Smoking Bans

[cyclonenum1]

Once again, you've missed the point. The anti-smoking ban contingent argues that all one needs to do is simply avoid the smoke. My response was that this is impossible, unless one never leaves home. Thus, it's not as simple as avoiding the smokers. Didn't say this smoke was bothersome, didn't complain, merely making some observations. Now I'm a Nazi. If one subscribes to Godwin's law, you've just lost the argument.

I have found this to not be impossible at all. In fact, it is quite easy.

[cmoneyr]

I guess my main point is that, they, the smokers, are the ones making the choice to have a habit that harms others. I do not make that choice, I choose not to harm myself and others with smoking. Why do they get to choose to harm me with smoke, and then it's my responsibility to avoid Them? If I was doing something that, while legal, harmed others, I wouldn't expect others to alter their lifestyle to avoid me in public places.

Do I not have a right to live my life free from others compromising my health and the health of my family?


Edit:
Just as an aside, I've only been to a handful of casinos, Mystic Lake in MN, Prairie Meadows and one other. But at all of them, as soon as you walk in it's like a punch in the face the smoke is so bad. I don't care what kind of fancy air-conditioning you have, when granny is chain smoking at the slot machine there is going to be smoke in the air.

I'm sure you probably addressed this in an earlier post but I forgot, did you say if you were a smoker cyclone#1?

[Cyclonepride]

I agree with your casino assessment. I smoke, and those places get to me too.

[alaskaguy]

Absolutely. They all have a vested interest in seeing their particular budgets increased and hence they need to provide evidence as to how important their work is. Frankly, I believe these bureaucracies are totally unnecessary.

Interestingly R.J. Reynolds Tobacco does not dispute the science in the surgeon general's report. But I suppose that R.J. Reynolds Tobacco is biased so we should also discount their views on the dangers of second hand smoke.

The Surgeon Generals Report notes that bartenders, waiters and waitresses are exposed to some of the highest levels of secondhand smoke, putting them at greater risk of disease. "No employee should be forced to choose between making a living and increasing the risk of heart disease and lung disease," Myers said. "No employer should be allowed to place their employees at risk."

Link:
USATODAY.com - Secondhand smoke debate 'over'

[cyclonenum1]

I guess my main point is that, they, the smokers, are the ones making the choice to have a habit that harms others. I do not make that choice, I choose not to harm myself and others with smoking. Why do they get to choose to harm me with smoke, and then it's my responsibility to avoid Them? If I was doing something that, while legal, harmed others, I wouldn't expect others to alter their lifestyle to avoid me in public places.

Do I not have a right to live my life free from others compromising my health and the health of my family?


Edit:
Just as an aside, I've only been to a handful of casinos, Mystic Lake in MN, Prairie Meadows and one other. But at all of them, as soon as you walk in it's like a punch in the face the smoke is so bad. I don't care what kind of fancy air-conditioning you have, when granny is chain smoking at the slot machine there is going to be smoke in the air.

I'm sure you probably addressed this in an earlier post but I forgot, did you say if you were a smoker cyclone#1?

I do not smoke and I have never smoked. I detest the habit (in all forms...cigar, pipe, etc. included) and don't want to breath either first hand or second hand smoke.

Having said that, I don't think we should limit the personal liberties of those that do want to smoke as long as it is a legal activity.

Again, I have no trouble avoiding second hand smoke in my life and I am "out and about" most of the time.

Never been to the casinos you mention but in Vegas I have never noticed the second hand smoke. Of course I don't sit down next to anyone that is smoking when I play.

[Cyclonepride]

Interestingly R.J. Reynolds Tobacco does not dispute the science in the surgeon general's report. But I suppose that R.J. Reynolds Tobacco is biased so we should also discount their views on the dangers of second hand smoke.

The Surgeon Generals Report notes that bartenders, waiters and waitresses are exposed to some of the highest levels of secondhand smoke, putting them at greater risk of disease. "No employee should be forced to choose between making a living and increasing the risk of heart disease and lung disease," Myers said. "No employer should be allowed to place their employees at risk."

Link:
USATODAY.com - Secondhand smoke debate 'over'

Do you suppose that RJ Reynolds might not dispute things anymore because they don't want to get the hell sued out of them again? The debate isn't over, it's just not popular to debate the other side, so noone does it. As soon as they can narrow down the list of cancer causing agents to under ten thousand, and actually explain how and why, then I will believe that the debate on this is over.

[herbiedoobie]

I guess my main point is that, they, the smokers, are the ones making the choice to have a habit that harms others. I do not make that choice, I choose not to harm myself and others with smoking. Why do they get to choose to harm me with smoke, and then it's my responsibility to avoid Them? If I was doing something that, while legal, harmed others, I wouldn't expect others to alter their lifestyle to avoid me in public places.

Do I not have a right to live my life free from others compromising my health and the health of my family?


