War on Cigs?

[msmith198025]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090612/D98OQ0CG0.html


The Senate struck a historic blow against smoking in America Thursday, voting overwhelmingly to give regulators new power to limit nicotine in the cigarettes that kill nearly a half-million people a year, to drastically curtail ads that glorify tobacco and to ban flavored products aimed at spreading the habit to young people.

President Barack Obama, who has spoken of his own struggle to quit smoking, said he was eager to sign the legislation, and the House planned a vote for Friday. Cigarette foes said the measure would not only cut deaths but reduce the $100 billion in annual health care costs linked to tobacco.

Looking to cut down costs on that social health plan? Here it starts.

[Bear Paws]

Nicotine doesn't kill.. WTF are they talking about.. All the other gases like CO and the tars in the cigarette are not good for you..
I was on Nicotine Polacrilex ( Commits) for years, which is nicotine with a polymer delivery system rather than the more efficiant and tastier cigarette smoke. I had all the benefits of smoking with out the down sides. I could "light up" in a movie, restaurant or in church... I smoked Luckies for 45 years and figured it was time.
When GlaxoSmithKline started playing games with prices and quantities of the Commits, I said goodbye to them too.. The withdrawal was a screaming bitch.. As bad as going off smokes.. I hope the patent will expire soon.. I would love to go back on nicotine..

US Patent Issued on November 8, 1994
Estimated Patent Expiration Date: Icon_subject August 4, 2013 :thumbup:

[Bob Haller]

good tax and regulate the killers out of existence, kill tobacco just like it kills over 400,000 a year.

my hatred for tyhe industry was their actively covering up the health risks for over a generation

The CEOs who lied before congress should of gone to jail for 5 to 10 and lost all they owned.

as a example to others, so conressional testimony would be honest

[HDRoberts]

I have long though smoking should be illegal.

If there ever is a government health care option, I hope smokers (and all drug addicts) are ineligible.

[fallout2600]

Nicotine doesn't kill.. WTF are they talking about.. All the other gases like CO and the tars in the cigarette are not good for you..
I was on Nicotine Polacrilex ( Commits) for years, which is nicotine with a polymer delivery system rather than the more efficiant and tastier cigarette smoke. I had all the benefits of smoking with out the down sides. I could "light up" in a movie, restaurant or in church... I smoked Luckies for 45 years and figured it was time.
When GlaxoSmithKline started playing games with prices and quantities of the Commits, I said goodbye to them too.. The withdrawal was a screaming bitch.. As bad as going off smokes.. I hope the patent will expire soon.. I would love to go back on nicotine..

US Patent Issued on November 8, 1994
Estimated Patent Expiration Date: Icon_subject August 4, 2013 :thumbup:

Nicotine will get you in your old age if you're not careful. Nictotine itself is responsible for plaque buildup in arteries. I agree with you that it doesn't cause the lung cancer, etc. But it can have counter effects if you are on heart disease medicines...

I also miss my NICOTINE!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bear Paws]

Nicotine will get you in your old age if you're not careful. Nictotine itself is responsible for plaque buildup in arteries. I agree with you that it doesn't cause the lung cancer, etc. But it can have counter effects if you are on heart disease medicines...

I also miss my NICOTINE!!!!!!!!!!!
So will Steak, eggs and fries. Just eat lots of Cheerios :Shh: before going to bed at night and you will be fine.:thumbup::)

[fallout2600]

So will Steak, eggs and fries. Just eat lots of Cheerios :Shh: before going to bed at night and you will be fine.:thumbup::)

Good point my friend! :)

[Bob Haller]

tobacco is the only legal product when used as directed results in the death of the user

[froggigger]

tobacco is the only legal product when used as directed results in the death of the user

I haven't seen a pack of cigarettes yet that had directions on it.

[Bear Paws]

I haven't seen a pack of cigarettes yet that had directions on it. :free-happy-smileys-
Your right...nothing...
Attention; Open cigarette pack by pulling on red band and removing cellophane protective covering. Open box or tear off foil corner to expose ends of enclosed cigarettes. Remove individual cigarette from pack. Insert cigarette, filter end first if so equipped, slightly into mouth (approx 1/4 to 1/2 inch) so that it is protruding straight out from face. While pursing lips to achieve air tight seal around end in mouth use appropriate match or cig lighter flame for ignition of end away from face while sucking deeply on the end in mouth.. Caution.. do not use blow torch to light cig as injury may result to face.

Continue sucking on lit cigarette and inhaling deeply resulted smoke until user is firmly dead.. This may need to be repeated often to reach desired deadness.

[froggigger]

:free-happy-smileys-
Your right...nothing...
Attention; Open cigarette pack by pulling on red band and removing cellophane protective covering. Open box or tear off foil corner to expose ends of enclosed cigarettes. Remove individual cigarette from pack. Insert cigarette, filter end first if so equipped, slightly into mouth (approx 1/4 to 1/2 inch) so that it is protruding straight out from face. While pursing lips to achieve air tight seal around end in mouth use appropriate match or cig lighter flame for ignition of end away from face while sucking deeply on the end in mouth.. Caution.. do not use blow torch to light cig as injury may result to face.

Continue sucking on lit cigarette and inhaling deeply resulted smoke until user is firmly dead.. This may need to be repeated often to reach desired deadness.

:thumbup: :devil-0060:

[Bob Haller]

On a positive note theres proposals for a two buck a pack additional tax increase to help pay for universal health care:)

thats a win win:)

additional taxes on pop, booze, high calorie food etc to help pay for health care too

[Bear Paws]

On a positive note theres proposals for a two buck a pack additional tax increase to help pay for universal health care:)

thats a win win:)

additional taxes on pop, booze, high calorie food etc to help pay for health care too Has booze or tobacco tax worked yet. How about lotto and casinos?? Is your heath care insurance paid for yet..? Even a teeny weeny portion??? I asked you the same questions back in the 1960s.. Again in the 70s and again in the 90s.. Are we there yet?
Have another toke on some fairy dust.. :rolleyes:

[Bob Haller]

Has booze or tobacco tax worked yet. How about lotto and casinos?? Is your heath care insurance paid for yet..? Even a teeny weeny portion??? I asked you the same questions back in the 1960s.. Again in the 70s and again in the 90s.. Are we there yet?
Have another toke on some fairy dust.. :rolleyes:

no its obamas job to see this long term lack is finally addressed.

by allowing those with insurance to continue as is while a lifeline insurance is offered for everyone else

[Bear Paws]

no its obamas job to see this long term lack is finally addressed.

by allowing those with insurance to continue as is while a lifeline insurance is offered for everyone else Yeah, this time its going to be different.. Its still all Pixie dust. Its zero sum.. You squeeze the balloon in one place and it will pop out in another place..

[msmith198025]

On a positive note theres proposals for a two buck a pack additional tax increase to help pay for universal health care:)

thats a win win:)

additional taxes on pop, booze, high calorie food etc to help pay for health care too

That is a GREAT idea!!! While we are at it, lets tax/ban red meat, salt, sugar, sitting on your rear, and sleeping too late....come on Bob, personal responsibility.

If you dont want to do it, dont.

[Bob Haller]

Feds should prohibit tobacco use on all TV shows and movies. Electronically remove photo shop tobacco use on old shows, a good example the twilight zone, rod sterling died from it. Prohibit print adds for tobacco. smoking should be illegal in all public settings even outdoor ones, like flea markets. smoking in any vehicle with a child under 18 needs to be classified as child abuse. same for smoking indoors with children present.

tobacco companies should be required to pay for smoking cesseation programs.

reduce the nicotine levels 10% a year to help make smoking less addictive.

tax to death US companies selling their killer products to other countries

[froggigger]

Feds should prohibit tobacco use on all TV shows and movies. Electronically remove photo shop tobacco use on old shows, a good example the twilight zone, rod sterling died from it. Prohibit print adds for tobacco. smoking should be illegal in all public settings even outdoor ones, like flea markets. smoking in any vehicle with a child under 18 needs to be classified as child abuse. same for smoking indoors with children present.

tobacco companies should be required to pay for smoking cesseation programs.

reduce the nicotine levels 10% a year to help make smoking less addictive.

tax to death US companies selling their killer products to other countries

Why not just outlaw tobacco and be done with it? :rolleyes:

[Bob Haller]

Why not just outlaw tobacco and be done with it? :rolleyes:

no too extreme, just ive the industry a slow tortuerous death, like it did to so many consumers.........

