| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| A ban I could get behind. https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7049 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Uncle Fester [ Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | A ban I could get behind. |
http://biggovernment.com/reasontv/2011/ ... ore-323700 Quote: That’s right, starting September 1 , more than 500 Michigan restaurant and bar owners will begin turning state lawmakers away from their establishments. State Senator So-and-so wants a brew? Too bad. Politicians won’t be served until they revisit the state’s 2010 smoking ban, which, owners say, has devastated business, and left bars like Sporty O’Tooles on the verge of collapse. As a respiratory therapist, and as a person I hate smoking, but I support your right to poison yourself (and job safety!), I would love to see how the bars would enforce this. Granted most politicians do their problem drinking at home. |
|
| Author: | Xequecal [ Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A ban I could get behind. |
Isn't the point of smoking bans in public places to prevent the smokers from poisoning everyone else? |
|
| Author: | Aizle [ Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Here in MN, the smoking ban has overall greatly increased restaurant business. Our local bar/restaurant went from only having a few die hard regulars there to being packed on most nights, especially at dinner time. |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
All these smoking bans are a form of hysteria in my opinion. If you don't like the smoke, don't go near it. Also restaurant owners know which policies will get them more business. |
|
| Author: | Rafael [ Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Aizle: If MN were to rescind this law, do you think establishments would then voluntarily set such limitations? Xequecal: No. I've never once been poisoned by a person smoking in a Michigan establishment. That, therefore, couldn't possibly be the intent. |
|
| Author: | LadyKate [ Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Aizle wrote: Here in MN, the smoking ban has overall greatly increased restaurant business. Our local bar/restaurant went from only having a few die hard regulars there to being packed on most nights, especially at dinner time. Here as well. |
|
| Author: | Xequecal [ Fri Sep 02, 2011 6:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Rafael wrote: Aizle: If MN were to rescind this law, do you think establishments would then voluntarily set such limitations? Xequecal: No. I've never once been poisoned by a person smoking in a Michigan establishment. That, therefore, couldn't possibly be the intent. Yes, yes you have. You don't have to actually die for it to be considered poison. What do you think secondhand smoke is? There is nothing wrong with a smoking ban. If a restaurant was putting lead into their food, would that be OK as long as they were upfront about it and the people were stupid enough to still eat the food? Of course not. |
|
| Author: | Hannibal [ Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I feel the decision should be up to the individual business owner. Or they need to stop being little punks and just outright ban tobacco instead of this incrimental BS. |
|
| Author: | Wwen [ Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Lex Luthor wrote: All these smoking bans are a form of hysteria in my opinion. If you don't like the smoke, don't go near it. Also restaurant owners know which policies will get them more business. The 2nd hand smoke "facts and figures" aren't that honest either. A bar is the most silly place to ban smoking anyway. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | A ban I could get behind. |
The OP is interesting. I would rather that establishments be free to make their own rules. If there is money to he made in being smoke free or smoking then let's go there. Public places such as post offices schools and government buildings are a different issue as those who wish to avoid second hand smoke can't easily avoid these places. I am however going to reiterate my point that I think if smokers did a better job of being respectful and cleaning up after themselves they wouldn't be in this mess. |
|
| Author: | Wwen [ Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The pre-school should probably be smoke free. |
|
| Author: | Micheal [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 2:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ban tobacco entirely. Make possession at least a misdemeanor punishable by a $100 fine. Okay, over the top, but I really dislike the smell and the smoke. |
|
| Author: | Hannibal [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Micheal wrote: Ban tobacco entirely. Make possession at least a misdemeanor punishable by a $100 fine. Okay, over the top, but I really dislike the smell and the smoke. I dislike the look and smell of overweight people. Can we ban them from places too? Its a choice just like smoking. |
|
| Author: | Rafael [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Xequecal wrote: Rafael wrote: Aizle: If MN were to rescind this law, do you think establishments would then voluntarily set such limitations? Xequecal: No. I've never once been poisoned by a person smoking in a Michigan establishment. That, therefore, couldn't possibly be the intent. Yes, yes you have. You don't have to actually die for it to be considered poison. What do you think secondhand smoke is? There is nothing wrong with a smoking ban. If a restaurant was putting lead into their food, would that be OK as long as they were upfront about it and the people were stupid enough to still eat the food? Of course not. Actually, you're 100% completely wrong. I've never been to Michigan nor any establishment within the state so it's a little bit impossible for me to have been poisoned by a smoker there. Now, Mr. Knows-It-All-Douche-Canoe, I'll let you figure out exactly why this point is critical. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | A ban I could get behind. |
Mike if they banned tobacco who would pay for SCHIP? |
|
| Author: | Uncle Fester [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 12:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A ban I could get behind. |
Banning tobacco, prohibition 2.0 )3.0) or major escalation of the drug war? |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 12:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Second hand smoke has never been conclusively shown to raise risk of anything to a level that is significant. |
|
| Author: | LadyKate [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 1:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Elmarnieh wrote: Second hand smoke has never been conclusively shown to raise risk of anything to a level that is significant. The CDC and the Surgeon General say otherwise...Just clicking on the first article, research shows second-hand smoke raises the risk of cardiovascular disease by 25-30%. That seems pretty significant. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/secondhand_smoke/index.htm |
|
| Author: | Micheal [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 2:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Hannibal wrote: Micheal wrote: Ban tobacco entirely. Make possession at least a misdemeanor punishable by a $100 fine. Okay, over the top, but I really dislike the smell and the smoke. I dislike the look and smell of overweight people. Can we ban them from places too? Its a choice just like smoking. I think segregation would be the answer there. But understand that the really good cooks would be working for the overweight people, who appreciate and are willing to pay for the food. Lets also segregate all the nerds, geeks, and fankids out, give them separate places where they can gatherin huge herds and just annoy each other. Like oh, conventions. Micheal. |
|
| Author: | LadyKate [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 4:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I like fat people. They're cuddly. |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 4:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
As a non-smoker, I have to say the single most offensive thing about second-hand smoke is the holier-than-thou non-smokers who complain about it. |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 5:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
LadyKate wrote: Elmarnieh wrote: Second hand smoke has never been conclusively shown to raise risk of anything to a level that is significant. The CDC and the Surgeon General say otherwise...Just clicking on the first article, research shows second-hand smoke raises the risk of cardiovascular disease by 25-30%. That seems pretty significant. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/secondhand_smoke/index.htm Read the CDC's actual reports. The CDC is saying things that don't match up to their findings (again). |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Corolinth wrote: As a non-smoker, I have to say the single most offensive thing about second-hand smoke is the holier-than-thou non-smokers who complain about it. This. I don't smoke, I don't like smoking, but I'm not going to be a whiny little ***** about someone that is smoking near me. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A ban I could get behind. |
That's all fine and good. My problem is that a company decides that they don't want smoking on their property, and they give employees seven ways of **** because they're just enforcing the policies that won't let them light up on the property. |
|
| Author: | Rynar [ Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Müs wrote: Corolinth wrote: As a non-smoker, I have to say the single most offensive thing about second-hand smoke is the holier-than-thou non-smokers who complain about it. This. I don't smoke, I don't like smoking, but I'm not going to be a whiny little ***** about someone that is smoking near me. Sort of this, unless I own the property the proposed smoking is in. No smoking in or on my property. *****. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|