wiseup wrote on Jul 11, 2008 12:06 PM:
" That is your opinion Amom, which you are entitled too. HOWEVER, the media and all the biased people like yourself need to hear the other SIDE before an UNBIASED decision can be made. The points I make are ALL valid, have NOT be covered by our media, and many like yourself, haven't got a CLUE about consequences of treating minorities poorly. "
Amom wrote on Jul 11, 2008 11:06 AM:
" I have a question for let1102: how old are you? Wise up: you make absolutely no valid arguements. You just spew a bunch of garbage. Retired is the only one making mature, resonable points. "
Tank345 wrote on Jul 11, 2008 10:57 AM:
" Ever heard of chewing tabacco. "
kennedy8413 wrote on Jul 10, 2008 2:01 PM:
" All I have to say these types of law to protect "us" are killing the feedoms we have here. Under this idea that these laws are to protect the employees, we would have to get rid of all construction jobs farmers firefighters cops doc and nurses (we might make them sick). As a Bar owner if I want it be a smoking Bar the people I hire no just as well as a Bridgebuilder there might be risk involed. It not your right or mine to tell myself or anyone else how to live. By the way I don't smoke and prefer smoke free, But I hold personal freedom above they myself. "
let1102 wrote on Jul 10, 2008 10:36 AM:
" DICK fails to mention that a recent study shows that toner particles used in copy machines and laser printers emmitted into the air after each copy is more lethal than second hand smoke not to mention the solvents DICK is around for the offset printing of the paper I am sure DICK'S balls are the size of peas. The tribune shoud be shut down pronto due to the health hazards to it's employees, and to retired get a job you suck. "
wiseup wrote on Jul 9, 2008 11:34 PM:
" PS, I take exception with you over our police best deciding on how to spend our resources. Graffiti, vandalism, domestic abuse, drownings, murders should take precedent over leaf littering, gum on the sidewalk, parking tickets/revenue, seat belt violations etc etc etc "
wiseup wrote on Jul 9, 2008 11:30 PM:
" Using your theories regarding health and safety and public health, what are your plans after the smoking ban? Are you going to demand we ticket anyone with bad gas? Not gasoline but butt gas! After all it is a health and safety issue too. Anyone that lets loose in a packed inside bar or restaurant is a criminal and should get a ticket TOO! I'll call the cops if a figure out who dealt it! "
retired wrote on Jul 8, 2008 2:56 PM:
" And before you totally freak out, yes, the bar has to enforce the laws or it gets fined. Businesses must comply with regulations. They must pay their taxes, cannot serve underage or drunk patrons, they must pay their employees a minimum wage, and they must prevent fights and other illegal activities in their bar. If they do not do these things, they get a ticket. If they are consistently not in compliance, their liquor license can be revoked. "
retired wrote on Jul 8, 2008 2:56 PM:
" As far as enforcement, the answer has already been provided for us by the numerous communities that have already banned smoking in taverns. The bar must have signage indicating that smoking is not allowed inside. If someone does smoke in the bar, the employees can ask them to step outside or extinguish their tobacco. If the police are called because of noncompliance, the bar is ticketed, which encourages enforcement of the law. The police are perfectly capable of decided where their resources are going to be best used. "
retired wrote on Jul 8, 2008 2:52 PM:
" The problem is, there is no way to make smoking safer for the smoker or the nonsmoker. Unlike alcohol, fats, coffee, soda and other vices you name, tobacco is wholly unsafe if it is used exactly as it is designed. Its dangerous for the smoker, but I suppose its their right to kill themselves (we can have the health care argument later), but its certainly not their right to kill the person sitting next to them. And its not the tavern owners right to operate an unsafe business. No matter how many times you post it, even in caps, smoking is not a right, and repeating that it is will not make it a right. "
retired wrote on Jul 8, 2008 2:51 PM:
" The slippery slope argument doesn't really work with smoking, but its the argument most used by smoking advocates. Oh no, if we ban this they'll take away your (insert favorite vice here.like coffee or soda)". There are many things that, when used improperly, are unsafe. Instead of banning them, we've legislated ways to make these activities safer. We've known forever that driving cars is dangerous. But we have not outlawed them, instead we have written legislation that prohibits drunks from driving, and requires that young people take classes before getting their license. We didn't ban cars; we made it so driving would be safer for the driver and pedestrians. "
