http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110421/ap_o...oking_bans

Yay Big Brother!

I love this paragraph: The science on the impact of smoking bans is younger. Because it takes years or even decades for cancers to develop, there's little information on the impact of bans on cancer rates. But studies have already charted declines in adult heart attack rates and in childhood asthma attacks after smoking bans were adopted in some communities.

Well duh. I could ban all processed foods and we'd immediately be a healthier nation, but that's not what America is about.

Smokers need a collective bargaining agreement.

(04-21-2011 04:44 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  I love this paragraph: The science on the impact of smoking bans is younger. Because it takes years or even decades for cancers to develop, there's little information on the impact of bans on cancer rates. But studies have already charted declines in adult heart attack rates and in childhood asthma attacks after smoking bans were adopted in some communities.

Well duh. I could ban all processed foods and we'd immediately be a healthier nation, but that's not what America is about.

Except that nobody is making me eat processed foods.

(04-21-2011 05:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 04:44 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  I love this paragraph: The science on the impact of smoking bans is younger. Because it takes years or even decades for cancers to develop, there's little information on the impact of bans on cancer rates. But studies have already charted declines in adult heart attack rates and in childhood asthma attacks after smoking bans were adopted in some communities.

Well duh. I could ban all processed foods and we'd immediately be a healthier nation, but that's not what America is about.

Except that nobody is making me eat processed foods.

Wait. Who's making you smoke?

(04-21-2011 05:19 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 05:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 04:44 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  I love this paragraph: The science on the impact of smoking bans is younger. Because it takes years or even decades for cancers to develop, there's little information on the impact of bans on cancer rates. But studies have already charted declines in adult heart attack rates and in childhood asthma attacks after smoking bans were adopted in some communities.

Well duh. I could ban all processed foods and we'd immediately be a healthier nation, but that's not what America is about.

Except that nobody is making me eat processed foods.

Wait. Who's making you smoke?

What will the States and to a lesser extent the Federal Government do to replace the tax revenues received from the cigarette taxes?

They have a vested interest in letting people smoke.

(04-21-2011 05:19 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 05:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 04:44 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  I love this paragraph: The science on the impact of smoking bans is younger. Because it takes years or even decades for cancers to develop, there's little information on the impact of bans on cancer rates. But studies have already charted declines in adult heart attack rates and in childhood asthma attacks after smoking bans were adopted in some communities.

Well duh. I could ban all processed foods and we'd immediately be a healthier nation, but that's not what America is about.

Except that nobody is making me eat processed foods.

Wait. Who's making you smoke?

Or eat in a privately-owned restaurant that allows smoking.

I hate smoky rooms, but this decision should have ALWAYS been up to the business owner. In the free market, the consumer would have made the decision easy.

(04-21-2011 05:39 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 05:19 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 05:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 04:44 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  I love this paragraph: The science on the impact of smoking bans is younger. Because it takes years or even decades for cancers to develop, there's little information on the impact of bans on cancer rates. But studies have already charted declines in adult heart attack rates and in childhood asthma attacks after smoking bans were adopted in some communities.

Well duh. I could ban all processed foods and we'd immediately be a healthier nation, but that's not what America is about.

Except that nobody is making me eat processed foods.

Wait. Who's making you smoke?

Or eat in a privately-owned restaurant that allows smoking.

I hate smoky rooms, but this decision should have ALWAYS been up to the business owner. In the free market, the consumer would have made the decision easy.

This.

(04-22-2011 07:55 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 05:39 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 05:19 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 05:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 04:44 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  I love this paragraph: The science on the impact of smoking bans is younger. Because it takes years or even decades for cancers to develop, there's little information on the impact of bans on cancer rates. But studies have already charted declines in adult heart attack rates and in childhood asthma attacks after smoking bans were adopted in some communities.
Well duh. I could ban all processed foods and we'd immediately be a healthier nation, but that's not what America is about.

Except that nobody is making me eat processed foods.

Wait. Who's making you smoke?

Or eat in a privately-owned restaurant that allows smoking.
I hate smoky rooms, but this decision should have ALWAYS been up to the business owner. In the free market, the consumer would have made the decision easy.

This.

Yes.

(04-21-2011 05:39 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 05:19 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 05:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 04:44 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  I love this paragraph: The science on the impact of smoking bans is younger. Because it takes years or even decades for cancers to develop, there's little information on the impact of bans on cancer rates. But studies have already charted declines in adult heart attack rates and in childhood asthma attacks after smoking bans were adopted in some communities.

Well duh. I could ban all processed foods and we'd immediately be a healthier nation, but that's not what America is about.

Except that nobody is making me eat processed foods.

Wait. Who's making you smoke?

Or eat in a privately-owned restaurant that allows smoking.

I hate smoky rooms, but this decision should have ALWAYS been up to the business owner. In the free market, the consumer would have made the decision easy.

True.

I don't smoke. I don't like to be around smokers. I don't know why anyone would pick up such a disgusting, unhealthy habit.

And because of said predilections, I am able to almost completely avoid second-hand smoke, while eating, drinking, and walking pretty much whenever I want.

I'm enough of a libertarian to believe that every person should go to hell in the handcar of their own choosing. If that's the route smokers want to take, knock yourselves out. If your habits were truly a threat to me, I'd have a problem, but I don't see the rampant oppression of non-smokers by smokers that must be going on somewhere.

Yea this is bullsh1t.

And yes I'm a smoker.

(04-22-2011 08:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-22-2011 07:55 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 05:39 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 05:19 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 05:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Except that nobody is making me eat processed foods.

