There was only one non-smoking bar in the area which was always packed. I still went out because my friends were all going out and none of us lived in an apt large enough to house everyone and none of us had pool tables.
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: BigDH01
Although I'm against the ban on principle, a law was recently passed in Iowa that banned smoking in public places such as restaurants and bars. I must say, going out is so much easier now. I used to smell like smoke and have a terrible taste in my mouth after going to the bar and it is very nice no longer having that problem.
I'm in the funny position now of saying I'm against it but really glad I live in a state that has it.
To be honest, I'm not sure why more bars didn't voluntarily enact a smoking ban. I knew one that did but it was always packed so I usually ended up having to go to a "smoking" bar. It may be because the bars here always have lines during the normal busy times so the owners felt it wasn't worth policing a smoking ban and it's not hurting business, so why bother?
If you didn't like the smoking in bars before, may I ask why you still went to the bars anyway?
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: BigDH01
Although I'm against the ban on principle, a law was recently passed in Iowa that banned smoking in public places such as restaurants and bars. I must say, going out is so much easier now. I used to smell like smoke and have a terrible taste in my mouth after going to the bar and it is very nice no longer having that problem.
I'm in the funny position now of saying I'm against it but really glad I live in a state that has it.
To be honest, I'm not sure why more bars didn't voluntarily enact a smoking ban. I knew one that did but it was always packed so I usually ended up having to go to a "smoking" bar. It may be because the bars here always have lines during the normal busy times so the owners felt it wasn't worth policing a smoking ban and it's not hurting business, so why bother?
The iowa smoking ban is ridiculous. They exempted casinos - hello? The state runs Prairie Medows - and the workers are considered state employees on the state health plan(from what I've been told). How the hell is this a "health" issue if the state exempts a portion of itself?
Oh, and here in the Des Moines area there were quite a few non-smoking bars. They had plenty of business due to being that - now they are just another bar...
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Colorado did the non-smoking in public thing a couple of years ago.
Apparently, when it is applied across the board, there is a very slight dip in business.
However, the health costs for employees of such places goes down as a result.
If smoking tobacco is such an onerous burden, shouldn't it be entirely banned at the federal level?
Originally posted by: BigDH01
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: BigDH01
Although I'm against the ban on principle, a law was recently passed in Iowa that banned smoking in public places such as restaurants and bars. I must say, going out is so much easier now. I used to smell like smoke and have a terrible taste in my mouth after going to the bar and it is very nice no longer having that problem.
I'm in the funny position now of saying I'm against it but really glad I live in a state that has it.
To be honest, I'm not sure why more bars didn't voluntarily enact a smoking ban. I knew one that did but it was always packed so I usually ended up having to go to a "smoking" bar. It may be because the bars here always have lines during the normal busy times so the owners felt it wasn't worth policing a smoking ban and it's not hurting business, so why bother?
If you didn't like the smoking in bars before, may I ask why you still went to the bars anyway?
There was only one non-smoking bar in the area which was always packed. I still went out because my friends were all going out and none of us lived in an apt large enough to house everyone and none of us had pool tables.
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Colorado did the non-smoking in public thing a couple of years ago.
Apparently, when it is applied across the board, there is a very slight dip in business.
However, the health costs for employees of such places goes down as a result.
If smoking tobacco is such an onerous burden, shouldn't it be entirely banned at the federal level?
Why is it not banned? That's a softball.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08...ml?_r=1&em&oref=slogin
The National Conference of State Legislatures reported last month that states were facing combined budget deficits of more than $40 billion in 2009. Raising cigarette taxes is one way some states are trying to make up the shortfall. In 2007, states collected more than $19 billion in cigarette taxes.
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: BigDH01
Although I'm against the ban on principle, a law was recently passed in Iowa that banned smoking in public places such as restaurants and bars. I must say, going out is so much easier now. I used to smell like smoke and have a terrible taste in my mouth after going to the bar and it is very nice no longer having that problem.
I'm in the funny position now of saying I'm against it but really glad I live in a state that has it.
To be honest, I'm not sure why more bars didn't voluntarily enact a smoking ban. I knew one that did but it was always packed so I usually ended up having to go to a "smoking" bar. It may be because the bars here always have lines during the normal busy times so the owners felt it wasn't worth policing a smoking ban and it's not hurting business, so why bother?
The iowa smoking ban is ridiculous. They exempted casinos - hello? The state runs Prairie Medows - and the workers are considered state employees on the state health plan(from what I've been told). How the hell is this a "health" issue if the state exempts a portion of itself?
Oh, and here in the Des Moines area there were quite a few non-smoking bars. They had plenty of business due to being that - now they are just another bar...
