Smoking: Who Cares More about Money than Public Health?

[rightwinger]

But if it's your pool, and you're stupid enough to do it, you should be able to pee in it if you want to.

Fine......just don't charge the public to use it

No, you just advise your customers that the rules allow peeing in the pool and let THEM make the call whether they want to risk that.

Makes it hard when you are the only pool in town

 

[Foxfyre]

Fine......just don't charge the public to use it

No, you just advise your customers that the rules allow peeing in the pool and let THEM make the call whether they want to risk that.

Makes it hard when you are the only pool in town

But there is no unalienable right to have a swimming pool with or without rules you would prefer, most especially if it is a private pool. A community can of course set its own rules for a public pool and no alcohol, no tobacco, and no peeing in the pool would most likely be the norm. The owner of a private pool, however, should be able to set his own rules, advise its customers what they are, and if you don't like them, then you will have to drive to a different pool or put in your own. I personally am not obligated nor morally responsible for providing you with a pool of your liking. If I wish to make a profit with my pool, however, I will be wise to provide a pool that sufficient people will want to pay to use. You may or may not be one of those people.

 

[Annie]

Fine......just don't charge the public to use it

No, you just advise your customers that the rules allow peeing in the pool and let THEM make the call whether they want to risk that.

Makes it hard when you are the only pool in town

which has what to do with restaurants, bars, casinos? There are seldom one.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, you just advise your customers that the rules allow peeing in the pool and let THEM make the call whether they want to risk that.

Makes it hard when you are the only pool in town

which has what to do with restaurants, bars, casinos? There are seldom one.

But even if it IS the only restaurant, bar, or casino in town, the right to use one's private property as he or she sees fit should be sacrosanct. I have no problem with minimal safety requirements such as suffcient exits, occupancy load, minimal health standards in the kitchen, etc. to protect the public against real and immediate physical harm, most especailly that which could require participation by public rescue.

But rules and regs purely for the aesthetic preferences of the patrons visting a private business? No, that should not be the prerogative of government.

 

[Annie]

Makes it hard when you are the only pool in town

which has what to do with restaurants, bars, casinos? There are seldom one.

But even if it IS the only restaurant, bar, or casino in town, the right to use one's private property as he or she sees fit should be sacrosanct. I have no problem with minimal safety requirements such as suffcient exits, occupancy load, minimal health standards in the kitchen, etc. to protect the public against real and immediate physical harm, most especailly that which could require participation by public rescue.

But rules and regs purely for the aesthetic preferences of the patrons visting a private business? No, that should not be the prerogative of government.

I totally agree. I'm very much against the state regulations regarding private businesses.

 

[Shogun]

The point is -- AGAIN -- that with smokeless ashtrays and modern ventilation systems, second hand smoke is a minimal risk to anybody when compared to all the dangerous substances and situations that seem to still be under the radar of public indignation.

And while -- AGAIN -- I personally prefer a smoke free environment, I value recognition of, respect for, and protection of unalienable rights, including the rights to one's own property, far more than I value every place I go into being smoke free.

The government certainly can make any rules it wants re smoking or non smoking in public buildings and places. And since we all HAVE to share those facilities, a non smoking environment certainly is the way to go.

But in my opinion, a private business should be able to make its own rules whether it will or will not permit smoking or any other legal activity. If there is a chance that somebody will run into a whiff of second hand smoke, require a warning at the door. But the government should not be the one to make the call of what non lethal legal substances will and will not be used in that building.

Having a Smoking Section in a restaurant is like having a Peeing Section in a pool

then choose a different restaurant and pool.

simple.

 

[Shogun]

Having a Smoking Section in a restaurant is like having a Peeing Section in a pool

But if it's your pool, and you're stupid enough to do it, you should be able to pee in it if you want to.

Fine......just don't charge the public to use it

if there is a market for pee-pool loving consumers then who are you to tell them that they cannot enjoy an environment suited to their tastes?

Did someone push you into the pool?

 

[Shogun]

Fine......just don't charge the public to use it

No, you just advise your customers that the rules allow peeing in the pool and let THEM make the call whether they want to risk that.

Makes it hard when you are the only pool in town

yup. that makes sense since, more often than not, there is only one bar and one restaurant per town.

 

[Shogun]

which has what to do with restaurants, bars, casinos? There are seldom one.