Wait. Who's making you smoke?

Or eat in a privately-owned restaurant that allows smoking.
I hate smoky rooms, but this decision should have ALWAYS been up to the business owner. In the free market, the consumer would have made the decision easy.

This.

Yes.

It's true that no one is making me go to any bars, restaurants, stores or malls. I would like to be able to go somewhere without leaving the place reeking of smoke and gasping for oxygen (assuming I could stand being in there without my contact lenses killing me), never mind whatever health hazards there are. And then having to air out my coat for 3 days. I don't think that's too much to ask.

(04-22-2011 09:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's true that no one is making me go to any bars, restaurants, stores or malls. I would like to be able to go somewhere without leaving the place reeking of smoke and gasping for oxygen (assuming I could stand being in there without my contact lenses killing me), never mind whatever health hazards there are. And then having to air out my coat for 3 days. I don't think that's too much to ask.

I don't think it's too much to ask to allow a business owner, who's put his blood, sweat, tears, and own capital into a venture, to decide who he wants to cater to.

(04-22-2011 08:11 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 05:39 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 05:19 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 05:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 04:44 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  I love this paragraph: The science on the impact of smoking bans is younger. Because it takes years or even decades for cancers to develop, there's little information on the impact of bans on cancer rates. But studies have already charted declines in adult heart attack rates and in childhood asthma attacks after smoking bans were adopted in some communities.

Well duh. I could ban all processed foods and we'd immediately be a healthier nation, but that's not what America is about.

Except that nobody is making me eat processed foods.

Wait. Who's making you smoke?

Or eat in a privately-owned restaurant that allows smoking.

I hate smoky rooms, but this decision should have ALWAYS been up to the business owner. In the free market, the consumer would have made the decision easy.

True.

I don't smoke. I don't like to be around smokers. I don't know why anyone would pick up such a disgusting, unhealthy habit.

And because of said predilections, I am able to almost completely avoid second-hand smoke, while eating, drinking, and walking pretty much whenever I want.

I'm enough of a libertarian to believe that every person should go to hell in the handcar of their own choosing. If that's the route smokers want to take, knock yourselves out. If your habits were truly a threat to me, I'd have a problem, but I don't see the rampant oppression of non-smokers by smokers that must be going on somewhere.

I agree completely. I'd go further to say that I despise smoking judge people by their choice to smoke. But that doesn't give me the right to ban it.

(04-21-2011 05:38 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  What will the States and to a lesser extent the Federal Government do to replace the tax revenues received from the cigarette taxes?

They have a vested interest in letting people smoke.

You mean the sin taxes? The ones that were designed to discourage people from smoking? Government has become addicted to those?

(04-22-2011 09:44 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-22-2011 09:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's true that no one is making me go to any bars, restaurants, stores or malls. I would like to be able to go somewhere without leaving the place reeking of smoke and gasping for oxygen (assuming I could stand being in there without my contact lenses killing me), never mind whatever health hazards there are. And then having to air out my coat for 3 days. I don't think that's too much to ask.

I don't think it's too much to ask to allow a business owner, who's put his blood, sweat, tears, and own capital into a venture, to decide who he wants to cater to.

Other than people polluting the air in the restaurant, are there any other restrictions on who he can cater to?

(04-22-2011 09:57 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-22-2011 09:44 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-22-2011 09:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's true that no one is making me go to any bars, restaurants, stores or malls. I would like to be able to go somewhere without leaving the place reeking of smoke and gasping for oxygen (assuming I could stand being in there without my contact lenses killing me), never mind whatever health hazards there are. And then having to air out my coat for 3 days. I don't think that's too much to ask.

I don't think it's too much to ask to allow a business owner, who's put his blood, sweat, tears, and own capital into a venture, to decide who he wants to cater to.

Other than people polluting the air in the restaurant, are there any other restrictions on who he can cater to?

It's their air. You'd prefer that our private dwellings be monitored by the government?

(04-21-2011 05:19 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 05:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-21-2011 04:44 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  I love this paragraph: The science on the impact of smoking bans is younger. Because it takes years or even decades for cancers to develop, there's little information on the impact of bans on cancer rates. But studies have already charted declines in adult heart attack rates and in childhood asthma attacks after smoking bans were adopted in some communities.

Well duh. I could ban all processed foods and we'd immediately be a healthier nation, but that's not what America is about.

Except that nobody is making me eat processed foods.

Wait. Who's making you smoke?

my question as well

(04-22-2011 10:00 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-22-2011 09:57 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-22-2011 09:44 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(04-22-2011 09:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's true that no one is making me go to any bars, restaurants, stores or malls. I would like to be able to go somewhere without leaving the place reeking of smoke and gasping for oxygen (assuming I could stand being in there without my contact lenses killing me), never mind whatever health hazards there are. And then having to air out my coat for 3 days. I don't think that's too much to ask.

I don't think it's too much to ask to allow a business owner, who's put his blood, sweat, tears, and own capital into a venture, to decide who he wants to cater to.

Other than people polluting the air in the restaurant, are there any other restrictions on who he can cater to?

It's their air. You'd prefer that our private dwellings be monitored by the government?

So for example, they could exclude blacks, asians, or whoever they wanted to because it's private property?

(04-22-2011 10:21 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  So for example, they could exclude blacks, asians, or whoever they wanted to because it's private property?

Ahh, there it is, the race card. As a free-market Capitalist, I believe they should, but I don't think it would be very business-wise. BTW, what does excluding a race have to do with smoking?

Oh, and what about blacks' "Buy Black" initiatives? Are they racist?