[msmith198025]

no too extreme, just ive the industry a slow tortuerous death, like it did to so many consumers.........

No he has a point.

If you are so against it, why not outlaw it right now and be done with it? Why let anyone else suffer by choice?

I do agree that smoking around children should stop, and I wish no one did it at all, but either let people smoke, or dont. Your way is worse. It is petty IMO. Make a choice.

[froggigger]

no too extreme, just ive the industry a slow tortuerous death, like it did to so many consumers.........

So keep tobacco legal and torture the industry, for revenge, while looking the other way as more people torture themselves to death by smoking?

[Bob Haller]

no just making it illegal would be too tough on the addicts.

so reduce nicotine levels, and generally discourage smoking.

you cant stop a cruise ship on a dime, first the momentum must be stopped

[msmith198025]

no just making it illegal would be too tough on the addicts.

so reduce nicotine levels, and generally discourage smoking.

you cant stop a cruise ship on a dime, first the momentum must be stopped

Wont that continue to kill them though? By choice

[froggigger]

no just making it illegal would be too tough on the addicts.

so reduce nicotine levels, and generally discourage smoking.

you cant stop a cruise ship on a dime, first the momentum must be stopped

No reason to be too tough on addicts before the tobacco kills them, huh?

[vurbano]

Obama will do to cig prices the same thing he intends to do to gas prices.

[froggigger]

Obama will do to cig prices the same thing he intends to do to gas prices.

The attack against tobacco has never been about health. It's all about taxes and control. The biggest problem is that it's also another attack against private property rights by our compassionate, caring government. :augentreher:

[Bob Haller]

Tobacco DRAMATICALLY increases health care costs, from the young people who get colds more often, all the way to end of life care........

we cant afford to have all these people slowly killing themselves at our expense

[vurbano]

Tobacco DRAMATICALLY increases health care costs, from the young people who get colds more often, all the way to end of life care........

we cant afford to have all these people slowly killing themselves at our expense
Then write a law to outlaw it.

[Bob Haller]

Then write a law to outlaw it.

its coming be patient:free-happy-smileys-

[Bear Paws]

its coming be patient:free-happy-smileys- Right after they write the laws for eugenics.. You first..

Future Generations is about humanitarian eugenics.
Humanitarian eugenics strives to leave a genuine legacy
of love to future generations: good health, high intelligence,
and noble character. We advocate measures to improve the innate
quality of humankind which are entirely voluntary. Please be forewarned
that most ideas expressed on this website are "politically incorrect." We aspire
to total honesty, believing that it is the only policy for people with integrity,
and furthermore, that in the long run, honesty is far-and-away the most compassionate
policy. If we ever hope to solve the problems which face our species, it's imperative
that we first look at them objectively, and assess the scientific evidence without
bias. If the truth about genetics and behavior, about eugenics, or about
race, is considered "taboo," and falsehoods are the only socially
acceptable opinions, then this is truly a sad state of affairs,
but we won't let it deter us

[cybok0]

On a positive note theres proposals for a two buck a pack additional tax increase to help pay for universal health care:)

thats a win win:)

additional taxes on pop, booze, high calorie food etc to help pay for health care too

Don't tax my Mt. Dew, I need mt. Dew to stay up all night.

[cybok0]

Tobacco DRAMATICALLY increases health care costs, from the young people who get colds more often, all the way to end of life care........

we cant afford to have all these people slowly killing themselves at our expense

Now I'm not saying tobacco doesn't kill people, but my parents smoked, my mom did die of lung cancer, but it was her choice to smoke, and I chew snuff.

Now Since I have been born, I have never stayed a night in the hospital, i haven't been to the doctor for ten years, only for a truck drivers physical card.
I don't get sick. I know I'm gonna die from tobacco or a heart attack(My dad had one), but we are all gonna die, so I will do what makes me happy as long as it isn't illegal.

[Bob Haller]

Now I'm not saying tobacco doesn't kill people, but my parents smoked, my mom did die of lung cancer, but it was her choice to smoke, and I chew snuff.

Now Since I have been born, I have never stayed a night in the hospital, i haven't been to the doctor for ten years, only for a truck drivers physical card.
I don't get sick. I know I'm gonna die from tobacco or a heart attack(My dad had one), but we are all gonna die, so I will do what makes me happy as long as it isn't illegal.


Had a friend who chewed, got mouth cancer and had half his face removed before it finally killed him/ removed a piece at a time.

so your mom smoked and died of lung cancer most likely while big tobacco actively covered up what its own testing showed, smoking causes lung cancer.

how do you feel about the cover up?

Its not a clean kill, it can be grueling.

[cybok0]

Had a friend who chewed, got mouth cancer and had half his face removed before it finally killed him/ removed a piece at a time.

so your mom smoked and died of lung cancer most likely while big tobacco actively covered up what its own testing showed, smoking causes lung cancer.

how do you feel about the cover up?

Its not a clean kill, it can be grueling.


There was no cover up, she always knew she could get cancer, just like I do.

Only thing I found out about my mom and cancer is that if I get it, I will not go through treatment, that caused her pain.

[Bob Haller]

There was no cover up, she always knew she could get cancer, just like I do.

Only thing I found out about my mom and cancer is that if I get it, I will not go through treatment, that caused her pain.


yeah chemo is horrible. my mom said she didnt want it, and when cancer reoccured I let her go, chemo had no chance of curing her just prolong her suffering.

[cybok0]

I don't blame the tobacco companies for my mom to get cancer, it's her own choice just like it's mine.

[Bob Haller]

I don't blame the tobacco companies for my mom to get cancer, it's her own choice just like it's mine.

Yeah BUT they lied before congress and KNEW the risks since the 60s.

Hey our products kill, smoke them if you want.

Is very different from they are safe, we have studied it extensively..........

One is honest, they other driven by pure greed

[Bear Paws]

Yeah BUT they lied before congress and KNEW the risks since the 60s.

Hey our products kill, smoke them if you want.

Is very different from they are safe, we have studied it extensively..........

One is honest, they other driven by pure greed Bob.... there was no cover up.. Pull up your pants.... Your conspiracy is showing.

In 1960 when I started smoking seriously (buying) we used to call them "cancer sticks" and "coffin nails". No one was lying to anyone except to them selves... Its called accountability that the left seems to find difficult to understand and wants to make everyone a "victim for votes"...

[Bob Haller]

no matter tobacco claimed smoking was safe....

manufacturer LIED, before congress.

the CEOs should of gone to a high security prison for at least 5 years and lost all their assests,

as a example to the next people called to testify before congress

[Bear Paws]

no matter tobacco claimed smoking was safe....

manufacturer LIED, before congress.

the CEOs should of gone to a high security prison for at least 5 years and lost all their assests,

as a example to the next people called to testify before congress
First ...lets get this straight... who the hell is congress to be asking anything especially about something that THEY deemed legal by law they make. They don't have moral or legal legitimacy to ask anything.. Second... they are there to write law... not enforce nor question compliance to them... Third and foremost.. those grandstanding pompous ass lying sacks of crap in congress are the last ones that should be throwing stones.

[msmith198025]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/22/obama-sign-anti-smoking-monday/


President Obama on Monday signed a landmark anti-smoking bill which he said will reduce the number of children who take up smoking and ultimately save American lives.

The bill would give the federal government unprecedented authority to regulate tobacco. The law allows the regulatory Food and Drug Administration to reduce nicotine in tobacco products, ban candy flavorings and block labels such "low tar" and "light." Tobacco companies also will be required to cover their cartons with large graphic warnings.


