AC bans smoking!
- Thread starter 21forme
- Start date
A Lotta There, There
If, if 2nd hand smoke is harmful then that should make the issue clear. As far as smoking rooms in bars or smoking rooms in casinos. What about the employees? There are a lot of issues involved. Should they be forced to work smoking rooms? Should they be paid more? How should insurers look at those jobs?
If, if 2nd hand smoke is harmful then that should make the issue clear. As far as smoking rooms in bars or smoking rooms in casinos. What about the employees? There are a lot of issues involved. Should they be forced to work smoking rooms? Should they be paid more? How should insurers look at those jobs?
Excellent questions, and big 'ifs.' If it can be scientifically proven that smoking sickens non-consenting people around the smoker, the product should be banned, just as if it was benzene or some other forbidden chemical. OSHA would kick in where the employees are concerned.
On the other hand, if it merely offends non-consenting people, smoking falls into the category of BO or farting or excessive perfume- disgusting and a business would be wise to ban it or segregate it within its doors, but no need for the law to intervene just like they don't intervene with perfume that makes you gag.
The question is ultimately a scientific one that both sides seem to be avoiding: is "second-hand smoke" a legitimate health hazard, or is it not? The reason both sides are avoiding the science is: yes, cigarette smoke probably is as dangerous as a lot of other substances that are banned, so the casinos and bars and other businesses that benefit from smoking don't want to go there. But... a lot of those substances that are banned based on weak evidence having to do more with lawsuits than science, so the lawyers and activists who make their living banning this and suing for that don't want to go there either!
That's why this issue remains, so to speak, up in the air.
On the other hand, if it merely offends non-consenting people, smoking falls into the category of BO or farting or excessive perfume- disgusting and a business would be wise to ban it or segregate it within its doors, but no need for the law to intervene just like they don't intervene with perfume that makes you gag.
The question is ultimately a scientific one that both sides seem to be avoiding: is "second-hand smoke" a legitimate health hazard, or is it not? The reason both sides are avoiding the science is: yes, cigarette smoke probably is as dangerous as a lot of other substances that are banned, so the casinos and bars and other businesses that benefit from smoking don't want to go there. But... a lot of those substances that are banned based on weak evidence having to do more with lawsuits than science, so the lawyers and activists who make their living banning this and suing for that don't want to go there either!
That's why this issue remains, so to speak, up in the air.
Hey fr0g
I know what you are saying. I guess I just believe in that thought that you lose the right to stretch out your arms when someone is standing beside you.
When I come from a casino, restaurant or whatever where smoking is allowed, I taste it on my lips, my clothes reek, and I get nasty headaches. We know too much fatty foods are not good for us, but, you eating four Big Macs in a day has no effect on me if you eat them beside me. Four cigs beside me is a different story. I think we need some common sense to prevail with this issue. Nothing personal my friend.
I know what you are saying. I guess I just believe in that thought that you lose the right to stretch out your arms when someone is standing beside you.
When I come from a casino, restaurant or whatever where smoking is allowed, I taste it on my lips, my clothes reek, and I get nasty headaches. We know too much fatty foods are not good for us, but, you eating four Big Macs in a day has no effect on me if you eat them beside me. Four cigs beside me is a different story. I think we need some common sense to prevail with this issue. Nothing personal my friend.
lol i'm right with you my man. i just got this vision of a mandy, pandy pussy-wussie world like unto that matrix movie where everyone has these peach blossom visions of life and in reality they are asleep dreaming while all hooked up to this colossal matrix thats feeding off of them.
but yeah, truly since all this stop smoking agenda has over taken the nation i have at least learned to become sensitive to folks in public. except one time i was exploring seven caves in Ohio and was smoking along this hiking trail. would you believe it i was chastised for that by some clown? i told him to go f%^k himself lol. i was bigger than him lol.
but anyway i wouldn't feel safe about the Big Mac's and all. there's dopes out there right now working on controlling those behaviours as well. :whip:
but yeah, truly since all this stop smoking agenda has over taken the nation i have at least learned to become sensitive to folks in public. except one time i was exploring seven caves in Ohio and was smoking along this hiking trail. would you believe it i was chastised for that by some clown? i told him to go f%^k himself lol. i was bigger than him lol.
but anyway i wouldn't feel safe about the Big Mac's and all. there's dopes out there right now working on controlling those behaviours as well. :whip:
And here we go!