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: BigDH01
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: BigDH01
Although I'm against the ban on principle, a law was recently passed in Iowa that banned smoking in public places such as restaurants and bars. I must say, going out is so much easier now. I used to smell like smoke and have a terrible taste in my mouth after going to the bar and it is very nice no longer having that problem.
I'm in the funny position now of saying I'm against it but really glad I live in a state that has it.
To be honest, I'm not sure why more bars didn't voluntarily enact a smoking ban. I knew one that did but it was always packed so I usually ended up having to go to a "smoking" bar. It may be because the bars here always have lines during the normal busy times so the owners felt it wasn't worth policing a smoking ban and it's not hurting business, so why bother?
If you didn't like the smoking in bars before, may I ask why you still went to the bars anyway?
There was only one non-smoking bar in the area which was always packed. I still went out because my friends were all going out and none of us lived in an apt large enough to house everyone and none of us had pool tables.
Sounds like someone should have opened up a second non-smoking bar.
I give a :thumbsup: to the one guy who owned the one non-smoking bar. This is someone who understands the market place. This is the answer, not government intervention and authoritarianism. Consumers, with their wallets, should decide whether smoking in a bar is allowed or not.
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
If smoking tobacco is such an onerous burden, shouldn't it be entirely banned at the federal level?
Why is it not banned? That's a softball.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08...ml?_r=1&em&oref=slogin
The National Conference of State Legislatures reported last month that states were facing combined budget deficits of more than $40 billion in 2009. Raising cigarette taxes is one way some states are trying to make up the shortfall. In 2007, states collected more than $19 billion in cigarette taxes.
"Shouldn't it be banned?" != "Why is it not banned?"
Originally posted by: Atreus21
I was listening to the radio this morning. There was a movement among musicians to have legislation passed which would ban smoking in bars in New Orleans so that they may play in a smoke-free environment.
This is another case of "I disagree in principe." Initially I thought the government should be staying out of these cases. Leave it to the bar owners to decide whether or not to permit smoking. That seemed to make sense.
On the other hand, if second-hand smoke does harm other people, then it seems very negligent and careless for someone to smoke in a room full of people who don't want to inhale smoke.
Does the smoker have a right to smoke anywhere he or she wants, and hence to subject anyone in his vicinity to second-hand smoke, which probably causes health problems which might easily be avoided if there were no such right?
If cigarettes were smokeless, I wouldn't be making this argument. It's the affecting-other-people part that makes me reconsider the above principle.
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Colorado did the non-smoking in public thing a couple of years ago.
Apparently, when it is applied across the board, there is a very slight dip in business.
However, the health costs for employees of such places goes down as a result.
If smoking tobacco is such an onerous burden, shouldn't it be entirely banned at the federal level?
Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord
Employers do not have the right to expose employees to carcinogenic gases, and should be fully liable for all present and future health care costs for all employees if they allow smoking in the place of employment. This is not a property rights issue, it is an employee rights issue.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Atreus21
I was listening to the radio this morning. There was a movement among musicians to have legislation passed which would ban smoking in bars in New Orleans so that they may play in a smoke-free environment.
This is another case of "I disagree in principe." Initially I thought the government should be staying out of these cases. Leave it to the bar owners to decide whether or not to permit smoking. That seemed to make sense.
On the other hand, if second-hand smoke does harm other people, then it seems very negligent and careless for someone to smoke in a room full of people who don't want to inhale smoke.
Does the smoker have a right to smoke anywhere he or she wants, and hence to subject anyone in his vicinity to second-hand smoke, which probably causes health problems which might easily be avoided if there were no such right?
If cigarettes were smokeless, I wouldn't be making this argument. It's the affecting-other-people part that makes me reconsider the above principle.
It's a health issue period.
Smoking is unhealthy.
I've been around a lot of places throughout the country the last few years and the places that banned smoking inside are so much better now.
Many of them I have been in before and after the smoking ban too.
Keep the smoke outside where it belongs.
Originally posted by: TechAZ
What is stopping businesses from opening non smoking bars, restaurants, etc? If it is so much better in a non smoking place....wouldn't ya think they would be taking business away from smoking establishments? Why force it?
I've lived in a state where you could smoke in bars and restaurants and now live in a state where it is banned state-wide (except in Casinos).
Just more big gov't telling people how to run their business. Next on the chopping block...trans fat, then all you can eat buffets, then anything that's not a salad or soup.
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: TechAZ
What is stopping businesses from opening non smoking bars, restaurants, etc? If it is so much better in a non smoking place....wouldn't ya think they would be taking business away from smoking establishments? Why force it?
I've lived in a state where you could smoke in bars and restaurants and now live in a state where it is banned state-wide (except in Casinos).
Just more big gov't telling people how to run their business. Next on the chopping block...trans fat, then all you can eat buffets, then anything that's not a salad or soup.
