experience. You get used to not having smoke all over the place.
I have a problem with people saying a smoke free environment is bad for business.
As I said, I will choose the smoke free environment every time. But I don't want the government having power to tell me whether I can smoke in my home, on my own property, in my own private business. If I was running a business it would be smoke free. I don't want my preference to be imposed on my neighbor who would cater to a different clientele. Most especially if my clientele are mostly smokers and are the backbone of my cash flow; I would like to continue to provide a place THEY want to hang out or go for whatever products or services.
There are enough smokers out there to fill a bar in any neighborhood.
I understand that, but my point was, let the businesses themselves decide. If enough people choose not to go to the bars that allow smokers then some of the bars will willing choose not to allow it.
Immie
The business owners already can choose....
We don't need another nanny state law.
Even though I don't smoke cigarettes any more, I do still have a good cigar form time to time.You expect it, yes but if you don't have to be exposed to it, it's a much better experience. You get used to not having smoke all over the place.
I have a problem with people saying a smoke free environment is bad for business.
As I said, I will choose the smoke free environment every time. But I don't want the government having power to tell me whether I can smoke in my home, on my own property, in my own private business. If I was running a business it would be smoke free. I don't want my preference to be imposed on my neighbor who would cater to a different clientele. Most especially if my clientele are mostly smokers and are the backbone of my cash flow; I would like to continue to provide a place THEY want to hang out or go for whatever products or services.
When it was left to the business proprietor, I could *ahem* choose to go to the bar that allowed smoking or the one that didn't.
Ironic, that the bulk of the tobacco prohibitionist crowd comes form those who profess to be "pro choice" in a certain other area, isn't it?
I understand that, but my point was, let the businesses themselves decide. If enough people choose not to go to the bars that allow smokers then some of the bars will willing choose not to allow it.
Immie
The business owners already can choose....
We don't need another nanny state law.
Duh! That is what I have been saying, although you are wrong, they cannot choose at least not here in Florida. The Nanny State has ordered them not to allow smoking. I am opposed to those bans.
Immie
Even though I don't smoke cigarettes any more, I do still have a good cigar form time to time.You expect it, yes but if you don't have to be exposed to it, it's a much better experience. You get used to not having smoke all over the place.
I have a problem with people saying a smoke free environment is bad for business.
As I said, I will choose the smoke free environment every time. But I don't want the government having power to tell me whether I can smoke in my home, on my own property, in my own private business. If I was running a business it would be smoke free. I don't want my preference to be imposed on my neighbor who would cater to a different clientele. Most especially if my clientele are mostly smokers and are the backbone of my cash flow; I would like to continue to provide a place THEY want to hang out or go for whatever products or services.
When it was left to the business proprietor, I could *ahem* choose to go to the bar that allowed smoking or the one that didn't.
Ironic, that the bulk of the tobacco prohibitionist crowd comes form those who profess to be "pro choice" in a certain other area, isn't it?
The business owners already can choose....
We don't need another nanny state law.
Duh! That is what I have been saying, although you are wrong, they cannot choose at least not here in Florida. The Nanny State has ordered them not to allow smoking. I am opposed to those bans.
Immie
Fair enough...
Duh! That is what I have been saying, although you are wrong, they cannot choose at least not here in Florida. The Nanny State has ordered them not to allow smoking. I am opposed to those bans.
Immie
Fair enough...
Sorry, about the terse reply.
I just couldn't understand why you and Skull seemed to think I supported the nanny state on this.
Does LA still allow smoking in its establishments?
Immie
You're free to choose from the list of things of which they approve.
Well, DUUUUH!
But all the while we've been preached and nagged over the last decade or so, about how the phony rubric of "public health" is more important than bar and restaurant owners staying in business, it ends up being the ruling class losing their cash cow that gets these idiotic bans pared back.
Absolutely priceless.
I kind of expect a casino to be a smoky, seedy place. I'd rather not choke on cigarette smoke while trying to eat dinner. But that's just me.
Even though I don't smoke cigarettes any more, I do still have a good cigar form time to time.You expect it, yes but if you don't have to be exposed to it, it's a much better experience. You get used to not having smoke all over the place.
I have a problem with people saying a smoke free environment is bad for business.
As I said, I will choose the smoke free environment every time. But I don't want the government having power to tell me whether I can smoke in my home, on my own property, in my own private business. If I was running a business it would be smoke free. I don't want my preference to be imposed on my neighbor who would cater to a different clientele. Most especially if my clientele are mostly smokers and are the backbone of my cash flow; I would like to continue to provide a place THEY want to hang out or go for whatever products or services.
When it was left to the business proprietor, I could *ahem* choose to go to the bar that allowed smoking or the one that didn't.
Ironic, that the bulk of the tobacco prohibitionist crowd comes form those who profess to be "pro choice" in a certain other area, isn't it?
Except I'm not "anti-choice"....So down that one goes in flames.
Still, the point remains that none of this legislative Kabuki dance was ever about public health...It is and always has been all about money for the ruling class.
