Smoking ban

**CyinCo** · 07-01-2008, 08:26 AM

Smokers are the most illogical bunch I've ever heard from.

But then again, smokers do use something that says "This product has been PROVEN to kill you" so I guess all logic is out the window.

**cycloneworld** · 07-01-2008, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by ISUAlum2002

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

Because those are state roadways? Nice try.

You can love the smoking ban or hate it...I see both sides. Unfortunately many people do not. Oh well.

**CloneIce** · 07-01-2008, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by CyinCo

Smokers are the most illogical bunch I've ever heard from.

But then again, smokers do use something that says "This product has been PROVEN to kill you" so I guess all logic is out the window.

This isn't about smokers or non-smokers. Its about whether the gov't has a right to tell you what you can and can't do regarding a perfectly legal activity on your own property.

The fact that so many people don't get that is the problem. Just cause you don't like smoking you feel it gives you the right to mandate what a bar owner does with his property?

That is a very conceited and dangerous belief.

**ISUAlum2002** · 07-01-2008, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

Because those are state roadways? Nice try.

Doesn't matter. You said it was illegal everywhere.

**chuckd4735** · 07-01-2008, 08:31 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.

Funny thing, they didn't ban smoking, they banned your right to give me second hand smoke. If you want to smoke, stay in your own damn house and kill yourself, don't bring me into it!

**CyinCo** · 07-01-2008, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by garn91

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

What employers ought to do is charge those who choose to have bad habits more than those who chose to live healthy lifestyles. Some things are obviously not a choice. But how a person eats, exercise, smoking, and drinking are lifestyle choices.

I've worked for two different employers now where employees could earn discounts for being healthy. The discounts were significant. I LOVE the idea that I can pay less for being healthy. Plus, it is an incentive for others to get healthy. And a blood test was required to prove cholesterol levels.

**CloneIce** · 07-01-2008, 08:32 AM

I don't like babies. I think they smell, they are loud and annoying, and they turn interesting, fun adults into soul-less husks of their former selves.

Let's ban babies from all public places. You people chose to have them, you don't need to drag them everywhere you go with you and annoy everyone around you.

**akclone** · 07-01-2008, 08:33 AM

Will comrade Obama be exempt when he returns to the motherland?

**CyinCo** · 07-01-2008, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by CloneIce

This isn't about smokers or non-smokers. Its about whether the gov't has a right to tell you what you can and can't do regarding a perfectly legal activity on your own property.

The fact that so many people don't get that is the problem. Just cause you don't like smoking you feel it gives you the right to mandate what a bar owner does with his property?

That is a very conceited and dangerous belief.

Yes, but HIS property is a public establishment. If the owner wants to have a private club where members only are allowed or where he just invites a few of his buddies over to drink, smoke it up. But if you wish to make money off of public patrons, too bad.

Your argument is like saying theme parks should be able to institute whatever safety procedures they wish, even dangerous ones, since they own the park.

**CYdTracked** · 07-01-2008, 08:35 AM

They banned smoking ANYWHERE on our company property which as a non-smoker I think is great. Had some co-workers all worked up about this though, told them they could just save a few bucks and their health and quit if it's such an inconveinence now.

BTW, notice how smokers take smoke breaks several times a day yet this is an accepted practice? Think we should all take non-smoke breaks too when they do?

**jberryma** · 07-01-2008, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by CloneIce

I don't like babies. I think they smell, they are loud and annoying, and they turn interesting, fun adults into soul-less husks of their former selves.

Let's ban babies from all public places. You people chose to have them, you don't need to drag them everywhere you go with you and annoy everyone around you.

This is the most ludricrus comment yet. I shouldn't even give it the time of day to reply but I must. That baby is not endangering your life. The second hand smoke is.

**gogagig** · 07-01-2008, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by CloneIce

I don't like babies. I think they smell, they are loud and annoying, and they turn interesting, fun adults into soul-less husks of their former selves.

Let's ban babies from all public places. You people chose to have them, you don't need to drag them everywhere you go with you and annoy everyone around you.

Smoking is probably allowed in more bars in the country than babies are allowed in.

**cycloneworld** · 07-01-2008, 08:36 AM

I guess its just a matter of philosophy. I would rather private business owners make the decisions about their property than the government. I'd rather have the government ban smoking instead of tell people they can't smoke in bars but in casinos its perfectly fine. The same government who said the $1 per pack tax would be used for health programs and to fund nonsmoking and quitting campaigns and then dumped it into the General Fund immediately after it was passed.

Honestly, as a non smoker I will enjoy the new law...I just don't like the slippery slope.

**akclone** · 07-01-2008, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by CyinCo

Yes, but HIS property is a public establishment. If the owner wants to have a private club where members only are allowed or where he just invites a few of his buddies over to drink, smoke it up. But if you wish to make money off of public patrons, too bad.

Your argument is like saying theme parks should be able to institute whatever safety procedures they wish, even dangerous ones, since they own the park.

Private clubs are also required to follow the new laws

**Knownothing** · 07-01-2008, 08:38 AM

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

Not if you support it your not a commy. The ones making that law are using communist view point to do it.

When Government tell you what you can and can't do in your private business that would fall under a a communist theory.

I don't smoke but let's talk about freedome for a second. How much do we have. The govermnet sells freedome to us every day.

In Iraq, Russia, Japan and a ton of other countries you don't need to wear a seatbelt to drive. You can smoke in bars. You can get prostitutes.

How much freedom do we have really? Not very much any more. We are basically free to live our lives but only the way the gov. tells us to.