Smoking Ban or More Infringements?

[Ted]

So you being born in Kenya gives you the inalienable rights to my frequent my store?

No.

Its just illegal for you or your agent(s) to discriminate against the individual born in Kenya.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think it's more about protecting the rights (health) of the workers in the restaurant than taking rights away from the patrons.

It's kinda like shooting a gun - it's ok to do as long as you aren't in a restaurant doing it to someone else without thought or care.


But yes, it does take away sime tights from smokers.

I understand your point, but still find the argument spurious. My perspective is that this is an issue for the market to sort out. I do not smoke and therefore do not patronize establishments with smoke hanging in the air, nor would I work in one. As for the employees, it works that same way that if you don't like flying, you shouldn't work for an airline as part of the flight staff.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I don't like breathing this stinky air in our factory. It smells like machine oil. Their right to mahcine parts with coolant ends with my right to work here and breathe the air!!!

Also, there is a chemical plant down the street that stinks as well, and also the dump on the other side.

If we could make those things illegal too, I'd be much abliged. While I'm at it, I don't want to smell any exhaust while I'm riding my motorcycle.

 

[TechFarmer]

market forces, and ONLY market forces, should decide if smoking will be allowed in a privately-owned business. If I own Joe's Bar, and I want to allow my patrons to smoke inside my bar, it is absolutely NONE of the government's business.

If you own a private (members-only) bar, then the decision should absolutely be up to the ownership/membership. But if it's a business open to the public, then it's a different situation.

The biggest reason I support the smoking ban is because of the large amount of my tax $ goes toward providing healthcare to people who smoke and don't have their own insurance. Anything to discourage them from smoking saves me $ (indirectly.) At least some form of public healthcare has always and probably will always exist, and I'd prefer so spend as little as possible.

 

[ATOMonkey]

If you own a private (members-only) bar, then the decision should absolutely be up to the ownership/membership. But if it's a business open to the public, then it's a different situation.

The biggest reason I support the smoking ban is because of the large amount of my tax $ goes toward providing healthcare to people who smoke and don't have their own insurance. Anything to discourage them from smoking saves me $ (indirectly.) At least some form of public healthcare has always and probably will always exist, and I'd prefer so spend as little as possible.

Meh..., smokers don't cost nearly as much as old people. If you really wanted to lower your costs, you'd make it illegal to be old and get medical attention.

 

[Baditude]

Another easy way to lower health care costs: if you can't afford health insurance, tough, go die in a corner.

 

[Jake46184]

If you own a private (members-only) bar, then the decision should absolutely be up to the ownership/membership. But if it's a business open to the public, then it's a different situation.

The biggest reason I support the smoking ban is because of the large amount of my tax $ goes toward providing healthcare to people who smoke and don't have their own insurance. Anything to discourage them from smoking saves me $ (indirectly.) At least some form of public healthcare has always and probably will always exist, and I'd prefer so spend as little as possible.

The above is at the heart of what is wrong in our country today. So many either have never known, or have forgotten, what it means to be an American. The business owner, whether it's open to the public or not, MUST be allowed to decide if they will allow smoking in their establishment. You as the consumer MUST be allowed to decide if you wish to patronize the establishment. If enough do, the business thrives. If not, it fails. Don't want to go to a bar that allows smoking? Fine. Go to the one down the street that doesn't allow it. Either way, the government has NO role to play.

These things are all a part of what we Americans boast as our "freedoms." What does that mean? Freedom. Most of the people of the world are "free." What it has always meant to the world is that we Americans are free from government intrusion and meddling in our lives. Sadly, it's amazing how quickly we have surrendered our freedom in the last 40 years. We are now no more "free" than any of the people of Europe.

The "I don't want to pay for them" excuse has also become a real annoyance for those of us who understand what America was supposed to be. "Freedom" isn't free. If you have to pay a few cents more a month for your health coverage, because we have the freedom to allow smoking in our business if we choose, or if we choose to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or engage in whatever else we do that makes us Americans, then SO BE IT. The health cost savings argument is mostly fabricated anyway. Either way, you are going to pay every cent they can get out of you.