Well that did not take long

[Bear Paws]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/22/obama-sign-anti-smoking-monday/




Well that did not take long Yep... I can see the difference in the number of kids that started smoking today already. It went up..

[Skyhi]

I know this is OT, but:

[RANT ON] It's incredible that cigs and alcohol are legal and marijuana isn't. [RANT OFF]

[msmith198025]

I know this is OT, but:

[RANT ON] It's incredible that cigs and alcohol are legal and marijuana isn't. [RANT OFF]

I can understand that rant.
We DO have to draw a line somewhere, but when it comes to marijuana I do not get it.

[Bob Haller]

First ...lets get this straight... who the hell is congress to be asking anything especially about something that THEY deemed legal by law they make. They don't have moral or legal legitimacy to ask anything.. Second... they are there to write law... not enforce nor question compliance to them... Third and foremost.. those grandstanding pompous ass lying sacks of crap in congress are the last ones that should be throwing stones.

Congress suponeaed the CEOs to get info so they could write proper laws.

The CEOs LIED

The inssider info was leaked right after they testified.

As such the CEOs should of spent 5 years in jail, and lost all their assests. the companies they represent should lose all profits for 5 years.

so those who testify under oath tell absolutely the truth

[fallout2600]

Bob, I can't see that font, can you make it bigger! :)

If I'm to weigh in on this, Congress and the President have once again took a crap on the constitution. What ever happened to "the pursuit of happiness"? If a man wants to smoke, he should be allowed to burn as many cigs as he wants....

[msmith198025]

Bob, I can't see that font, can you make it bigger! :)
If I'm to weigh in on this, Congress and the President have once again took a crap on the constitution. What ever happened to "the pursuit of happiness"? If a man wants to smoke, he should be allowed to burn as many cigs as he wants....

:free-happy-smileys-:free-happy-smileys-

[froggigger]

Bob, I can't see that font, can you make it bigger! :)

If I'm to weigh in on this, Congress and the President have once again took a crap on the constitution. What ever happened to "the pursuit of happiness"? If a man wants to smoke, he should be allowed to burn as many cigs as he wants....

This is about property rights. They're being taken away and most people either don't care or don't realize it's happening.

[Skyhi]

This is about property rights. They're being taken away and most people either don't care or don't realize it's happening.

I'd love to hear your argument relating tobacco regulation to property rights....I agree that property rights are being shaved right before our eyes.

[msmith198025]

I'd love to hear your argument relating tobacco regulation to property rights....I agree that property rights are being shaved right before our eyes.

I am curious how it relates as well. Not saying it can not, but I would be interested in seeing the response

[Skyhi]

I am curious how it relates as well. Not saying it can not, but I would be interested in seeing the response

Property was one of my favorite subjects in law school because of all the arguments that can be made for/against government takings of private property...

[msmith198025]

Property was one of my favorite subjects in law school because of all the arguments that can be made for/against government takings of private property...
You just like to cause trouble....:D

[froggigger]

I'd love to hear your argument relating tobacco regulation to property rights....I agree that property rights are being shaved right before our eyes.

Since you asked...:)

At one time, owners determined the smoking policy for their property whether it was a bar, restaurant, etc. Anti-tobacco groups have convinced government to infringe upon the right of private property owners to establish their own rules. Non-smokers didn't care because they didn't like breathing in smoke while they patronized the establishment, or smelling like smoke when they went home. They, along with some employees of the establishment, claim a "right" to a smoke-free environment---and they do have that right. They have the right to go elsewhere where there is no smoking allowed.

The anti-smoking crowd believe smoking is a moral issue. They ignore the fact that a private property owner's right to decide for himself what the smoking policy will be is also a moral issue. There is no "right" to eat in any restaurant or drink in any bar. If a patron doesn't like the smoking policy, he should go elsewhere, not interfere with property rights by forcing a change in policy through government. Instead, they use the specious argument that banning smoking protects the "rights" of workers and patrons.

On the face, it sounds reasonable. Look deeper and it's a dangerous slope. It is government using force to limit behavior on private property, leaving the owner liable for rule enforcement. If the rule isn't properly enforced, the owner could lose his property or even his freedom. The free market allows owners to decide if they want to allow smoking but that right is taken away from them by the state.

Employees and patrons are there by choice. No one can force them to be there. Anti-smoking laws "rescue" people from their own free choices. In effect, workers and patrons are forced into making choices that meet state approval. Refusing to patronize or not patronize any establishment because of its smoking rules is one thing. It's another thing altogether to use the state to impose your desires on others. We all know what it's called when private property is controlled by the state, and anti-smoking laws are another step in that direction.

[msmith198025]

Good point.

[HDRoberts]

Since you asked...:)

At one time, owners determined the smoking policy for their property whether it was a bar, restaurant, etc. Anti-tobacco groups have convinced government to infringe upon the right of private property owners to establish their own rules. Non-smokers didn't care because they didn't like breathing in smoke while they patronized the establishment, or smelling like smoke when they went home. They, along with some employees of the establishment, claim a "right" to a smoke-free environment---and they do have that right. They have the right to go elsewhere where there is no smoking allowed.

The anti-smoking crowd believe smoking is a moral issue. They ignore the fact that a private property owner's right to decide for himself what the smoking policy will be is also a moral issue. There is no "right" to eat in any restaurant or drink in any bar. If a patron doesn't like the smoking policy, he should go elsewhere, not interfere with property rights by forcing a change in policy through government. Instead, they use the specious argument that banning smoking protects the "rights" of workers and patrons.

On the face, it sounds reasonable. Look deeper and it's a dangerous slope. It is government using force to limit behavior on private property, leaving the owner liable for rule enforcement. If the rule isn't properly enforced, the owner could lose his property or even his freedom. The free market allows owners to decide if they want to allow smoking but that right is taken away from them by the state.

Employees and patrons are there by choice. No one can force them to be there. Anti-smoking laws "rescue" people from their own free choices. In effect, workers and patrons are forced into making choices that meet state approval. Refusing to patronize or not patronize any establishment because of its smoking rules is one thing. It's another thing altogether to use the state to impose your desires on others. We all know what it's called when private property is controlled by the state, and anti-smoking laws are another step in that direction.

I disagree. Maybe it infringes on private property, but it is the lesser of two evils. First, most restaurants and stores are classified around here as "public" places. No one has banned smoking in true private property: homes. Heck, smoking isn't yet banned in cars, either (although I wish it was, having had to frequently switch the blower in my car to "recirculate" upon getting behind a smoker's car).

You have the false assumption that everyone has choices readily available. Employees, for example, you presume can just quit and find another job. It is not that easy. Us patrons, too. I remember when I was a kid no restaurant outside of Chuck E Cheese was fully non-smoking, (especially, it seemed, as we would occasionally drive through tobacco country, but in Ohio, too). We were forced to go to non-smoking sections where the cigarette smoke would waft anyway. There were no other nonsmoking establishments. We couldn't vote with our wallets, as you encourage us to do. No one wanted to buck the trend and upset their smoking clientele (many of which were out in public smoking so as not to stink up their own houses). What are we supposed to do, never eat out? Especially hard to do if you are on a cross country trip.

You say it's a slippery slope. What else do you think they will ban?

Do you also find it a restriction of private property rights that restaurants can't serve alcohol to the under-aged? Or that they have to stop serving to those clearly intoxicated?

[msmith198025]

That is a good point as well.

I think the happy medium lies somewhere in between, and the solution is NOT on how we regulate the prouduction and labeling of tobacco itself

[HDRoberts]

If you ask me, the solution is to ban smoking all together. Legalize the hippie lettuce instead.

You could design packs that electrocute the user each time they reach for a smoke and idiots would still smoke.

[msmith198025]

If you ask me, the solution is to ban smoking all together. Legalize the hippie lettuce instead.

You could design packs that electrocute the user each time they reach for a smoke and idiots would still smoke.

:free-happy-smileys-
That is so true!