Edit:
Just as an aside, I've only been to a handful of casinos, Mystic Lake in MN, Prairie Meadows and one other. But at all of them, as soon as you walk in it's like a punch in the face the smoke is so bad. I don't care what kind of fancy air-conditioning you have, when granny is chain smoking at the slot machine there is going to be smoke in the air.

I'm sure you probably addressed this in an earlier post but I forgot, did you say if you were a smoker cyclone#1?

Smoking = Dumb

Gambling = Dumb

Gee, I think I see a trend, here!

[cyclonenum1]

Interestingly R.J. Reynolds Tobacco does not dispute the science in the surgeon general's report. But I suppose that R.J. Reynolds Tobacco is biased so we should also discount their views on the dangers of second hand smoke.

The Surgeon Generals Report notes that bartenders, waiters and waitresses are exposed to some of the highest levels of secondhand smoke, putting them at greater risk of disease. "No employee should be forced to choose between making a living and increasing the risk of heart disease and lung disease," Myers said. "No employer should be allowed to place their employees at risk."

Link:
USATODAY.com - Secondhand smoke debate 'over'

Really, the tobacco companies aren't disputing it?! No wonder, after the witch hunt the federal and state governments have undertaken in crucifying this legal industry. Does the term "tobacco company settlement" mean anything to you. Of course they are not going to "rock the boat" relative to the government after their business was so brutally savaged by the government. You better hope that your industry is not the next one that the government decides to go after!

Again...no employee in America is forced to choose between making a living and being subjected to second hand smoke!

[alaskaguy]

I do not smoke and I have never smoked. I detest the habit (in all forms...cigar, pipe, etc. included) and don't want to breath either first hand or second hand smoke.

Having said that, I don't think we should limit the personal liberties of those that do want to smoke as long as it is a legal activity.

Again, I have no trouble avoiding second hand smoke in my life and I am "out and about" most of the time.

Never been to the casinos you mention but in Vegas I have never noticed the second hand smoke. Of course I don't sit down next to anyone that is smoking when I play.

Having lived in Las Vegas from 1991 through 2004 and hanging out in casinos far more than what I would care to admit, I'm curious as to where you found places to sit down where you were not in close proximity to someone else that was smoking? And before you found such a location, how did you manage to walk to the spot without getting your lungs congested with second hand smoke? Geeze my 13 year experience in Las Vegas casinos sure was different than your experiences.

[cmoneyr]

I do not smoke and I have never smoked. I detest the habit (in all forms...cigar, pipe, etc. included) and don't want to breath either first hand or second hand smoke.

Having said that, I don't think we should limit the personal liberties of those that do want to smoke as long as it is a legal activity.

Again, I have no trouble avoiding second hand smoke in my life and I am "out and about" most of the time.

Never been to the casinos you mention but in Vegas I have never noticed the second hand smoke. Of course I don't sit down next to anyone that is smoking when I play.

But that's not the point I'm making. Sure, we can avoid it, I can choose to only go places that ban smoking. But why and I the one that has to go out of my way. I don't think you've really answered that for me. They make the choice to smoke, they choose to harm others, why is it the rest of us that have to avoid them? I have rights to, my choices don't hurt others, and if they did then I wouldn't expect others to have to make an effort to avoid me. I would understand that what I do hurts others, so I can't do it around other people.

Herbie, where in my post did you gather that I thought gambling was dumb? Did you read the post or you just slapped at the keys for awhile until it looked like a sentence?

[keepngoal]

They make the choice to smoke, they choose to harm others, why is it the rest of us that have to avoid them?

Because the OWNERS of a PRIVATE business CHOOSE to allowing smoking patrons.

the answer is that simple.

You may CHOOSE to open a PRIVATE business and not allow smokers.

freedom is great, isn't it?

- keep.

[cmoneyr]

Jesus H. ******, it's like banging my head against a wall here. Of course owners of establishments could ban smoking, or they can continue to allow. That, however, is not what we're talking about here, we're talking about the idea of proposing a new law to ban smoking in public, welcome to the discussion.

So your suggestion to people who don't like smoking at restaurants is to open a restaurant of their own? BRILLIANT, why didn't I think of that. Obviously you have a sound theory here and I have lost, well played.

Atleast when I discuss this with cyclone#1 his ideas make sense even if I don't agree with them.

[Cyclonepride]

Jesus H. ******, it's like banging my head against a wall here. Of course owners of establishments could ban smoking, or they can continue to allow. That, however, is not what we're talking about here, we're talking about the idea of proposing a new law to ban smoking in public, welcome to the discussion.

So your suggestion to people who don't like smoking at restaurants is to open a restaurant of their own? BRILLIANT, why didn't I think of that. Obviously you have a sound theory here and I have lost, well played.

Atleast when I discuss this with cyclone#1 his ideas make sense even if I don't agree with them.

Attachment 875
Will this help?

[cmoneyr]

******** response, at the very least it could have come from keepngoal. I don't even know who you are.

[Cyclonepride]

Sorry to interject myself into your whine-fest. You may continue without me