Reading the posts on this and other forums, I conclude that so many have no clue what it was supposed to mean to be an American. We may have truly past a point of no return. It seems some of you have never known what being an American is all about. That's very sad. We've finally reached a point where people actually want to be sheeple and have the government control their lives and make their everyday decisions for them. That's what this smoking ban is.....the nanny government doing for you what they believe you are incapable of doing for yourself. Historians, long after all of us are gone, will write of this time in American history. They will write that, more than anything else, we destroyed it ourselves. They will be correct.

 

[TopDog]

Meh..., smokers don't cost nearly as much as old people. If you really wanted to lower your costs, you'd make it illegal to be old and get medical attention.

Disagree, tally the number of old people that were smokers, subtract that number from the total of old people and you come up with a lot less old people that are a burden.

 

[jedi]

Individual cap and trade on fats isn't scheduled until 2018. Live it up.

Hu? Is this a joke? Or was this inside the Obamacare law? First I have heard of it.

Smoking should be banned in government buildings.

Hum.. Smoking *IS* banned in .gov bldg.
-Jedi

 

[ATOMonkey]

Disagree, tally the number of old people that were smokers, subtract that number from the total of old people and you come up with a lot less old people that are a burden.

Unless you just go quietly into the night, the vast majority of your medical expenses will be incurred in the last 5 years of your life, whether you live to be 70 or 100. It doesn't matter if you smoked or not.

 

[Ogre]

Do away with govt. provided health care/insurance of any sort and we no longer have to worry about the cost of "X" group, whose bad habits, health traits, or bad luck cost us all money.
Personal Responsibility and Freedom...

 

[Ted]

Considering that smoking is entirely preventable, the tragedy of tobacco illness, seems worse.

Each year, diseases caused by cigarette smoking result in $96 billion in health care costs, much of which is paid by taxpayers through publicly-funded health programs.

(April 22, 2010) CDC Features - Tobacco Control Saves Lives and Money

 

[ATOMonkey]

That's bad science. Who is to say those people wouldn't have needed the same amount of medical attention later in their life if they had never smoked?

Is smoking bad for you? Yes. Does it cost the medical community more? Probably not. The only difference is a smoker incurrs their costs earlier in life.

You live long enough, you'll die of something, and it'll likely cost a **** ton of money for doctors to attempt to preserve your life for a short while.

 

[TopDog]

Unless you just go quietly into the night, the vast majority of your medical expenses will be incurred in the last 5 years of your life, whether you live to be 70 or 100. It doesn't matter if you smoked or not.

I doubt there are any valid statistics to prove either way if smoking mattered or not. But from my experience people that smoke or did smoke and reach the age of 65 are in general in poorer health than those that did not smoke. So I believe it does matter if you smoke or not.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Won't argue that.

I'm just saying that your health care costs are going to be the most in the last 5 years of your life, whenever they happen to be.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Growing the weed ...

... and having the weed subsidized by tax-money, should be illegal. NO TAXes should be used to subsidize it. Yep, growing tobacco should be banned or severely licensed. Prescription only. That is working SOOOO well with MaryJane, huh? It's a first step. Anyway, eliminate ALL farm subsidies. EBG

Hu? Is this a joke? Or was this inside the Obamacare law? First I have heard of it. Hum.. Smoking *IS* banned in .gov bldg.
-Jedi

 

[ATOMonkey]

I think it's funny that we're trending to a world where tobacco is illegal and MJ is legal.

It makes me titter.

 

[TopDog]

Won't argue that.

I'm just saying that your health care costs are going to be the most in the last 5 years of your life, whenever they happen to be.

Yes that sounds reasonable.

 

[Ted]

Eat right, exercise, get your proper rest, regularly see and follow the advice of your physician, get plenty of sunshine, drink 10 glasses of water a day, drink only red wine and only in moderation, engage in a healthy sexual relationship........, etc.......

......and die anyway.

 

[TopDog]

Eat right, exercise, get your proper rest, regularly see and follow the advice of your physician, get plenty of sunshine, drink 10 glasses of water a day, drink only red wine and only in moderation, engage in a healthy sexual relationship........, etc.......

......and die anyway.

Yes you will die anyway but with a lot less suffering along the way.