I'm sure the "Real ID" will allow for provisions to ration you a certain RDA of fats & nutrients
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Atreus21
I was listening to the radio this morning. There was a movement among musicians to have legislation passed which would ban smoking in bars in New Orleans so that they may play in a smoke-free environment.
This is another case of "I disagree in principe." Initially I thought the government should be staying out of these cases. Leave it to the bar owners to decide whether or not to permit smoking. That seemed to make sense.
On the other hand, if second-hand smoke does harm other people, then it seems very negligent and careless for someone to smoke in a room full of people who don't want to inhale smoke.
Does the smoker have a right to smoke anywhere he or she wants, and hence to subject anyone in his vicinity to second-hand smoke, which probably causes health problems which might easily be avoided if there were no such right?
If cigarettes were smokeless, I wouldn't be making this argument. It's the affecting-other-people part that makes me reconsider the above principle.
It's a health issue period.
Smoking is unhealthy.
I've been around a lot of places throughout the country the last few years and the places that banned smoking inside are so much better now.
Many of them I have been in before and after the smoking ban too.
Keep the smoke outside where it belongs.
What is stopping businesses from opening non smoking bars, restaurants, etc? If it is so much better in a non smoking place....wouldn't ya think they would be taking business away from smoking establishments? Why force it?
I've lived in a state where you could smoke in bars and restaurants and now live in a state where it is banned state-wide (except in Casinos).
Just more big gov't telling people how to run their business. Next on the chopping block...trans fat, then all you can eat buffets, then anything that's not a salad or soup.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Atreus21
I was listening to the radio this morning. There was a movement among musicians to have legislation passed which would ban smoking in bars in New Orleans so that they may play in a smoke-free environment.
This is another case of "I disagree in principe." Initially I thought the government should be staying out of these cases. Leave it to the bar owners to decide whether or not to permit smoking. That seemed to make sense.
On the other hand, if second-hand smoke does harm other people, then it seems very negligent and careless for someone to smoke in a room full of people who don't want to inhale smoke.
Does the smoker have a right to smoke anywhere he or she wants, and hence to subject anyone in his vicinity to second-hand smoke, which probably causes health problems which might easily be avoided if there were no such right?
If cigarettes were smokeless, I wouldn't be making this argument. It's the affecting-other-people part that makes me reconsider the above principle.
It's a health issue period.
Smoking is unhealthy.
I've been around a lot of places throughout the country the last few years and the places that banned smoking inside are so much better now.
Many of them I have been in before and after the smoking ban too.
Keep the smoke outside where it belongs.
What is stopping businesses from opening non smoking bars, restaurants, etc? If it is so much better in a non smoking place....wouldn't ya think they would be taking business away from smoking establishments? Why force it?
I've lived in a state where you could smoke in bars and restaurants and now live in a state where it is banned state-wide (except in Casinos).
Just more big gov't telling people how to run their business. Next on the chopping block...trans fat, then all you can eat buffets, then anything that's not a salad or soup.
Strawman :roll:
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: TechAZ
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Atreus21
I was listening to the radio this morning. There was a movement among musicians to have legislation passed which would ban smoking in bars in New Orleans so that they may play in a smoke-free environment.
This is another case of "I disagree in principe." Initially I thought the government should be staying out of these cases. Leave it to the bar owners to decide whether or not to permit smoking. That seemed to make sense.
On the other hand, if second-hand smoke does harm other people, then it seems very negligent and careless for someone to smoke in a room full of people who don't want to inhale smoke.
Does the smoker have a right to smoke anywhere he or she wants, and hence to subject anyone in his vicinity to second-hand smoke, which probably causes health problems which might easily be avoided if there were no such right?
If cigarettes were smokeless, I wouldn't be making this argument. It's the affecting-other-people part that makes me reconsider the above principle.
It's a health issue period.
Smoking is unhealthy.
I've been around a lot of places throughout the country the last few years and the places that banned smoking inside are so much better now.
Many of them I have been in before and after the smoking ban too.
Keep the smoke outside where it belongs.
What is stopping businesses from opening non smoking bars, restaurants, etc? If it is so much better in a non smoking place....wouldn't ya think they would be taking business away from smoking establishments? Why force it?
I've lived in a state where you could smoke in bars and restaurants and now live in a state where it is banned state-wide (except in Casinos).
Just more big gov't telling people how to run their business. Next on the chopping block...trans fat, then all you can eat buffets, then anything that's not a salad or soup.
Strawman :roll:
Way to address the questions.
/hiFive
EDIT: Bolded questions for the most educated American on Internets, who apparently can't read.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
All I have to say is that everyone in CA complained about the smoking ban before it came in, and now I know very very few people who would ever want to go back.