City- County Council to consider expanded smoking ban (Indianapolis, Terre Haute: credit, motel)

[missik999]

Originally Posted by indy_317

It is only dire to those who will lose their business, and thus possibly end up in foreclosure on their personal residence, or have their vehicle repo'd after not being able to make payments . After reading the article on The Star website this morning, I find it odd that Sanders points out that she wants to protect workers and makes a comment about how given the current state of the economy, the worker has no choice but to work in a smoke filled environment. Her point is valid. However, it sounds like she wants a stronger ban which includes hooka and cigar bars being closed, so does she not care about those business owners and employees? Is the city going to bailout the hooka and cigar bar owners when they are out of business but still have a small business loan payment to make? If the government takes an action which causes a person's once legal business to go under, should the government bailout the small business owner? If we can bailout banks and pro-sports teams, it is the least the government could do. I think the business owner's job, and that of their employees, is just as important as any other job in this economy.

So it sounds like most bars will be OK, since drinking is viewed as social (as some claim on here), but if a stricter law passes, we now know that cigar and hooka bars will be forced to close. That is really gonna suck for the owners who may be on the hook for loan payments and the like.

I'm still no sure why if tobacco is so dangerous, why don't we just make it illegal? Maybe we need a war on tobacco?

This old, tired argument doesn't make sense. Back in the day, employees were allowed to smoke at work in the breakroom or even at their desk or work area. When they were no longer allowed to smoke at work, did smokers quit their jobs? No, they just go outside to smoke, the same thing they will do when they can no longer smoke at restaurants and bars.

Smokers used to be able to smoke on airplanes, did they stop flying when no longer able to smoke? If a smoker can fly coast-to-coast without a cigarette I would think they could get through a meal or a few drinks without smoking.

[A2DAC1985]

Originally Posted by missik999

This old, tired argument doesn't make sense. Back in the day, employees were allowed to smoke at work in the breakroom or even at their desk or work area. When they were no longer allowed to smoke at work, did smokers quit their jobs? No, they just go outside to smoke, the same thing they will do when they can no longer smoke at restaurants and bars.

Smokers used to be able to smoke on airplanes, did they stop flying when no longer able to smoke? If a smoker can fly coast-to-coast without a cigarette I would think they could get through a meal or a few drinks without smoking.

It's about time the government found a group of people they can push around and make jump through hoops that will get the general population to applaud them.

See, all we have to do is gradually treat smokers less like people, and more like a problem that needs to be swept under the rug. "Hide the smoker in the closet! The Boss is coming over for dinner!"

And the beauty of this is that smokers let non-smokers boss them around! Non-smokers *obviously* have the moral high ground and don't do anything that would be considered hypocritical in this context. Because, let's face it, that stuff that comes out the back pipe of your car smells like candy cane wishes, apple pie, and unicorn's breath.

And of course, what comes out the back of your car is not deadly like cigarette smoke. Someone could *easily* breath in all the car exhaust they want without a problem, but a puff of tobacco smoke breathed in is an instant death sentence.



Enough of the sarcasm. But really, it's the real trendy thing to push around smokers these days. People get excited over how many freedoms we can take away from individuals that are partaking in a legal activity in private places. I would guess that a lot of people applauding smoking bans instituted by local governments are the type of people that get bent out of shape when the Federal government tries to tell people "what to do". That's Ironic, right?

But think about this: Smokers are only allowed to smoke in certain places, and the number of those places are disappearing.

If the number of places to smoke a cigarette continues to dwindle, then smokers will have fewer cigarettes a day.

If people are smoking fewer cigarettes a day that means they're buying fewer packs of cigarettes throughout a day/week/month/year.

And if they're buying fewer packs of cigarettes, WHO IS GOING TO PAY THE TAX MONEY THAT IS NO LONGER BEING GENERATED BY SMOKERS BUYING PACKS OF CIGARETTES??? Are the people who push for no smoking in public places going to volunteer to pay an extra $500 a year in taxes because I am only able to smoke half of what I used to?

Wait, no. I've got it. The people pushing the smoking bans are going to freak when the government wants more money, so they will go back to pushing around the smokers, and make them pick up the tab.

Maybe something like a "City Tax" for everytime someone makes a trip outside to a restaurant's patio to smoke. Everytime they go for a smoke break they should pay $0.25-$0.50 in tax to go outside.

That way people who don't smoke can continue to demand other people fall into line with their beliefs, while not actually having to do anything themselves. That is, pick up the monetary defecit created by their desire to be smoke-free.

[kooks35]

Originally Posted by missik999

Smokers used to be able to smoke on airplanes, did they stop flying when no longer able to smoke? If a smoker can fly coast-to-coast without a cigarette I would think they could get through a meal or a few drinks without smoking.

