Smoking ban

**snowcraig2.0** · 07-01-2008, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by cygrads

Yep - wait until the government decides something you like is bad and decides to ban it. This is government run amuck - this is a businesses and customers choice. If the business wants to allow smoking then they assume the risk of driving away business. I as a customer will decide if I want to go to a place that allows smoking. This is government infringing on our lives for no good reason.

So, basically, you oppose all laws?

**ISUAlum2002** · 07-01-2008, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Knownothing

Go to USSR.com. I am sure you will find a copy of the bill along with the seatbelt law and helmet law.

Yes. Anyone who supports a public smoking ban must be a communist.

**CloneIce** · 07-01-2008, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

YES! More government infringement today...Woo hoo!

Yep, what a sad day. The gov't tells people what they can or can't do regarding a legal activity in their own business that they own and pay taxes on each year.

I understand the restaurant thing.. but at bars? Cmon now, 95% of the people who voted on the ban never step foot in bars or haven't since the 60's. Great, now instead of smelling smoke at the bars we will get a full whiff of moldy beer and urine.

But hey, at least you can still smoke at the casino. That seems fair to bar-owners, right?

**matmann22** · 07-01-2008, 08:20 AM

Can we have a cybookie on how soon it is until the antismoking gestapo decides all the drinking in these now smokefree establishments has to stop ?

If the supporters of this bill are correct, more people will frequent these establishment. It seems highly probable that this means more people will be drinking. Since hardly anyone takes public transportaion, this would mean an increase in people driving home with liquor in the system.

This seems really dangerous to me...

**CloneIce** · 07-01-2008, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by ISUAlum2002

Yes. Anyone who supports a public smoking ban must be a communist.

A public smoking ban that includes privately owned businesses? Doesn't mean your a communist. It does mean that you believe the gov't has a right to tell you what you can and can't do on your own property, so you certainly agree with the communist party on some issues.

**Wx4Cy** · 07-01-2008, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

And that's great for you (and me actually) but when the government takes something away that affects you, you may see thing differently.

They are taking something away that effects me, my kids, etc. Smoke.

**cycloneworld** · 07-01-2008, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by ISUAlum2002

They already have.....speeding. I love going fast and have built cars to do just that. But I obey the speed limit on the streets like a good little boy.....but go to the track to get my speed/power fix.

Originally Posted by snowcraig2.0

I hear ya. My neighbor just mowed off one of the trees I planted in our backyard. I wish I could go over and pummel him to the ground. Stupid government infringement.

Originally Posted by snowcraig2.0

So, basically, you oppose all laws?

Wow, you two have no concept of the other side of the argument. Speeding and beating the crap out of your neighbor is illegal EVERYWHERE in the State of Iowa. Smoking is not but now the government wants to tell people when/where they can partake in a legal activity. I'd rather the state just ban smoking instead of situationally apply rules if its that terrible for people.

**ISUAlum2002** · 07-01-2008, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by matmann22

Can we have a cybookie on how soon it is until the antismoking gestapo decides all the drinking in these now smokefree establishments has to stop ?

If the supporters of this bill are correct, more people will frequent these establishment. It seems highly probable that this means more people will be drinking. Since hardly anyone takes public transportaion, this would mean an increase in people driving home with liquor in the system.

This seems really dangerous to me...

:sigh: For the eleventy-billionth time, drinking next to someone does not affect the person next to you, smoking does.

And driving drunk is already illegal.

**akclone** · 07-01-2008, 08:22 AM

Thank you comrade lawmakers

**CloneIce** · 07-01-2008, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by matmann22

Can we have a cybookie on how soon it is until the antismoking gestapo decides all the drinking in these now smokefree establishments has to stop ?

If the supporters of this bill are correct, more people will frequent these establishment. It seems highly probable that this means more people will be drinking. Since hardly anyone takes public transportaion, this would mean an increase in people driving home with liquor in the system.

This seems really dangerous to me...

If more people would attend bars that were smoke free, wouldn't most bar-owners have gone smoke free voluntarily already to help their business? I have to wave the BS flag on that one.

Actually, studies have already shown this leads to an increase in drinking and driving, as people drive further to go to smoke free bars or drive around and have cigarettes.

**ketchupnmustard** · 07-01-2008, 08:23 AM

People can still turn to chewing tobacco to get their nicotine fix.

Just make sure you're subtle about it and swallow the juice. The spitting is pretty gross.

**ISUAlum2002** · 07-01-2008, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

Wow, you two have no concept of the other side of the argument. Speeding and beating the crap out of your neighbor is illegal EVERYWHERE in the State of Iowa. Smoking is not but now the government wants to tell people when/where they can partake in a legal activity. I'd rather the state just ban smoking instead of situationally apply rules if its that terrible for people.

Speeding isn't illegal EVERYWHERE in the State of Iowa. Like I said....I go to tracks to speed legally.

**CyinCo** · 07-01-2008, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

YES! More government infringement today...Woo hoo!

Yes. Just like when they started installing city sewer systems. Those bastards! I liked when there were piles of crap in the streets and diseased ridden rats ran about.

The things government will do in the name of health.

**cycloneworld** · 07-01-2008, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by ISUAlum2002

:sigh: For the eleventy-billionth time, drinking next to someone does not affect the person next to you, smoking does.

And driving drunk is already illegal.

Neither does trans fat, but some states are banning that.

**garn91** · 07-01-2008, 08:26 AM

My basic problem is that it's a slippery pole. Business owners and corporations are citing the high cost of health insurance in not hiring smokers and/or firing smokers. I recall an article I read on Drudge a week or so ago that even one employer is going so far as to forcing employees into blood tests.

Well, if corporations are citing health insurance costs, were does it stop? First they don't hire smokers, who's next...drinkers? Over weight people? Diabetics?

Funny, I thought Iowa's smoking law was to protect employees (even though most bartenders I know smoke) and not customers.

Link to article I mentioned: Employers ponder tough tactics to halt smoking