wiseup wrote on Jul 7, 2008 10:02 PM:
" Do as we say, not as we did DOESN'T WORK with any generation! Richard was all for smoking when he did but since he quit he is an expert, he thinks he can/should stop others? Maybe they should ban Boy Scout campfires because of the smoke and smell and health issues. "
wiseup wrote on Jul 7, 2008 2:14 PM:
" Where is article regarding the state of IOWA being sued for allowing smoking to continue in the Indian casinos? Where is the article about civil disobedience in the face of oppressive government? War vets fought for this country and now their clubs VFW American Legion get kicked in the teeth with government interference. Smokers will pay the fine just like seat belt laws, fireworks laws, helmet and noise laws for motorcycles, littering and speeding. Do we have the resources to enforce ALL the stupid laws FAIRLY? Making CRIMINALS out of ordinary citizens with legal products is the reason we have underage drinkers and smokers and people IGNORING ALL THE CRAPPY LAWS! "
wiseup wrote on Jul 7, 2008 2:07 PM:
" Banning smoking in bars will have ZERO impact on parents smoking in their homes and cars with children present. IF there are second hand smoke dangers, it is from chain smoking parents keeping their kids captive. Short term exposure by non-smoking weekend warriors at bars has NOT been proven to be DANGEROUS! How society treats its minorities (smokers) says alot about society. "
wiseup wrote on Jul 7, 2008 11:20 AM:
" I think they should ban incense and candles in all churches! That smoke is just as lethal as cigarettes. Its a health and safety issue and the priest and parish are all at risk. Ditto for Freighthouse, Edwardo's, Burger King and ALL YOUR favorite restaurants that grill meat! No more bar-b-ques, cookouts, bonfires or fireworks! ALL DANGEROUS and UNHEALTHY! "
wiseup wrote on Jul 7, 2008 11:15 AM:
" NEVER TRUST the smoke-free advocates. I remember when they promised after the last compromise, they got 99% of buildings smoke free and they were NOT going to bring this up again! LIARS and DON'T TRUST THEM. After this issue is solved, what will these CONTROL FREAKS ban next? Motorcycles, soda, bikes, fish frys, donuts, coffee? They are ALL health and safety issues too! "
kamikazefaase wrote on Jul 6, 2008 10:58 PM:
" To all those posters before me, your comments have merit. Maybe the mom's and pop's can be examine for exceptions as long as no one is hired outside immediate family. "
Eddie wrote on Jul 6, 2008 8:22 PM:
" Those who try to spin this issue into a "property rights" argument are simply trying to deny the truth, which is this: Business owners are responsible for the health and safety of their employees and customers at all times. They have no right to fill the air in their buildings with toxic smoke and chemicals. It doesn't matter if it's cigarette smoke, fireplace smoke, or any other kind of smoke. Any business owner who says that he does have that right is a liar. "
ayogsi wrote on Jul 6, 2008 8:11 PM:
" Thank you to Richard for an intellegent article on the smoking ban issue. It is the the responsiblity of the government to protect it's citizens. I would go one step farther and say it is it's duty. I look forward to the day I can enjoy a meal without the smoke drifting over from the bar area. I look forward to coming home from an area bar and not having to shower to get rid of the smoke smell. Let us hope it is sooner rather than later. "
retired wrote on Jul 6, 2008 12:07 PM:
" I'm consistently confused by people who believe that the government is not right to stop smokers from forcing others to inhale their carcinogenic waste. As if the government weren't already regulating activities in the bar. We have taxes on alcohol, we have workers permits for juveniles, we have a minimum wage, we have a drinking age, we inspect the cleanliness of any establishment serving food, and we ensure that all places of business are fundamentally safe to occupy. Why would smoking be any different? Why should there be some sort of exemption for smokers? Should there be an exemption for those that prefer a filthy kitchen in a restaurant because the food would be slightly cheaper and it would be easier on the owner? Smoking is unsafe, not only for the smoker, but for the nonsmoker next to them. "
ryeguy wrote on Jul 6, 2008 10:05 AM:
" I think it is entirely reasonable to exempt any tavern owner who has no employees. He or she would then have the freedom to do what he or she pleased on his or her own property without doing harm to an employee. But Mr. Mial is correct - this is a workplace/worker safety issue, not a property issue. "
Advertisement