[froggigger]

I disagree. Maybe it infringes on private property, but it is the lesser of two evils. First, most restaurants and stores are classified around here as "public" places. No one has banned smoking in true private property: homes. Heck, smoking isn't yet banned in cars, either (although I wish it was, having had to frequently switch the blower in my car to "recirculate" upon getting behind a smoker's car).

You have a false premise. Restaurants and stores are public only in the sense that the public is allowed to come in and shop, eat, etc. by the property owner who is hoping to make a profit. He can close the doors to the public whenever he chooses and stop doing business. A store or restaurant is no less a "true" private property than a home. If the state is allowed to make the rules for a privately-owned store, there is nothing stopping them from eventually trying to make the rules for your home, too.


You have the false assumption that everyone has choices readily available. Employees, for example, you presume can just quit and find another job. It is not that easy. Us patrons, too. I remember when I was a kid no restaurant outside of Chuck E Cheese was fully non-smoking, (especially, it seemed, as we would occasionally drive through tobacco country, but in Ohio, too). We were forced to go to non-smoking sections where the cigarette smoke would waft anyway. There were no other nonsmoking establishments. We couldn't vote with our wallets, as you encourage us to do. No one wanted to buck the trend and upset their smoking clientele (many of which were out in public smoking so as not to stink up their own houses). What are we supposed to do, never eat out? Especially hard to do if you are on a cross country trip.

This is a job for the free market. Of course, if you don't believe in the power of the free market, there is likely no explanation I can provide that you will accept. That's not a criticism, mind you. :)

In a truly free market, consumer demand would determine how smoking and non-smoking establishments would be allocated. In a market economy, the consumer is king. If an entrepreneur thought he could maximize profits in a non-smoking environment, he would open one. Ditto a smoking environment. Either situation would attract employees who either valued that particular environment or thought they would earn more in that environment.

You say you were "forced" to go to non-smoking sections. As a child, that may be so but your parents were not forced to go there. They knew beforehand the situation and they chose to go anyway. If there were no other non-smoking establishments, perhaps there was not enough of a market for a profit to be realized. If there was a market, and a profit could be made, open your own restaurant or store and make it non-smoking. All the non-smokers who were "forced" to sit in non-smoking areas would flock to it. If there are enough people who value non-smoking establishments, the market will do what the market does best. It will rise to the challenge and provide these places. And yes, if smoking offends you so much and there are no non-smoking options, don't eat out. It's all about choices.


You say it's a slippery slope. What else do you think they will ban?

I really have no idea. I do know, though, that the government is no piker when it comes to finding ways to increase its power. Taking property rights away incrementally is a means to do just that.


Do you also find it a restriction of private property rights that restaurants can't serve alcohol to the under-aged? Or that they have to stop serving to those clearly intoxicated?

I certainly do. The welfare of children has long been the state's justification for it own expansion. It's the main basis for the war on drugs, the nationalization of education, and you can bet your butt when the internet is regulated here it will be in the name of the children. It is very possible to form a totalitarian state in the name of helping the children. Alcohol sales are no different. However, everyone knows children shouldn't have alcohol or drugs. Well, sane people know. A responsible owner would not serve to a child, law or no law. If he does, he should be held at least partially responsible for whatever happens. It could very well mean the end of his livelihood or his freedom and simply would not be good for the business. Chances are very good that, in the absence of a law, a business would even use it as a selling point in advertising. "It's safe to send your children here because we will never sell alcohol to anyone under the age of 21".

[Skyhi]

froggigger,

I agree 100% with everything you said. Here in Ohio, the voters passed a constitutional amendment telling business owners they cannot allow smoking in their establishments - - - i agree with you that this is an unconstitutional taking.

When I orginally asked the question, I thought you were going to make an argument that warning labels were infringing on our property rights.

[Bear Paws]

froggigger,

I agree 100% with everything you said. Here in Ohio, the voters passed a constitutional amendment telling business owners they cannot allow smoking in their establishments - - - i agree with you that this is an unconstitutional taking.

When I orginally asked the question, I thought you were going to make an argument that warning labels were infringing on our property rights. I'm quite pleasantly surprised that you agree with Frogger on the classical bundle of individual and just property rights rather than the more modern progressive socially fair and equitable for the greater good camp that seems to have become prevalent with city counsels. Whom are probably in most cases renters.

I used to ( still dabble) buy and sell quite a lot of property, so about 28 years ago I took a real estate agents course in Ct. to get a better understanding of the laws etc.. I found myself doing the teaching in some areas. I did mostly creative financing in both directions but especially selling. Anyways..the debates came up often about the right of the government to infringe on those bundle of rights of ownership even in code and zoning enforcement. Obviously the idea of the government coming in and telling a individual property owner he was not allowed to allow smoking on his own property that he controlled was absurd at the time.. We smoked in class for crise sake.

This debate is the epitome of not just property rights but the ultimate debate as to whether we will be a free market society or not. Like Frogger says..If they can come in and tell you this, then the transfatty slop only goes down hill from there. I have seen the incremental erosion and taking of our freedoms. From day to day one hardly even notices it but looking back over a spread of 65 years to when I was a poor kid growing up in a what I thought then was a free country but already overbearing, the difference is stunning.

I'm more sensitive to it probably than most because of my years of involvement with totalitarian and statist regimes and I saw the destructive forces of a advanced socialist system with its centralized economic planning. Its destructive and devastating to the human spirit. One could tell the moment you crossed into the Soviet sector... there was no color..everything was gray. Just shades of gray..

[Bob Haller]

I LOVE the no smoking in public places law, its in PA, I think it should be extended to outdoor public events.

I hate the stink!

[HD MM]

The debate on whether or not to allow smoking in a public establishment such as a bar/restaurant is a sticky topic. As Sky recently pointed out, Ohio has recently outlawed smoking in bars/restaurants.

On one hand, I don't like the government telling what a privately owned institution what to allow. On the other hand, when smoking was legal, there was no getting away from the smoke. No bar in their right mind would be "smoke-free", in fear of losing smokers to another bar. But what about those who don't smoke? Does that mean we have to succumb to second hand smoke with no other alternative? How is this fair? And to tell non smoking people to not go to bars if they don't like it isn't fair either since there was no other alternative to bars when they did allow smoking.

As for restaurants or bars serving food, I can completely understand the outlaw on smoke, simply from a health standpoint.

[fallout2600]

Since you asked...:)

At one time, owners determined the smoking policy for their property whether it was a bar, restaurant, etc. Anti-tobacco groups have convinced government to infringe upon the right of private property owners to establish their own rules. Non-smokers didn't care because they didn't like breathing in smoke while they patronized the establishment, or smelling like smoke when they went home. They, along with some employees of the establishment, claim a "right" to a smoke-free environment---and they do have that right. They have the right to go elsewhere where there is no smoking allowed.

The anti-smoking crowd believe smoking is a moral issue. They ignore the fact that a private property owner's right to decide for himself what the smoking policy will be is also a moral issue. There is no "right" to eat in any restaurant or drink in any bar. If a patron doesn't like the smoking policy, he should go elsewhere, not interfere with property rights by forcing a change in policy through government. Instead, they use the specious argument that banning smoking protects the "rights" of workers and patrons.

On the face, it sounds reasonable. Look deeper and it's a dangerous slope. It is government using force to limit behavior on private property, leaving the owner liable for rule enforcement. If the rule isn't properly enforced, the owner could lose his property or even his freedom. The free market allows owners to decide if they want to allow smoking but that right is taken away from them by the state.

Employees and patrons are there by choice. No one can force them to be there. Anti-smoking laws "rescue" people from their own free choices. In effect, workers and patrons are forced into making choices that meet state approval. Refusing to patronize or not patronize any establishment because of its smoking rules is one thing. It's another thing altogether to use the state to impose your desires on others. We all know what it's called when private property is controlled by the state, and anti-smoking laws are another step in that direction.

