Comments on: Where There’s Smoke

By: Randyknowsbest

Randyknowsbest — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:26:47 +0000

If health is the primary concern, how long till we have a ban on alcohol consumption, being fat, practicing good hygene? Its all about health right???

By: Randyknowsbest

Randyknowsbest — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:26:47 +0000

If health is the primary concern, how long till we have a ban on alcohol consumption, being fat, practicing good hygene? Its all about health right???

By: Think Again

Think Again — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:22:51 +0000

Oh yeah–look up “”public acocmodation.” Any business that opens its doors to the public, exposes itself to government regulation. From Revenue licenses to zoning and fire-inspection laws. For our safety, tax collection, access, etc.

No business opens its doors in a vacuum. Which public ordinances would you suggest businesses start ignoring? Is a smoking ordinance more or less problematic than plumbing ordinances? Or safety ordinances? Or state tax revenue statutes?

Government has a right and an obligation to impose and enforce health and safety regulations. It has been so since we became a republic.

By: Think Again

Think Again — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:19:23 +0000

General, you relaly think smoking laws are the reason those folks lost their jobs?

Rico, the Yellow Pages point was–and still is–that I couldn't find any establishments there (or elsewhere) that indicated, via ads, whether they allowed smoking or not. My thumbs are fat, but my head isn't.

Try to keep up, huh?

By: generalsn

generalsn — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:26:23 +0000

45 more employees of Illinois casinos can now enjoy all the smoke free air they want since they got laid off. The Indian casino close to the Indiana state line has a huge area for expansion, enough to build separate buildings if needed. They probably see this coming. They'll probably join the lobbying effort for a smoke free Indiana, just like Illinois politicians asked Wisconsin to ban smoking to keep Illinois residents from going to their bars.

By: Rico

Rico — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:07:53 +0000

We are discussing private businesses open to the public. That is not the same as public property. Government entities have the right, in my opinion, to ban smoking in government (public) buildings. How does it violate an individual's rights if he is afforded a choice of whether he frequents an establisment that allows smoking or not?

Are there costs to society? Sure(and another reason for insurance reform--not healthcare reform!). Is smoking more costly to society than, say, obesity? Some experts say no. Next on the list for these types is probably to illegalize fast food. Think I'm kidding? Wait and see.

And your Yellow Pages argument is pretty lame even for you. Ya know what else are in the Yellow Pages? Phone numbers. Use your famously fat fingers on your Blackberry and make a call. Wow! That was tough.

By: Think Again

Think Again — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:30:43 +0000

Rico, you just don't get it. Stop making assumptions about my beliefs. You're wrong almost every time..."guilt by extension" never works. I give up.

I don't like a Nanny State, either. But I'm tired of paying the costs associated with smoking. We all do. Smoking bans work to promote public health--that's a proven fact. And it is not a loss of your rights because once you set foot into the public arena, your rights are absolute until they meet my rights--to clean air and clothes, for instance. In almost every principle of law that's the accepted baseline.

I won't capmaign for or against this either. Smoking is a disgusting habit that produces byproducts which make us ill. But the folks who don't want smoking bans, had better resort to some new tactics. The current ones aren't working.

As for knowing what restaurants allow or prohibit smoking--I've checked the popular establishments listed here and others. There is no mention of their smoking status in their Yellow Page ads, or elsewhere that I can find. It might be a good marketing technique, tho.

By: Matt Stone

Matt Stone — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:37:31 +0000

Honestly, I have nothing against this. Cities/counties and states are well within their right to prohibit such activity unless a state constitution prohibits this (And I don't know of one that does).

That being said, I'm not going to go out and campaign for it. I can tolerate smoke, and there are plenty of places that are smoke-free. But if it passes, I won't be losing any sleep.

By: Rico

Rico — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:42:13 +0000

So, since plenty of others have 'figured it out', then it must be fact? The fallacies in your attempts at logic never cease. And I know smoking is unhealthy, but that really isn't the point. It's about government interference in private enterprises. Oh, no wonder you like it.
These anti-smoking groups will never be completely happy until smoking is banned. They don't believe in individual responsibility. Generally, these champions of the 'Nanny state' only promote individual choice when it involves killing the unborn.
Incidentally, bans on smoking in one's car or residence have already been instituted (at least attempted)in some cities across America. Rights are always taken away incrementally.

By: Melissa

Melissa — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:12:57 +0000

So true Ban It Now. It is completely embarrassing to have guests come from out of Indiana (or even out of Indy) only to find we are still living in the past, smoking in bars, bowling alleys, etc. Throw in the fact that people work in these places so that they can pay their bills, and it's even more ridiculous that we keep the smoking going.

Let's do this now. Get rid of the smoke!