But even if it IS the only restaurant, bar, or casino in town, the right to use one's private property as he or she sees fit should be sacrosanct. I have no problem with minimal safety requirements such as suffcient exits, occupancy load, minimal health standards in the kitchen, etc. to protect the public against real and immediate physical harm, most especailly that which could require participation by public rescue.

But rules and regs purely for the aesthetic preferences of the patrons visting a private business? No, that should not be the prerogative of government.

I totally agree. I'm very much against the state regulations regarding private businesses.

I'm a leftist that agrees with you. It is exactly this kind of left wing philosophy that makes my side of the political spectrum as ugly as aspects of the far right.

 

[Anguille]

Makes it hard when you are the only pool in town

which has what to do with restaurants, bars, casinos? There are seldom one.

But even if it IS the only restaurant, bar, or casino in town, the right to use one's private property as he or she sees fit should be sacrosanct. I have no problem with minimal safety requirements such as suffcient exits, occupancy load, minimal health standards in the kitchen, etc. to protect the public against real and immediate physical harm, most especailly that which could require participation by public rescue.

But rules and regs purely for the aesthetic preferences of the patrons visting a private business? No, that should not be the prerogative of government.

The laws exist to protect the safety of the employees.

 

[Annie]

which has what to do with restaurants, bars, casinos? There are seldom one.

But even if it IS the only restaurant, bar, or casino in town, the right to use one's private property as he or she sees fit should be sacrosanct. I have no problem with minimal safety requirements such as suffcient exits, occupancy load, minimal health standards in the kitchen, etc. to protect the public against real and immediate physical harm, most especailly that which could require participation by public rescue.

But rules and regs purely for the aesthetic preferences of the patrons visting a private business? No, that should not be the prerogative of government.

The laws exist to protect the safety of the employees.

the employees certainly have the right to not work in an environment they feel is harmful. They wouldn't apply to work at such a venue they deemed harmful. That is their right! No one should be able to force them.

 

[asterism]

which has what to do with restaurants, bars, casinos? There are seldom one.

But even if it IS the only restaurant, bar, or casino in town, the right to use one's private property as he or she sees fit should be sacrosanct. I have no problem with minimal safety requirements such as suffcient exits, occupancy load, minimal health standards in the kitchen, etc. to protect the public against real and immediate physical harm, most especailly that which could require participation by public rescue.

But rules and regs purely for the aesthetic preferences of the patrons visting a private business? No, that should not be the prerogative of government.

The laws exist to protect the safety of the employees.

That's right. Much safer for them to go out back to have a cigarette in the rain, or smoke inside at home because the restaurant closed.

 

[rightwinger]

But even if it IS the only restaurant, bar, or casino in town, the right to use one's private property as he or she sees fit should be sacrosanct. I have no problem with minimal safety requirements such as suffcient exits, occupancy load, minimal health standards in the kitchen, etc. to protect the public against real and immediate physical harm, most especailly that which could require participation by public rescue.

But rules and regs purely for the aesthetic preferences of the patrons visting a private business? No, that should not be the prerogative of government.

The laws exist to protect the safety of the employees.

the employees certainly have the right to not work in an environment they feel is harmful. They wouldn't apply to work at such a venue they deemed harmful. That is their right! No one should be able to force them.

They said the same thing about coal miners and chemical workers

 

[rightwinger]

In looking at the larger picture, this is all moot anyway. Smokers are a dying breed and are ostracized by our society. They are no longer welcome in public places and must practice their filthy habit in far off nooks and crannies.
Non-smokers had to breathe the smokers air for over a hundred years. Now smokers have to breathe our air and they don't like it. Look around...many smokers are not welcome in their own homes and get chased outside. They drive down the road with a lit cigarette outside the window so they don't stink up their own cars
The three pack a day smoker has disappeared....replaced by a pack a day smoker who has to sneak off to grab a quick smoke

We are not going back......might as well get used to it

 

[Immanuel]

In looking at the larger picture, this is all moot anyway. Smokers are a dying breed and are ostracized by our society. They are no longer welcome in public places and must practice their filthy habit in far off nooks and crannies.
Non-smokers had to breathe the smokers air for over a hundred years. Now smokers have to breathe our air and they don't like it. Look around...many smokers are not welcome in their own homes and get chased outside. They drive down the road with a lit cigarette outside the window so they don't stink up their own cars
The three pack a day smoker has disappeared....replaced by a pack a day smoker who has to sneak off to grab a quick smoke

We are not going back......might as well get used to it

Next victim of the Politically Correct? Those evil Anti-choicers!

After that?