:thumbup::thumbup:

[Bob Haller]

secondhand hand smoke is a cancer causer, thus its in everyones best interest to prohibit iot in all public places.

should be illegal in vehicles with children too.

in PA foster parents arent allowed to smoke even in their own homes in the presence of the kids in their care:)

[fallout2600]

secondhand hand smoke is a cancer causer, thus its in everyones best interest to prohibit iot in all public places.

should be illegal in vehicles with children too.

in PA foster parents arent allowed to smoke even in their own homes in the presence of the kids in their care:)

I smoked for 12 years, never once smoked inside my home b/c it smelled like crap and out of courtesy for others. I didn't need the govt to make me do that and didn't need them to finally quit. Its an education issue, not a supplier issue.

[HD MM]

To the people who oppose smoking in public facilities, do you oppose the governing law to wear a seat belt in your car? It's practically the same thing. The government is telling you what to do in your own property. Why is that not such a big deal?

As soon as people can get over the fact that they oppose issues just because they "don't like being told what to do," then we can all realize common sense laws like this are put in place because not everyone has common sense and they help save lives.

[Skyhi]

To the people who oppose smoking in public facilities, do you oppose the governing law to wear a seat belt in your car? It's practically the same thing. The government is telling you what to do in your own property. Why is that not such a big deal?

As soon as people can get over the fact that they oppose issues just because they "don't like being told what to do," then we can all realize common sense laws like this are put in place because not everyone has common sense and they help save lives.

For adults, yes. For kids, no. With or without the law, I'd wear my seatbelt, but I can freely admit that I don't like being told what to do.....

[cybok0]

For adults, yes. For kids, no. With or without the law, I'd wear my seatbelt, but I can freely admit that I don't like being told what to do.....


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

[Skyhi]

As soon as people can get over the fact that they oppose issues just because they "don't like being told what to do," then we can all realize common sense laws like this are put in place because not everyone has common sense and they help save lives.

It seems like people are willing to roll over in the name of public/health safety except when it comes to our country's two biggest health/safety threats: affordable health care for all and the environment.

Once we have regulations in place to get those two issues under control, I'll be more understanding towards tobacco and seat belt regulations.

[msmith198025]

It seems like people are willing to roll over in the name of public/health safety except when it comes to our country's two biggest health/safety threats: affordable health care for all and the environment.

Once we have regulations in place to get those two issues under control, I'll be more understanding towards tobacco and seat belt regulations.

It can be argued though that getting the causes under control (smoking and seat belt non usage) could impact the costs of healthcare.

Not that I agree with all they are trying to do here.

[Skyhi]

It can be argued though that getting the causes under control (smoking and seat belt non usage) could impact the costs of healthcare.

Not that I agree with all they are trying to do here.

Very true. It could also be argued that if all the non-insured smokers could go to the doctor and get a $10 prescription for chantix, the costs of healthcare would decrease......what came first, the chicken or the egg? :)

[msmith198025]

Very true. It could also be argued that if all the non-insured smokers could go to the doctor and get a $10 prescription for chantix, the costs of healthcare would decrease......what came first, the chicken or the egg? :)

True. Leads to a very circular argument doesnt it

[Bear Paws]

The debate on whether or not to allow smoking in a public establishment such as a bar/restaurant is a sticky topic. As Sky recently pointed out, Ohio has recently outlawed smoking in bars/restaurants.

On one hand, I don't like the government telling what a privately owned institution what to allow. On the other hand, when smoking was legal, there was no getting away from the smoke. No bar in their right mind would be "smoke-free", in fear of losing smokers to another bar. But what about those who don't smoke? Does that mean we have to succumb to second hand smoke with no other alternative? How is this fair? And to tell non smoking people to not go to bars if they don't like it isn't fair either since there was no other alternative to bars when they did allow smoking.

As for restaurants or bars serving food, I can completely understand the outlaw on smoke, simply from a health standpoint.Frogger already addressed that ixssue very well in his post#59.

Your insisting on making the issue about you. Its not, or should not be, about you but rather the private property bar/restaurant owner and his rights to judgment and decision about the clientele he wants to serve. After all, its his risk/investment and time that's providing you with the oppertunity for you to patronize or not his establishment.

There is no inherent right for you to go to a bar, any bar. No differently than you may not like roughneck shot and beer bar or a hells angles roadhouse bar and would prefer the pink poodle pinky pointers bar., If you couldn't find a pinky bar you either would not go out or could hang with Annabell the Hog. Or would you complain to the town counsel to change licensing laws to mandate a pinky bar..

I live in a town with a NASCAR Race car track that is in a valley or bowl. Its been there 137 years and turned to stock cars racing from horse right after WWll. During the late 80s early 90s a developer sold scenic view property overlooking the valley and track. You know what happened. First mufflers, then limited hours, and the the big one.. Shut it down.. Well the town finally got some stones and wasn't going to close its biggest revenue stream for the sake of a couple ignorant homeowners free choice that bought property overlooking a freaking race track.. THere are plenty of mountain views with out racetracks around here.

This is the same attitude that has brought us to the point in or society where a person calls 911 because McDonald's is temporarily out of Chicken McNuggets. Calling 911 thinking its the government and Obama will swoop down and force Ronald to put McNuggets in your bucket.

We are rapidly giving up all semblance of personal responsibility and accountability for our own actions away to the government for convenience of dependence as if we had a lobotomy. Any time you give away the right for others to make a decision for themselves by giving others power over their freewill it also takes away your right to make a decision for your self and that gives power to those that think they know better how you should run your life. After they take care of your complaints they will move on to someone else's about you..Then they will come after you..you did empower them to do that..

Unfortunately it usually the ones that won't take responsibility for themselves are the ones that wants the responsibility over others.

[fallout2600]

Yes it is easily circular, so we should move to the root cause of the problem.....isn't health insurance the vehicle that doctors and drug companies have used to drive up price?

EDIT: So how is creating more insurance premiums the solution?

[Skyhi]

Yes it is easily circular, so we should move to the root cause of the problem.....isn't health insurance the vehicle that doctors and drug companies have used to drive up price?

Doctors make an awesome living, but they're not as rich as many people believe. It's the insurance companies that are robbing the country blind.

[Skyhi]

EDIT: So how is creating more insurance premiums the solution?

The solution is getting rid of the for-profit health insurance industry.

[HD MM]

Frogger already addressed that ixssue very well in his post#59.

Your insisting on making the issue about you. Its not, or should not be, about you but rather the private property bar/restaurant owner and his rights to judgment and decision about the clientele he wants to serve. After all, its his risk/investment and time that's providing you with the oppertunity for you to patronize or not his establishment.

There is no inherent right for you to go to a bar, any bar. No differently than you may not like roughneck shot and beer bar or a hells angles roadhouse bar and would prefer the pink poodle pinky pointers bar., If you couldn't find a pinky bar you either would not go out or could hang with Annabell the Hog. Or would you complain to the town counsel to change licensing laws to mandate a pinky bar..

I live in a town with a NASCAR Race car track that is in a valley or bowl. Its been there 137 years and turned to stock cars racing from horse right after WWll. During the late 80s early 90s a developer sold scenic view property overlooking the valley and track. You know what happened. First mufflers, then limited hours, and the the big one.. Shut it down.. Well the town finally got some stones and wasn't going to close its biggest revenue stream for the sake of a couple ignorant homeowners free choice that bought property overlooking a freaking race track.. THere are plenty of mountain views with out racetracks around here.

This is the same attitude that has brought us to the point in or society where a person calls 911 because McDonald's is temporarily out of Chicken McNuggets. Calling 911 thinking its the government and Obama will swoop down and force Ronald to put McNuggets in your bucket.

We are rapidly giving up all semblance of personal responsibility and accountability for our own actions away to the government for convenience of dependence as if we had a lobotomy. Any time you give away the right for others to make a decision for themselves by giving others power over their freewill it also takes away your right to make a decision for your self and that gives power to those that think they know better how you should run your life. After they take care of your complaints they will move on to someone else's about you..Then they will come after you..you did empower them to do that..

