Chipping away at rights...

[sewchick]

Quote:
Here in Maine they don't allow smoking anywhere including our one casino if you can call it a casino. The people that do smoke or drink are taxed half to death. It's really bad here. The don't even allow you to smoke in your car. I think that is law now if you have kids in the car. I am not a smoker.

OP Rights? You have more than us.

 

[NoelTate]

What makes this a complicated issue is that it is not just about a business owner's rights or a person's individual rights. It's about the cost to taxpayers. Second-hand smoke has been proven time and again to be a serious threat to our health. Public health is all of our concern. Yes, it is each individual's choice whether he or she smokes. However, we all end up paying more in taxes and more in higher health costs because of all the horrible health problems caused by smoking. As a result, we do have the right to cut our losses and ban smoking in all public areas. As someone who loves going to bars for socialization, music, dancing, and a drink or two, I absolutely LOVE these bans and can't wait until Alabama lawmakers stop being stupid and catch up with the rest of the country by passing a ban here.

 

[flopshot]

Quote:
then why are the tax revenues slated to cover the increased eligability costs in the CHIP ?

funny how the argument goes from the smoker's health cost to the non smokers health endangerment. i could make the same argument about fast food, soft drinks, etc. oops !! too late ! how does a smoker effect someone's health if the non smoker is not in the same building ? government makes no distinction. if you own a bar or whatever, it has to be non smoking. they pick the winner.
non smokers that desire these types of bans and restrictions should be carefull what they wish for. i'd almost bet they too are doing something that someone would consider should be stopped.

 

[horsejody]

Quote:
It's not just a burden to the taxpayers. It's a hardship to the employees of the places that allow smoking. It's easy to say, "just go work some place else," but the reality is that most are stuck there. The passing of the laws protects their health by improving the working conditions. During the industrial revolution, workers were exposed to many safety and health hazards. Employers just said, "if they don't like it, they can leave." The government imposed workplace standards to improve safety. The smoking bans are no different.

 

[PotterWatch]

Quote:

I need a clapping emoticon.

 

[PotterWatch]

Quote:
Oh, Please....Do you drice a car? Your killing me!
I am a non-smoker, by the way.

Edited to make a snide comment.

I do drive a car. I also abide by all the laws set up to make my car at least somewhat more eco-friendly. I would never drive a car that is a gross polluter and then complain that my rights are being infringed upon when I am told by the government that I have to do something to correct my car's pollution problems.

 

[ibpboo]

How about the ban on mini bikes?

http://motocross.transworld.net/200...tion-drastically-affects-motorcycle-industry/

 

[horsejody]

Quote:

 

[flopshot]

Quote:
not to mention the fact that our wonderfull federal government felt the need to ban three wheel atv's, cali wants to ban black cars and plasma tv's, on and and on.

 

[sparkles2307]

I used to smoke, and I agree that there should be smoking and Non smoking bars, not smoking and non smoking STATES. I dont like to sit in a smoky bar now that I dont smoke, but I think that if you choose to smoke you should be able to choose to go to a smoking bar. Its not like they are shakling us non smokers to the bar in a smoking establishment...