Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No it's not and you are the one that brought home ownership into the discussion and now realize that was a poor choice because again you can't defend such bans.
And make no mistake about it. The only reason the anti-smoking zealots have not done so yet on a truly national campaign scale is because it is not yet feasible from a public relations point of view; it is always incremental by calculated prudence. The ultimate goal is becoming increasingly clear (in some ways, by some posters on this thread)...and they will get there eventually. That is, if they are not stopped by those who know their true agenda, and not being fooled by cosmetic covers, expose it at every opportunity ...
"Since the home remains a major source of secondhand smoke exposure for children, this work shows that an additional justification for enacting smoke-free legislation is the secondary effect of encouraging voluntary smoke-free rules at home, particularly in homes occupied by smokers,"
Note the euphemism (delection, if one will! LOL) as with the use of the phrase "encouraging voluntary smoke-free rules at home." Hmmmmmm....wonder what THAT means in all its implications....?
"Three bridge and tunnel officers working in toll booths at the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel were overcome by carbon monoxide yesterday morning after problems developed in the ventilation system, officials said."
That was in 1987, so I suspect the problem has been fixed, but it shows that the system is not foolproof. Apparently the ventilation is barely good enough to keep from suffocating people who have to be there more than a few minutes.
Could you agree if the non smoker never entered an establishment that allowed smoking they would not be harmed?
No it's not and you are the one that brought home ownership into the discussion and now realize that was a poor choice because again you can't defend such bans.
No, a non-smoker would not be harmed by not entering such an establishment. But these establishments are public accomodations and as such should be available to everyone. What harm is done to a smoker from having to refrain from smoking in one's room? I did not bring home ownership into the discussion except to say that one's private home is a different situation.
No, a non-smoker would not be harmed by not entering such an establishment.
Now that we agree the non smoker will not be harmed by smoke if they do not enter one of these establishments my next question is could you agree that these non smokers are fully capable of making this decision on their own?
It appears smoking areas are more profitable, and casinos battle to preserve them.
So people who smoke also lose more money gambling.
After they buy cigarettes and lose money gaming, how much is left over for food and shelter, I wonder?
Some interesting observations:
"Floor maps posted on the walls of the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino and the Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort showed smoking was prohibited in the physical space occupied by gaming tables and slot machines, but allowed in the area immediately around them, including the seats."
"But in Trump Marina, one pair of slot machines on the floor’s Monte Carlo Casino area sit next to each other, each with a sign above them. One says 'Smoking Permitted,' the other reads 'No Smoking Permitted.' "
"The only other nonsmoking signs at Resorts are found on the craps tables. Players are restricted from smoking on one side of the table, but can puff away on the other side of the same table."
And, of course, smokers were smoking in non-smoking areas in almost all the casinos.
Some states do ban smoking in casinos:
"Different markets have different policies. In commercial-casino states such as New Jersey, only four of 14 states outlaw smoking entirely. Eight of the 14 states have no smoking restrictions on the casino floors, including Nevada and Indiana."
So four states do ban casino smoking.
For the casinos, a big issue is loss of business from a state that bans smoking to a nearby one that does not.
If bans were in place everywhere, that would not be a problem.
And the smokers who want to smoke anywhere will do it. Which is why partial bans in sleeping areas of hotels do not work, either.
While that would discourage new smokers it's not going to help much with current smokers. There is a fledgling black market now and that will expand as the prices go up. If the prices continue to expand we will begin to see a lot more crime typically associated with other drugs. Do you really want to go down that road?
The black market is more than fledgling already. And organized crime is involved.
Gaming is also associated with organized crime. If we should lower taxes on cigarettes because a high tax promotes crime, should we ban gambling because it promotes crime?
Quote:
There is a distinct difference between a private company encouraging behavior that will improve their profits than the government mandating said behavior.
What if a business owner really would like to ban smoking to protect its employees, lower its health care cost, reduce absenteeism, and not have to deal with the additional janitorial, maintenance, and logistics of separate smoking and non-smoking areas, but the employer is afraid he will lose business to a competitor if he does so. That is the reasoning that the casinos use to prevent bans.
A government ban that is universally applied makes it easier for the business. Competition then boils down to providing the best service, not whether you let people smoke inside or not.
Quote:
Sorry but I don't think that education is the problem, I know some very smart people that are obese. The primary issue as I see it is people too lazy to cook their own meals combined with a lack or physical exercise and this starts when they are young.
That is why we have to teach nutrition in the schools and bring back mandatory physical education. "Recess" is not an elective. Children are learning bad nutrition from parents who have no clue how to feed their children. A family doc I know recently told me about a mom who was trying to feed hamburgers and French fries to a six month old baby. That woman did not have a clue about how to take care of a baby, and the child ended up in the hospital.
You may decry the "nanny state", but we are all paying the price for the obesity epidemic. That makes it an issue that is a legitimate area for governmental concern.
You can be smart and still be ignorant about nutrition. Ignorance is remedial.
Quote:
Like what?
Doctors have to stop being politically correct. They have to tell people who are obese that it is not healthy, and the doctor is not going to just love them the way they are.
Pediatricians have to tell parents that feeding children too much, so that they become morbidly obese, is not acceptable, and that if being overweight causes the child to become sick, the parents might expect a visit from CPS.
Obese adults and parents of obese children need to be referred to dietitians and other resources to help them lose weight and maintain it. It will not be easy.
Can we now defer obesity to another thread, please?
The problem here Katiana is you see it as a health issue, I see it as a freedom issue and it's understandable why you would want to steer the conversation away from that because you can't win that argument.
The "freedom" you are afraid of losing does not exist. There is no right to smoke indoors under federal or state (as far as I know) constitutions.
What if a business owner really would like to ban smoking to protect its employees, lower its health care cost, reduce absenteeism, and not have to deal with the additional janitorial, maintenance, and logistics of separate smoking and non-smoking areas
How a business handles smoking restrictions during business hours is up to them, certainly I'd be a hypocrite to suggest otherwise. As far as the employees go I draw the line when they start testing for it. There is a hospital near here that is now testing for nicotine usage and that would include nicotine gum. Not are only are they not hiring people that smoke which is completely legal activity they are not hiring people using perfectly legal products to help them quit.
The "freedom" you are afraid of losing does not exist. There is no right to smoke indoors under federal or state (as far as I know) constitutions.
Using this logic we could ban nearly anything and the last I checked you don't have a constitutional right to smoke free hotel room.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On tunnels