Unfortunately it usually the ones that won't take responsibility for themselves are the ones that wants the responsibility over others.

You remind me of Richard Nixon with your long winded stories and your carrying on....... :augentreher:

BTW, I've read both yours and Frogs side and I think the both of you are looking too far into such an issue and you're missing the point. I get it, you don't like others telling you what to do. But you must get past that and realize it's for the greater good.

2nd hand smoke is bad for you. It's been proven to cause cancer. And I DO have every right to go to a bar. If I don't "like smoke", I don't have another option. Like I said earlier, before the regulation, there was no other option. All bars were smoking. I should still have the option to go get a drink in a public establishment and enjoy a sandwich without being choked out by the smoke.

[fallout2600]

Doctors make an awesome living, but they're not as rich as many people believe. It's the insurance companies that are robbing the country blind.

I know they aren't as rich as many think and I'm not going down the class warfare road with this. But I know several doctors and they have told me how they bill out to the insurance companies. They jack up the price on purpose to see how much the insurance company is willing to pay. This is where regulation needs to take place if we are going to stick with the insurance game. There needs to be some sort of cap on the pricing of a visit, especially reoccurring visits. I hate to see it regulated, but this layer of the system has been abused and may require it.

[fallout2600]

You remind me of Richard Nixon with your long winded stories and your carrying on....... :augentreher:

BTW, I've read both yours and Frogs side and I think the both of you are looking too far into such an issue and you're missing the point. I get it, you don't like others telling you what to do. But you must get past that and realize it's for the greater good.

2nd hand smoke is bad for you. It's been proven to cause cancer. And I DO have every right to go to a bar. If I don't "like smoke", I don't have another option. Like I said earlier, before the regulation, there was no other option. All bars were smoking. I should still have the option to go get a drink in a public establishment and enjoy a sandwich without being choked out by the smoke.

But think about this, why haven't any bar owners opened "smoke free" bars?

[HD MM]

But think about this, why haven't any bar owners opened "smoke free" bars?

No one wants to be the first. It's like crossing the union line. It may be a good idea, but no one wants to be the first.

[fallout2600]

No one wants to be the first. It's like crossing the union line. It may be a good idea, but no one wants to be the first.

Wrong answer, b/c most of their business comes from smokers. If a "smoke free" was profitable, they would be everywhere.

[Skyhi]

2nd hand smoke is bad for you. It's been proven to cause cancer. And I DO have every right to go to a bar. If I don't "like smoke", I don't have another option. Like I said earlier, before the regulation, there was no other option. All bars were smoking. I should still have the option to go get a drink in a public establishment and enjoy a sandwich without being choked out by the smoke.

For once, I'm going to agree with the righties here. You do have the "right" to go to a business open to the public, but you don't have the right to tell the owner that she can't let people smoke.

What perplexes me is why nobody ever opened a smoke free bar back when other bars were always filled with smoke. You'd figure that since 75% of the population doesn't light up, such an establishment would have been pretty popular....

[Skyhi]

Wrong answer, b/c most of their business comes from smokers. If a "smoke free" was profitable, they would be everywhere.

I don't think most of their business comes from smokers because most people don't smoke.....

[HD MM]

Wrong answer, b/c most of their business comes from smokers. If a "smoke free" was profitable, they would be everywhere.

So smokers go outside now and the non-smokers don't have to breath in 2nd had cancerous toxins. Sounds like an equal compromise.

[fallout2600]

I don't think most of their business comes from smokers because most people don't smoke.....

Let me clean that up....I'm referencing bars in South Louisiana.....not sure what other bar scenes look like...

[Skyhi]

I will admit that even as somebody who likes to smoke a few cigs when I go out drinking, I like the smoke-free environment we now have in bars.....it was pretty nasty before.

[Bear Paws]

To the people who oppose smoking in public facilities, do you oppose the governing law to wear a seat belt in your car? It's practically the same thing. The government is telling you what to do in your own property. Why is that not such a big deal?

As soon as people can get over the fact that they oppose issues just because they "don't like being told what to do," then we can all realize common sense laws like this are put in place because not everyone has common sense and they help save lives.
OOOHHH big buggaboo. Seat belts Grrrrr http://www.websmileys.com/sm/mad/boese014.gif
Now you got me muttering to myself..I'm sputtering too much to even address your "common sense" argument. If we don't start allowing the stallion herd to begin thinning its self we will end up a herd of seat belt wearing shadow fearing sheep.

[Skyhi]

OOOHHH big buggaboo. Seat belts Grrrrr http://www.websmileys.com/sm/mad/boese014.gif
Now you got me muttering to myself..I'm sputtering too much to even address your "common sense" argument. If we don't start allowing the stallion herd to begin thinning its self we will end up a herd of seat belt wearing shadow fearing sheep.
You don't wear a seat belt?

[Bear Paws]

I will admit that even as somebody who likes to smoke a few cigs when I go out drinking, I like the smoke-free environment we now have in bars.....it was pretty nasty before. A social smoker??? WTF.. I had a friend like you.. I wanted to strangle him every time we'd go out. He'd smoke half my cigarettes and then not smoke again for weeks. And then complain I smoked in the car...

[fallout2600]

So smokers go outside now and the non-smokers don't have to breath in 2nd had cancerous toxins. Sounds like an equal compromise.

I agree, I was a smoker, I know the ills of smoking. But, I choose to avoid the bar scene b/c I don't want to be around the smoke. The difference is: I don't choose for the govt to tell the owners of a business how to run the business so I benefit. I just choose to go elsewhere and avoid infringing on the freedoms of others. I guess we can agree to disagree.

[HD MM]

OOOHHH big buggaboo. Seat belts Grrrrr http://www.websmileys.com/sm/mad/boese014.gif
Now you got me muttering to myself..I'm sputtering too much to even address your "common sense" argument. If we don't start allowing the stallion herd to begin thinning its self we will end up a herd of seat belt wearing shadow fearing sheep.

Oh, your "one of those" people....

Just bucking the authorities to be a rebel, huh?

"No one's gonna tell me what to do." --harrumph! :augentreher:

[Bear Paws]

You don't wear a seat belt? All the time.. I'm big on them.. I'm like you.. I resent being told I have to because some insurance lobby got the ear of some legislator to keep the rates high but lower the risk actuaries.

I used to drive race cars so I know what a 140 mph wreck feels like and how a harness keeps you in one piece. More over my big argument for wearing seat belts is that it keeps you in the seat in a known relitive position as your stabbing at the brake, clutch, and gas trying to avoid a even worse wreck.. I used to explain to my truck drivers how a simple swerve to avoid a mouse can turn into a major wreck very quickly because they "fell" out of the seat and lost their bearings and where hanging on to the wheel for support rather than steering it to avoid the guard rails all the while standing on the gas trying to get back upright in the seat.

That said...It still should be a matter of freedom of choice, education and responsibly rather than mandates. The problem of people not knowing how to drive is a bigger problem than not wearing seat belts.

[cybok0]

Your insisting on making the issue about you. Its not, or should not be, about you but rather the private property bar/restaurant owner and his rights to judgment and decision about the clientele he wants to serve. After all, its his risk/investment and time that's providing you with the oppertunity for you to patronize or not his establishment.

There is no inherent right for you to go to a bar, any bar. No differently than you may not like roughneck shot and beer bar or a hells angles roadhouse bar and would prefer the pink poodle pinky pointers bar., If you couldn't find a pinky bar you either would not go out or could hang with Annabell the Hog. Or would you complain to the town counsel to change licensing laws to mandate a pinky bar..

I live in a town with a NASCAR Race car track that is in a valley or bowl. Its been there 137 years and turned to stock cars racing from horse right after WWll. During the late 80s early 90s a developer sold scenic view property overlooking the valley and track. You know what happened. First mufflers, then limited hours, and the the big one.. Shut it down.. Well the town finally got some stones and wasn't going to close its biggest revenue stream for the sake of a couple ignorant homeowners free choice that bought property overlooking a freaking race track.. THere are plenty of mountain views with out racetracks around here.