Right in the middle of this individuals' rights discussion on smoking comes the hilarious reports out of, guess where? My City by The Bay, that there is now a local controversy brewing regarding the presence of SECOND-HAND MEAT in city restaurants. The complainants in this case being our beloved Vegans. They are claiming the restaurants featuring indoor barbecues and grills are unhealthy since they emit "poisonous" toxins into the air, just like second-hand smoke.
Yes folks, the day is rapidly approaching when the local Benihana and Lone Star Steak House will become a thing of the past as we know them. All those internal carbon emissions invading our pristine lungs, slowly rotting away our bronchi until our last air-cluthching breath is excruciatingly drawn.
I don't need to say "I told you so", but I'll say it anyway. Smoking was only the first step down this slippery slope and, as history has taught us, we all laughed at this in the beginning only to weep later, tears falling upon the once sacred documents of the Consitution and the laws protecting our personal freedoms. Perhaps the Reverend Wright is indeed prophetic by proclaming "God damn America!
Right in the middle of this individuals' rights discussion on smoking comes the hilarious reports out of, guess where? My City by The Bay, that there is now a local controversy brewing regarding the presence of SECOND-HAND MEAT in city restaurants. The complainants in this case being our beloved Vegans. They are claiming the restaurants featuring indoor barbecues and grills are unhealthy since they emit "poisonous" toxins into the air, just like second-hand smoke.
Yes folks, the day is rapidly approaching when the local Benihana and Lone Star Steak House will become a thing of the past as we know them. All those internal carbon emissions invading our pristine lungs, slowly rotting away our bronchi until our last air-cluthching breath is excruciatingly drawn.
I don't need to say "I told you so", but I'll say it anyway. Smoking was only the first step down this slippery slope and, as history has taught us, we all laughed at this in the beginning only to weep later, tears falling upon the once sacred documents of the Consitution and the laws protecting our personal freedoms. Perhaps the Reverend Wright is indeed prophetic by proclaming "God damn America!
You're exactly right. My idea for separate smoking rooms and/or tables does not work if smoking is found to be injurious. My guess is that we'll have the electric car back before that final, causal relationship is established. As for employees in smoking rooms, or on smoking tables, isn't it feasible to just hire existing smokers for those jobs (or nonsmokers willing to risk the danger)? No need to give hazardous duty pay, since there is an ample supply of smokers.
Also, you bring up another question--just because it is injurious to smoke, why should government be able to ban it? Why can't I injure myself if I want? To say that it is injurious to the common good is too socialistic for me. We don't exactly live in a monastery. I can drink alcohol to excess. I can overeat. I can sky dive. I can climb mountains in wintertime. I knew a guy in the service who would bite into his cocktail glass and eat a part of it (don't try this at home). People will always insist on practices that may be injurious to their health. But that's the point of it--it's their health.
A casino could have a smoking room that is isolated from other rooms and in which only smokers work. It seems almost sinful to completely separate smoking from gambling even if second hand smoke is found to cause cancer. I'm all for saving the last bastion of sin and depravity (as I think Sagefr0g put it) if at all possible. I'm of the opinion that you can't legislate morality, nor prudent behavior, for that matter.
I do care if people practice injurious things without insurance. They should have no such right. Then they are infringing on my rights since government, which I pay for, will have to pick up the cost of their medical needs. And insurance companies should not be allowed to pass the cost of their risky behavior on to us. Instead, over-eaters (I am one), smokers, drug addicts, speeders, drunks, etc, should have to pay higher insurance premiums for their risky behavior.
Am I going too far in your opinion? I'd like to know. As:dog:lan
Also, you bring up another question--just because it is injurious to smoke, why should government be able to ban it? Why can't I injure myself if I want? To say that it is injurious to the common good is too socialistic for me. We don't exactly live in a monastery. I can drink alcohol to excess. I can overeat. I can sky dive. I can climb mountains in wintertime. I knew a guy in the service who would bite into his cocktail glass and eat a part of it (don't try this at home). People will always insist on practices that may be injurious to their health. But that's the point of it--it's their health.