Someday it will be you.

Immie

 

[rightwinger]

In looking at the larger picture, this is all moot anyway. Smokers are a dying breed and are ostracized by our society. They are no longer welcome in public places and must practice their filthy habit in far off nooks and crannies.
Non-smokers had to breathe the smokers air for over a hundred years. Now smokers have to breathe our air and they don't like it. Look around...many smokers are not welcome in their own homes and get chased outside. They drive down the road with a lit cigarette outside the window so they don't stink up their own cars
The three pack a day smoker has disappeared....replaced by a pack a day smoker who has to sneak off to grab a quick smoke

We are not going back......might as well get used to it

Next victim of the Politically Correct? Those evil Anti-choicers!

After that?

Someday it will be you.

Immie

Yup......freak'n Nanny State

Smokers have been driven out of the workplace, out of our restaurants and movie theaters and out in the cold

They will be healthier for it and will live longer lives because of it.

 

[Immanuel]

In looking at the larger picture, this is all moot anyway. Smokers are a dying breed and are ostracized by our society. They are no longer welcome in public places and must practice their filthy habit in far off nooks and crannies.
Non-smokers had to breathe the smokers air for over a hundred years. Now smokers have to breathe our air and they don't like it. Look around...many smokers are not welcome in their own homes and get chased outside. They drive down the road with a lit cigarette outside the window so they don't stink up their own cars
The three pack a day smoker has disappeared....replaced by a pack a day smoker who has to sneak off to grab a quick smoke

We are not going back......might as well get used to it

Next victim of the Politically Correct? Those evil Anti-choicers!

After that?

Someday it will be you.

Immie

Yup......freak'n Nanny State

Smokers have been driven out of the workplace, out of our restaurants and movie theaters and out in the cold

They will be healthier for it and will live longer lives because of it.

And after the PC crowd finish off the smokers and turn to those evil anti-choicers, everyone can live in peace at least the abortionists can, right?

BTW: I don't smoke but I am an "evil anti-choicer".

Immie

 

[rightwinger]

Next victim of the Politically Correct? Those evil Anti-choicers!

After that?

Someday it will be you.

Immie

Yup......freak'n Nanny State

Smokers have been driven out of the workplace, out of our restaurants and movie theaters and out in the cold

They will be healthier for it and will live longer lives because of it.

And after the PC crowd finish off the smokers and turn to those evil anti-choicers, everyone can live in peace at least the abortionists can, right?

BTW: I don't smoke but I am an "evil anti-choicer".

Immie

When I started working 30 years ago, I worked with a 3 pack a day smoker. At the end of the day, my eyes were red and my hair and clothes stank. I was told if I didn't like it, find work elsewhere
Now it is the smokers who are inconvenienced

Doesn't bother me in the least

 

[Immanuel]

Yup......freak'n Nanny State

Smokers have been driven out of the workplace, out of our restaurants and movie theaters and out in the cold

They will be healthier for it and will live longer lives because of it.

And after the PC crowd finish off the smokers and turn to those evil anti-choicers, everyone can live in peace at least the abortionists can, right?

BTW: I don't smoke but I am an "evil anti-choicer".

Immie

When I started working 30 years ago, I worked with a 3 pack a day smoker. At the end of the day, my eyes were red and my hair and clothes stank. I was told if I didn't like it, find work elsewhere
Now it is the smokers who are inconvenienced

Doesn't bother me in the least

Both my parents smoked. I never realized how bad it smelled (in my hair, on my clothes) until I moved out of the house and then went home to visit. Believe me, I understand where you are coming from on that.

However, when I think about removing the rights of smokers, I then have to think about my own rights and what do I enjoy doing that others might find offensive? I like to drink beer or wine occasionally. Trust me occasionally is an overstatement. It is very rare, but I do enjoy both. So, how will I feel if someone decides to make it illegal to drink beer or wine?

In this case, I am opposed to the Nanny State taking away the rights of others. Of course, I am not afraid to enter a smoke filled room so I don't whine if I go into a restaurant that allows smoking.

I don't approve of smoking, but I am not on board with the thought of making it illegal to smoke.

Immie

 

[sinister59]

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.

who needs nanny states ? must wear seat belts must wear helmets , no smoking ,
don't you get a bit sick of others telling what you cannot do ? sure seat belts are important as helmets but come on ,
its proven that smoking bands in casinos drive players across the river ,
quit crying , your not made to smoke , so stay out of these places and other peoples lives .