Unfortunately it usually the ones that won't take responsibility for themselves are the ones that wants the responsibility over others.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

[cybok0]

For once, I'm going to agree with the righties here. You do have the "right" to go to a business open to the public, but you don't have the right to tell the owner that she can't let people smoke.

What perplexes me is why nobody ever opened a smoke free bar back when other bars were always filled with smoke. You'd figure that since 75% of the population doesn't light up, such an establishment would have been pretty popular....


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

[Skyhi]

That said...It still should be a matter of freedom of choice, education and responsibly rather than mandates. The problem of people not knowing how to drive is a bigger problem than not wearing seat belts.

What bothers me the most is that law-enforcement can pull somebody over for not wearing their seatbelt....I have no doubt that some cops are using this law as a pretext for unlawful searches.

If you couldn't get pulled over for it, I wouldn't have as big of a problem with it.

[Bear Paws]

Oh, your "one of those" people....

Just bucking the authorities to be a rebel, huh?

"No one's gonna tell me what to do." --harrumph! :augentreher: Yep... I feel like I earned that right.

[cybok0]

I for one don't believe the government has the right to tell bars to stop patrons from smoking.

As for seat belts, IMO I think it's ridiculous to make people wear seat belts but motorcycle riders don't need helmets.

[Derwin0]

What bothers me the most is that law-enforcement can pull somebody over for not wearing their seatbelt....I have no doubt that some cops are using this law as a pretext for unlawful searches.
Not in PA, it's only a secondary violation here. :)

As for seat belts, IMO I think it's ridiculous to make people wear seat belts but motorcycle riders don't need helmets.
Yeah, I never understood that one either, unless it's because an injured rider costs the state less than a dead one.

[Bob Haller]

In PA the seatbelt lawe changed you can now be pulled over for not wearing it, a very recent change

[msmith198025]

I for one don't believe the government has the right to tell bars to stop patrons from smoking.

As for seat belts, IMO I think it's ridiculous to make people wear seat belts but motorcycle riders don't need helmets.

I THINK it is a law for a motorcycle driver to have a helmet around here.

[froggigger]

You remind me of Richard Nixon with your long winded stories and your carrying on....... :augentreher:

BTW, I've read both yours and Frogs side and I think the both of you are looking too far into such an issue and you're missing the point. I get it, you don't like others telling you what to do. But you must get past that and realize it's for the greater good.

You are the one missing the point. Having the state tell one what they can and cannot do with their own property is a slap in the face of property rights. What most people don't understand is that without property rights, there can be no other rights. The very concept of rights only makes sense as property rights. Even human rights are property rights. Taking away property rights is only a "common good" for the state because it increases their power. That is, after all, the goal of most every government.


2nd hand smoke is bad for you. It's been proven to cause cancer. And I DO have every right to go to a bar. If I don't "like smoke", I don't have another option. Like I said earlier, before the regulation, there was no other option. All bars were smoking. I should still have the option to go get a drink in a public establishment and enjoy a sandwich without being choked out by the smoke.

You are correct that you can go to a bar that is open to the public. However, before government intrusion, the owner could decide who got in and who didn't. The owner was, and frankly still should be, the only one who decides who he will let enter his private property. Now, government says he can't discriminate, which is a flagrant violation of his property rights. Then, to top it off, the owner is forced to enforce rules the state has imposed upon his property, ie. non-smoking, etc. That's two property rights violations in one fell swoop. You have no "right" to go into any private establishment. You only enter if the owner allows it, or if government forces the owner to let you in by violating his property rights.

You do indeed have the option to enjoy a sandwich without being choked out by smoke. Go to a non-smoking bar. Not one around? Open one. If the demand is there it will be a money maker. OTOH, you can sit around and wait, hoping someone else will take the risk and open one. Entrepreneurs taking risks is what built this country. Take a risk, or complain. Complaining is a lot easier and that is the option most take. Not mentioning any names, of course. :big-wink:

[froggigger]

I for one don't believe the government has the right to tell bars to stop patrons from smoking.

As for seat belts, IMO I think it's ridiculous to make people wear seat belts but motorcycle riders don't need helmets.

Government has never been known for doing rational things.

[Bear Paws]

Ohhh... I love your gun permit, frogger..

[msmith198025]

You are the one missing the point. Having the state tell one what they can and cannot do with their own property is a slap in the face of property rights. What most people don't understand is that without property rights, there can be no other rights. The very concept of rights only makes sense as property rights. Even human rights are property rights. Taking away property rights is only a "common good" for the state because it increases their power. That is, after all, the goal of most every government.



You are correct that you can go to a bar that is open to the public. However, before government intrusion, the owner could decide who got in and who didn't. The owner was, and frankly still should be, the only one who decides who he will let enter his private property. Now, government says he can't discriminate, which is a flagrant violation of his property rights. Then, to top it off, the owner is forced to enforce rules the state has imposed upon his property, ie. non-smoking, etc. That's two property rights violations in one fell swoop. You have no "right" to go into any private establishment. You only enter if the owner allows it, or if government forces the owner to let you in by violating his property rights.

You do indeed have the option to enjoy a sandwich without being choked out by smoke. Go to a non-smoking bar. Not one around? Open one. If the demand is there it will be a money maker. OTOH, you can sit around and wait, hoping someone else will take the risk and open one. Entrepreneurs taking risks is what built this country. Take a risk, or complain. Complaining is a lot easier and that is the option most take. Not mentioning any names, of course. :big-wink:

Good point here as well.

And we wonder why this is a hot topic;)

[froggigger]

Ohhh... I love your gun permit, frogger..

Thanks. I needed a change I could really believe in. :flag::)

[Bob Haller]

Bruce Williams the talk show host advocates stiff fines for kids possessing tobacco. Say 500 bucks per offense.

GREAT IDEA!

another thing anyone under 18 getting public assistance, child welfare etc would get blood test for nicotine test positive no more benefits.

[Bear Paws]

Bruce Williams the talk show host advocates stiff fines for kids possessing tobacco. Say 500 bucks per offense.

GREAT IDEA!

another thing anyone under 18 getting public assistance, child welfare etc would get blood test for nicotine test positive no more benefits.I'll say it again.. Nicotine is no worse for you than a cheeseburger and fries..or caffine You don't need to smoke to get nicotine in your system.. So what is it your trying to regulate?
Thats about the dumbest idea I have heard yet. $500 fine or else what?? Gitmo???

[Bob Haller]

the parents would have to pay the fine for ids under 18. hit parents where it hurts the wallet.

another idea came up on that radio show. require all tobacco buyers to buy a tobacco license, at a cost of 500 bucks a year.

every day 3700 kids try their frst smoke about 1200 get addicted.

that must stop.

hey every parent could be required to bring their kid to a testing center a couple times a year, a simple blood test shows if the tested person smokes, presence of cotine a by product in the blood.

fine kid / parent if its there.

mandatory test could be done at their school, smoking kills

[Bob Haller]

its not just the nicotine, the health riskscome from the hundreds of other killer chemicals in smoke, like arsenic and other nasties

[HDRoberts]

As far as "public" smoking bans, if you ask me, there were only 2 choices:

1) Maintain public property rights, but allow people to do something to non-smokers in public places likely to do harm to them.

2) Mildly inconvenience smokers by making them go outside to smoke.

Simple choice if you ask me.

Some of you say the free market would provide non-smoking establishments. Well, 10 years ago in Ohio, their was a free market with respects to smoking in bars and restaurants. Guess what, few if any became fully non-smoking, despite 75% percent of the population being non-smokers. Why? If you don't give a non-smoker a choice, he will keep coming because there is no where else to go.

And I haven't seen to many bars in Ohio going out of business due to the law change.

[cybok0]

I THINK it is a law for a motorcycle driver to have a helmet around here.

Not in PA.

[msmith198025]

Not in PA.

Hmmm, it is amazing how laws such as that vary by state.

[cybok0]

Hmmm, it is amazing how laws such as that vary by state.