A casino could have a smoking room that is isolated from other rooms and in which only smokers work. It seems almost sinful to completely separate smoking from gambling even if second hand smoke is found to cause cancer. I'm all for saving the last bastion of sin and depravity (as I think Sagefr0g put it) if at all possible. I'm of the opinion that you can't legislate morality, nor prudent behavior, for that matter.
I do care if people practice injurious things without insurance. They should have no such right. Then they are infringing on my rights since government, which I pay for, will have to pick up the cost of their medical needs. And insurance companies should not be allowed to pass the cost of their risky behavior on to us. Instead, over-eaters (I am one), smokers, drug addicts, speeders, drunks, etc, should have to pay higher insurance premiums for their risky behavior.
Am I going too far in your opinion? I'd like to know. As:dog:lan
exactly, exactly exactly! compare these actions to how we'd react if freedom of speech was censored in some way. and by the way there is some idiot politician out there now that wants to make message boards such as this one to where you can't have anonimynity. wouldn't that be great for the likes of us tryin to be advantage players? but yes it's things like this eventually the bastards are gonna turn human society into such a boring, contrived existance that none of us are gonna want to live in it.
lol bless you aslan your a product of the human race.
there was a time when people payed out of pocket for things such as medical expenses. it was possible to do so before insurance became so popular and helped drive up the costs dramatically. but you seem to assume so many actions have got to be and are only right. as where you get resentful at some poor dumb slob that manages to make himself sick. so you seem to think it's wrong that he should have to take responsibility for himself and instead society or mankind should. where do you get off thinking like that? i seriously don't think it comes from your own sense of right and wrong. it's like we become brainwashed into thinking this sort of nonsense is right just because that's the direction the agenda makers are pushing society towards.
you know what i think? i think these agenda maker types are really little worms that are worming there ways into our very hearts and very souls. the end result being we might as well be dead instead of bothering to die.
there was a time when people payed out of pocket for things such as medical expenses. it was possible to do so before insurance became so popular and helped drive up the costs dramatically. but you seem to assume so many actions have got to be and are only right. as where you get resentful at some poor dumb slob that manages to make himself sick. so you seem to think it's wrong that he should have to take responsibility for himself and instead society or mankind should. where do you get off thinking like that? i seriously don't think it comes from your own sense of right and wrong. it's like we become brainwashed into thinking this sort of nonsense is right just because that's the direction the agenda makers are pushing society towards.
you know what i think? i think these agenda maker types are really little worms that are worming there ways into our very hearts and very souls. the end result being we might as well be dead instead of bothering to die.
Yes, but if those who take the risks (smokers, speeders, etc.) pay proportionately higher insurance premiums, then the cost will go to them, not spread over all of us. We should not have to pay for the risky behavior of others. Making smoking illegal will not necessarily stop people from smoking. It doesn't stop people from taking drugs. I'd rather insurance companies identify smokers and drug users and pass the higher costs onto them. Insurance companies should be allowed to test applicants for drug use, smoking, etc. They should also be allowed to refuse claims where applicants have lied about their risky behaviors.
It's a good idea in theory, but would never work. Smokers would never be able to afford the premiums they would be charged. The concept of insurance is to minimize price variance by using a large population base to spread the risk (sounds a little like BJ, doesn't it?)
And let people die in the street or in their beds? That's what they do in Europe, where there is socialized medicine, cost containment is practiced, and the gov't decides who lives and dies. However, Americans always want the best and the most at any cost. For example, in England, if you have kidney failure and you're over 55, you are denied dialysis and just stay home and wait to die.
And let people die in the street or in their beds? That's what they do in Europe, where there is socialized medicine, cost containment is practiced, and the gov't decides who lives and dies. However, Americans always want the best and the most at any cost. For example, in England, if you have kidney failure and you're over 55, you are denied dialysis and just stay home and wait to die.