Of course one could make the argument that if you really like the place you could get through a meal dealing with a bit of smoke.*

*this is coming from a non-smoker

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by A2DAC1985

And if they're buying fewer packs of cigarettes, WHO IS GOING TO PAY THE TAX MONEY THAT IS NO LONGER BEING GENERATED BY SMOKERS BUYING PACKS OF CIGARETTES??? Are the people who push for no smoking in public places going to volunteer to pay an extra $500 a year in taxes because I am only able to smoke half of what I used to?

Fair question, but you also have to consider the savings to the health care system (via taxes and insurance premiums) if everyone stopped smoking (and got off of their fat fannies and lost weight as well).

[missik999]

Originally Posted by kooks35

Of course one could make the argument that if you really like the place you could get through a meal dealing with a bit of smoke.*

*this is coming from a non-smoker

I won't go to a restaurant where smoking is permitted no matter how good the food is.

[X-Greensboro Resident]

Originally Posted by missik999

I won't go to a restaurant where smoking is permitted no matter how good the food is.

Same here! I can't stand the smell especially on your clothes after you leave a smoking place.

[A2DAC1985]

Originally Posted by grmasterb

Fair question, but you also have to consider the savings to the health care system (via taxes and insurance premiums) if everyone stopped smoking (and got off of their fat fannies and lost weight as well).

And you think the health care premiums will actually go down if everyone stopped smoking? If anything, bonuses will go up for the executives of the Health Insurance companies because "they did such a good job keeping costs down"... when in actuality it was people not using their services that kept costs down.

You've got to fund those bonuses somehow .

[missik999]

Originally Posted by A2DAC1985

And you think the health care premiums will actually go down if everyone stopped smoking? If anything, bonuses will go up for the executives of the Health Insurance companies because "they did such a good job keeping costs down"... when in actuality it was people not using their services that kept costs down.

You've got to fund those bonuses somehow .

Most companies already have two rates for heath insurance premiums, for smokers and non-smokers. And guess what, smoker's rates are considerably higher. Hmmmm, wonder why that would be?

[A2DAC1985]

Originally Posted by missik999

I won't go to a restaurant where smoking is permitted no matter how good the food is.

Then I assume you don't go to a lot of restaurants. At least not BBQ places. All that smoke they have there in the kitchen is enough to choke a horse! And don't forget that some places even have something called "liquid smoke" they put on the food. Can you believe that???? They can't get enough of regular old smoke they have to "liquify" it! Someone really needs to put an end to Rib Fest in the park. What if people want to be in a park that is smoke free? They certainly can't when Rib Fest is going on.

I also assume you don't participate in a lot of backyard Grill Outs? The smoke is bad there too, especially if the person using the grill is bad at it (charred weenies, Anyone?).

I guess you also exclude Drive-In restaurants from your life, correct? I mean, after all, smoke is coming out of the tail pipe on the cars in the area in which you are eating food. And you don't go anywhere where smoking is permitted, so I can only conclude you are true your words and avoid all these places/events, correct?

Sucking down 100 cigarettes might give someone Cancer.
Sucking down 1,000 cigarettes might give someone Cancer.
Sucking down 10,000 cigarettes might give someone Cancer.
Sucking down 100,000 cigarettes might give someone Cancer.

Sucking down 30 minutes of car exhaust WILL KILL ANYONE.

I will be in favor of a total smoking ban if there is also a total ban on gasoline/diesel powered vehicles.

People don't want smoke inside a bar, restaurant, club, etc. I don't want someone driving a Chevy 8,500 Dual Smoke Stack Exhaust with "Truck Nuts" pumping smoke into the air I breate outside.

Can we come to agreement on this, or Do we only want to legislate against things that we personally don't have a use for?

[A2DAC1985]

Originally Posted by missik999

Most companies already have two rates for heath insurance premiums, for smokers and non-smokers. And guess what, smoker's rates are considerably higher. Hmmmm, wonder why that would be?

Because a smoker *might* use more services than a non-smoker, that's why. Just like you *might* be in a car accident and be permanently crippled for the rest of your life, and that's why people who drive cars, and for longer periods of time, have higher insurance premiums.

And do you honestly think that insurance companies will charge everyone the "Non-Smoker" rate when no one smokes anymore? Hardly. Just like the government isn't going to let the tax revenue from cigarettes just disappear. They WILL RAISE TAXES on eveyone else, even the "Non-Smokers", to recoup the money that is no longer coming in through tobacco.

Are you willing to put in $3 extra a day (about how much tax is put on a pack in Indiana) to make up for the pack a day habit I had while in Indiana? Is your insurance premium going to go down $1,000 a year because I no longer smoke?