And they passed th no helmet law after they passed the seat belt law.

[Derwin0]

In PA the seatbelt lawe changed you can now be pulled over for not wearing it, a very recent changeThe change was only for under 18 yr. old drivers. It's still a secondary enforcement for adults.

[msmith198025]

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/jun/23/231900/hav--tampa-cigars-closing-tampa-plant/news-metro/


Tampa will lose part of its cigar heritage in August when Hav-A-Tampa shuts its factory near Seffner and lays off about 495 employees, closing a factory that has been operating since 1902.

[Bob Haller]

Imagine working your entire life for a company whos products create addicts then kill them?

[Bear Paws]

As far as "public" smoking bans, if you ask me, there were only 2 choices:

1) Maintain public property rights, but allow people to do something to non-smokers in public places likely to do harm to them.

2) Mildly inconvenience smokers by making them go outside to smoke.

Simple choice if you ask me.

Some of you say the free market would provide non-smoking establishments. Well, 10 years ago in Ohio, their was a free market with respects to smoking in bars and restaurants. Guess what, few if any became fully non-smoking, despite 75% percent of the population being non-smokers. Why? If you don't give a non-smoker a choice, he will keep coming because there is no where else to go.

And I haven't seen to many bars in Ohio going out of business due to the law change.
75%.:05: Now your making stuff up.. Or You missed the oppertunity of a life time..Oh.... maybe they all where under age and had to go to juice bars... :free-happy-smileys- I doubt there was a shortage of vegan stores to serve the .01% vegan population..

[Bob Haller]

about 22% now smokers 30 years ago it was near 40%

in some states the smoking rate is under 6%, like utah.

tobacco has a problem by killing its buyers they must constantly replace with young kids.

almost no adults take up smoking

[HDRoberts]

75%.:05: Now your making stuff up.. Or You missed the oppertunity of a life time..Oh.... maybe they all where under age and had to go to juice bars... :free-happy-smileys- I doubt there was a shortage of vegan stores to serve the .01% vegan population..

23.5 percent of men and 18.8 percent of women smoke.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4559

[froggigger]

As far as "public" smoking bans, if you ask me, there were only 2 choices:

1) Maintain public property rights, but allow people to do something to non-smokers in public places likely to do harm to them.

2) Mildly inconvenience smokers by making them go outside to smoke.

Simple choice if you ask me.

Some of you say the free market would provide non-smoking establishments. Well, 10 years ago in Ohio, their was a free market with respects to smoking in bars and restaurants. Guess what, few if any became fully non-smoking, despite 75% percent of the population being non-smokers. Why? If you don't give a non-smoker a choice, he will keep coming because there is no where else to go.

And I haven't seen to many bars in Ohio going out of business due to the law change.

Explain public property rights.

[Bear Paws]

23.5 percent of men and 18.8 percent of women smoke.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4559 Pssst... You said 75% 10 years ago..regardless, not trying to nit pick. That sounds high..but as a smoker back then it seemed like everyone did. With a market that big for a Non-smoking bar and not one was opened in Ohio..I'm floored. I have started businesses with a far less demand and customer base than that.. I just never noticed a need nor wanted to open a bar.. I was better at closing them..
Like I said, if you noticed that, and didn't fill the need you missed a oppertunity of a life time. Now the money is in private clubs where you can smoke without worry of the anti-smoking Nazis raiding the place.

[HDRoberts]

Explain public property rights.

Shoot me, I misspoke.:)

[HDRoberts]

Pssst... You said 75% 10 years ago..regardless, not trying to nit pick. That sounds high..but as a smoker back then it seemed like everyone did. With a market that big for a Non-smoking bar and not one was opened in Ohio..I'm floored. I have started businesses with a far less demand and customer base than that.. I just never noticed a need nor wanted to open a bar.. I was better at closing them..
Like I said, if you noticed that, and didn't fill the need you missed a oppertunity of a life time. Now the money is in private clubs where you can smoke without worry of the anti-smoking Nazis raiding the place.

While I doubt we went from 10% to 75% in just ten years. But the fact is, there was no reason to open a non-smoking bar (or restaurant) because one could just as easily open a smoking bar (or restaurant) and be successful, all while not worrying about pissing off the first drunk customer who tries to light up.

[fallout2600]

This is were the leftist is impatient and unrealistic. The no smoking campaign has resulted in less people smoking, its working. The thing is societal change takes years, you don't get results in a month or by simply passing a bill. Instead of infringing on civil liberties, simply keep up the anti-smoking propaganda...but don't try to change the world at the expense of others and by putting people out of business. Once again, if you don't like the second hand smoke, stay away from it....I'd rather see the left increase the price or taxes more to discourage smoking and let the public matter work themselves out.

[Bear Paws]

Shoot me, I misspoke.:)Why? There is such a thing.. Very "common" and legal too.. I believe Frogger just wanted to know what your understanding of it was because its generally misunderstood.

[HDRoberts]

Why? There is such a thing.. Very "common" and legal too.. I believe Frogger just wanted to know what your understanding of it was because its generally misunderstood.

I meant to say "private"

[Bear Paws]

I meant to say "private"Oh...
Been meaning to ask you. What is the significance of the "Migrant Mother" picture avatar to you??

[HDRoberts]

Oh...
Been meaning to ask you. What is the significance of the "Migrant Mother" picture avatar to you??

Probably should change it. Just using it as a symbol the the "Great Depression" we were (or are) headed for thanks to the banks and the auto industry.

[Skyhi]

This is were the leftist is impatient and unrealistic. The no smoking campaign has resulted in less people smoking, its working. The thing is societal change takes years, you don't get results in a month or by simply passing a bill. Instead of infringing on civil liberties, simply keep up the anti-smoking propaganda...but don't try to change the world at the expense of others and by putting people out of business. Once again, if you don't like the second hand smoke, stay away from it....I'd rather see the left increase the price or taxes more to discourage smoking and let the public matter work themselves out.
:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: Except the part about the information being propaganda.

[fallout2600]

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: Except the part about the information being propaganda.

I agree, propaganda was a poor choice of words. All of the medical info regarding cigarettes' effect on your body is sound science.

[Bob Haller]

Tobacco use on tv movies etc needs to be illegal, old shows like the twilight zone it can be electronically edited away.

advertising must be elminated too.

smoking around kids should be treated as exactly what it is child abuse......

smoking in outdoor events should be illegal except in restricted smoking areas

success is finally coming stop smoking before more die

[froggigger]

Shoot me, I misspoke.:)

:battle97: :D

[msmith198025]

:battle97: :D

We DO have guns....:D

[Bob Haller]

Probably should change it. Just using it as a symbol the the "Great Depression" we were (or are) headed for thanks to the banks and the auto industry.

do you believe banks and big auto are truly responsible?

[HDRoberts]

do you believe banks and big auto are truly responsible?

Mismanagement by those, yes, but there surely are others to blame. Not to mention the indirect responsibility on Bush for lack of oversight. And of course the American consumer for taking subprime loans to begin with.

[Bob Haller]

Mismanagement by those, yes, but there surely are others to blame. Not to mention the indirect responsibility on Bush for lack of oversight. And of course the American consumer for taking subprime loans to begin with.

lets not forget free trade, we cant compete with chinese making a buck a hour, no health and safety rules

[Bear Paws]

lets not forget free trade, we cant compete with chinese making a buck a hour, no health and safety rules It our fault we are not competitive.. Lets make our selves competitive Bob. Lower our wages to $1.00 hour and get rid of health and safety rules.

Or we simply don't trade with other countries. That way when you go to Walmart to buy your TV you can pay the American union price of $10,000 for a 32 incher.

[HDRoberts]

It our fault we are not competitive.. Lets make our selves competitive Bob. Lower our wages to $1.00 hour and get rid of health and safety rules.

Or we simply don't trade with other countries. That way when you go to Walmart to buy your TV you can pay the American union price of $10,000 for a 32 incher.

What are you saying, damned if we do, damned if we don't? No middle ground?