Well, then it doesn't hurt that much either, and companies already charge premiums for some behaviors, for example, persons with poor driving records, as well as rewarding persons with good behavioral traits, such as years without an accident, no violation points, etc. So overall we have the best possible system already. We just need to keep government out of it. And out of our lives. When it comes to whether I wear a helmet when I ride my Gold Wing, it's strictly my business. In fact, I bet there's more chance of me being injured but living wearing a helmet thus causing greater expense to insurance companies. Death has few health care implications, other than life insurance, and life rates are ridiculously low anyway, because people generally don't find death, especially their own, to be acceptable or risk worthy behavior. Those who drive without helmets are either idiots (deserving of death and likely to die to boot) or extremely proficient (avoiding accident scenarios and able to take quick injury-saving measures when faced with unavoidable accident situations).
[Hell, I think I'd argue with God Himself. My Mom used to say I just like to argue!]
That's just what we need!! The government deciding who lives and dies! Do they change parties depending on who gets elected? lol If you're willing to pay, you have the right to get the best your money can buy. People from the socialized countries need us to stay unsocialized so that they have somewhere to come and get the operation they need which their country either won't provide or will not give them a doctor that has actually performed the operation on human beings. My vet is good, but I'd rather have a real doctor when push comes to shove.
lol, no it didn't mean that. but that's a good one.
it's not even the 'rob Peter to pay Paul' and then turn around and put the screws to Peter and maybe screw Paul later too principle i'm talkin about here. lol
it's the principle where i'm right seventy years ago so you and I are right, but now things have changed but i'm still right and you are wrong principle. the let's leave some Marines behind principle instead of leave no Marine behind principle but let's just say we leave no Marine behind. the ole bait and switch game. the don't worry we will take care of you thing and then some how you find your butt swinging and twisting in the breeze sort of deal while your buddies stand there watching and pointing shaking there heads at your foolishness but secretly hoping they wont be next. the ole you shoulda read the 743 pages of fine print deal so yeah you are wrong and of course we are right. the ole let's do everything fair and right and convince everyone that we are right sort of thing even if we screw a few people along the way sort of thing.
sorta like when the insurance companies started there whole little ponzi scheme and oh my all of a sudden they are lookin at this whole giant mass of post war baby boomers that they have merrily lead down the garden path feeling all warm and fuzzy and then somebody realizes hey we can't deliver on the promises we made sort of thing. solution pull the rug out from under a few millions of people. no big deal.
it's not even the 'rob Peter to pay Paul' and then turn around and put the screws to Peter and maybe screw Paul later too principle i'm talkin about here. lol
it's the principle where i'm right seventy years ago so you and I are right, but now things have changed but i'm still right and you are wrong principle. the let's leave some Marines behind principle instead of leave no Marine behind principle but let's just say we leave no Marine behind. the ole bait and switch game. the don't worry we will take care of you thing and then some how you find your butt swinging and twisting in the breeze sort of deal while your buddies stand there watching and pointing shaking there heads at your foolishness but secretly hoping they wont be next. the ole you shoulda read the 743 pages of fine print deal so yeah you are wrong and of course we are right. the ole let's do everything fair and right and convince everyone that we are right sort of thing even if we screw a few people along the way sort of thing.
sorta like when the insurance companies started there whole little ponzi scheme and oh my all of a sudden they are lookin at this whole giant mass of post war baby boomers that they have merrily lead down the garden path feeling all warm and fuzzy and then somebody realizes hey we can't deliver on the promises we made sort of thing. solution pull the rug out from under a few millions of people. no big deal.
Murphy's Law is always in effect. This is assumed in any reasoned discussion. Also, Catch-22 is fully operative and functioning like a well greased wheel. I would not intentionally stand on a carpeted area if I were you, but that's just my take on the way things work. Sometimes we have no choice, in which case, the alcoholic's prayer is recommended. "Oh, Lord, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things which should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other." Wouldn't you think that an activity as important as life would come with a set of instructions? Lol
PS--Some say the Holy Bible is the Operator's Manual for Homo Sapiens. Works for me! There are a few fuzzy parts, but that's partly how it works!
PS--Some say the Holy Bible is the Operator's Manual for Homo Sapiens. Works for me! There are a few fuzzy parts, but that's partly how it works!
Last edited: