Smoking: Who Cares More about Money than Public Health?

[8537]

I don't know what happened in Ill, but in the New England states where I might frequent bars no one was going out business over a smoking ban.

Ever bar/restaurant at Mal of America went under, as did most of the places on the 494 strip in Richfield/Edina, after Minnesota started their ban.

It appears they've been replaced quite nicely!
* Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. (S396)
* NEW Cadillac Ranch (S352)
* Cantina 1 (E406)
* CRAVE (S368)
* Famous Dave's BBQ (S321)
* Hooters (E404)
* House of Comedy (E408)
* Kokomo's Island Cafe (S319)
* Napa Valley Grille (W220)
* R.Burger Bar (E408)
* Rainforest Cafe (S102)
* Ruby Tuesday (N234)
* Theatres at Mall of America® (S401)
* Tony Roma's (S346)
* Tucci Benucch (W114)
* Twin City Grill (N130)

 

[Oddball]

None of those joints are or were on the mezzanine, where smoking was allowed.

 

[R.D.]

You're free to choose from the list of things of which they approve.

Around here, that freedom is shrinking rather quickly. Before long, the only thing we will be allowed to choose is whether or not a woman will have an abortion.

Immie

Not to be confused with pro abortion

 

[8537]

None of those joints are or were on the mezzanine, where smoking was allowed.

So then "every bar at the Mall of America" didn't go under?

K thx.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

How does abolishing smoking in restaurants enrich the ruling class?

As soon as the government needs more money they show their true selves when it comes to health concerns and smoking.

Thus when the government doesn't need more money, it's bad to smoke but when it does need more money it's OK.

 

[R.D.]

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.

How does abolishing smoking in restaurants enrich the ruling class?

The overturning of the ban due to gov't financial loss is the point.

 

[peach174]

Baby Boomer's were born with a Majority of Mothers smoking,and those babies came out very healthy and weighed more,between 2 to 3 pounds more than babies being born today.
Baby boomer's grew up around 2nd hand smoke from both parents,but the majority were and still are healthy.
Quite a bit of Mothers back then drank wine (moderately) while they were pregnant and those babies turned out fine.
Smokers who have done it moderately 1 pack a day, instead of 3 or 4 packs a day are still smoking, now in their 80's and are still pretty healthy.
If smoking is so unhealthy, why were so many babies being born back then? Healthy and still healthy today.
If you believe the anti smoking rhetoric not even 1/4 of baby boomer's would have lived for very long. or would have died in the womb, but they didn't.

 

[Douger]

And that's your choice.

Anybody twist your arm and make you go into that casino?

No, I love casinos but the reason people voted for smoke free environments is because smokers are so rude like that. They freaking blow smoke all over you..

I used to smoke but I had some consideration for people. Sheesh.

Are you saying people voted for these bans?

I don't know about Illinois, but here in Florida we did not vote for them. They have been and are being forced upon us, by a legislature that think they out-rank God almighty in the importance of things.

Immie

An how did that legislature majickally appear ?
Dat Ryte. You voted for it.

 

[Immanuel]

No, I love casinos but the reason people voted for smoke free environments is because smokers are so rude like that. They freaking blow smoke all over you..

I used to smoke but I had some consideration for people. Sheesh.

Are you saying people voted for these bans?

I don't know about Illinois, but here in Florida we did not vote for them. They have been and are being forced upon us, by a legislature that think they out-rank God almighty in the importance of things.

Immie

An how did that legislature majickally appear ?
Dat Ryte. You voted for it.

Doesn't mean I voted for the ban. In fact, it doesn't mean the legislature represents me in any manner what so ever.

Immie

 

[8537]

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.

How does abolishing smoking in restaurants enrich the ruling class?

The overturning of the ban due to gov't financial loss is the point.

So then the decision to ban smoking was not based on an attempt to enrich the ruling class, despite claims in this very thread?

K thx.

 

[8537]

if you took the ingredients in a carton of cigarettes into an aerosol can and sprayed it at people on the subway, you could be considered a terrorist.

Blow it in someone's face in a bar and your considered a patron.

 

[Anguille]

I'm too busy to read this thread but can someone let me know when Immie is steamed up enough that I need to pop in and flatten all his arguments in one fell swoop?

 

[Oddball]

if you took the ingredients in a carton of cigarettes into an aerosol can and sprayed it at people on the subway, you could be considered a terrorist.

Blow it in someone's face in a bar and your considered a patron.

Then make them illegal, rather than a cash cow for the ruling class.

After all, we know how well that has worked out for pot, cocaine and heroin, don't we?

 

[rightwinger]

Same thing happened in NJ when they passed the indoor smoking ban.....Didn't apply to Atlantic City Casinos

 

[R.D.]

How does abolishing smoking in restaurants enrich the ruling class?

The overturning of the ban due to gov't financial loss is the point.

So then the decision to ban smoking was not based on an attempt to enrich the ruling class, despite claims in this very thread?

K thx.

Who does socialism benefit then?

 

[R.D.]

Same thing happened in NJ when they passed the indoor smoking ban.....Didn't apply to Atlantic City Casinos

Smoking is only permited designated areas.

 

[rikules]

The Triumph of Darwin. Stupid people are identified and pulled out of the gene pool

that's the triumph of fox news and hate radio

tell stupid people what they want to hear and make millions!

 

[8537]

if you took the ingredients in a carton of cigarettes into an aerosol can and sprayed it at people on the subway, you could be considered a terrorist.

Blow it in someone's face in a bar and your considered a patron.

Then make them illegal, rather than a cash cow for the ruling class.

After all, we know how well that has worked out for pot, cocaine and heroin, don't we?

That's the problem, Tom. Making them illegal would be about as effective as doing so for less toxic chemicals such as pot and cocaine. In other words, it would be wholly ineffective.

Of course, me doing a line of blow doesn't force you to ingest blow.

 

[kwc57]

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.

Even though I don't smoke cigarettes any more, I do still have a good cigar form time to time.

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?

You know, if the state would legalize pot and prostitution, they could really be raking in the dough. Put the Conservative Socialists.....er, I mean Social Conservatives won't here of it. Any true conservative who believes in true liberty can't defensibly deny the liberty of adults to engage in the activities they desire.

 

[Oddball]

if you took the ingredients in a carton of cigarettes into an aerosol can and sprayed it at people on the subway, you could be considered a terrorist.

Blow it in someone's face in a bar and your considered a patron.

Then make them illegal, rather than a cash cow for the ruling class.

After all, we know how well that has worked out for pot, cocaine and heroin, don't we?

That's the problem, Tom. Making them illegal would be about as effective as doing so for less toxic chemicals such as pot and cocaine. In other words, it would be wholly ineffective.

Of course, me doing a line of blow doesn't force you to ingest blow.

Nobody forces you to patronize an establishment that allows smoking, either. In fact, the trend prior to all these nanny-statist bans was for a lot of places voluntarily to go smoke free or have segregated areas, with decent ventilation within the establishment for smokers....In other cases, states like MN mandated the segregated areas, only to later ban smoking altogether, leaving the business owners holding the bag for thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of ventilation and smoke eaters.

But I guess as long as The Man gets his pockets lined, it's all good.