Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Smoking effects

March 5, 2007

Advertisement

To the editor:

Congratulations to Chuck Magerl and his fellow public-spirited Lawrence bar and restaurant owners who recently testified in Topeka against a proposed statewide ban on smoking in public places. They evidently are convinced that in a true democracy, lung cancer should be shared by all and not limited to just the some 20 percent who actually do smoke.

It would indeed be a sad day for Kansas if it joined in the smoking bans now in effect in such places as New York City, 21 U.S. states and even in whole countries such as France. After all, tobacco kills only about 5 million people worldwide each year, only about twice the population of Kansas.

Altruistically, the supposed economic benefits of smoking would not be limited to just this small group of benevolent Lawrence businesspeople. Smoking provides jobs for doctors - especially heart and lung specialists - nurses, hospital orderlies, ambulance drivers, pharmacists, funeral directors, undertakers, embalmers, tombstone carvers and, last but not least, grave diggers. Grave diggers have spouses and children to support too! Smoking is advantageous even for veterinarians because second-hand smoke reportedly affects dogs and cats as well, even though it appears this benefit has not yet been extended to goldfish.

In conclusion, we must remember that health is of no importance; only money counts!

Bryant Freeman,

Lawrence

Comments

jonas 7 years, 9 months ago

Marion: I was answering this.

"Posted by Marion (Marion Lynn) on March 5, 2007 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jonas, if someone does not smoke, why would that person want to enter an establishment in which smoking is allowed?"

I'm all confussed.

jonas 7 years, 9 months ago

Thank you, Bryant, for showing us the over-reactionary, foolishly babbling side of the issue. Now, if you don't mind, could you provide us with an argument that actually addresses the issue at hand?

imastinker 7 years, 9 months ago

Looks like the liberals are still in bed.

opinion 7 years, 9 months ago

Smoke free restaurants are the best thing that's happened in this town for years. The ban is not.

budwhysir 7 years, 9 months ago

Oh what no mention of the people who work for the tobaco companies? What would these people do if thier job was just pulled away from them due to a ban??

And think of the other people that where listed. Doctors and nurses, and all the others listed, they would have less to do if one was not able to make a personal choice to smoke.

And remember, I dont smoke and dont like to be around smoke but its not up to me to tell people what they can and cant do, so I dont

Janet Lowther 7 years, 9 months ago

You are going to be a customer of the undertaker and gravedigger eventually, smoke or no, trans-fats or no trans-fats, driving fast or slow.

OTOH, I AM VERY ALLERGIC to Cigarette smoke. It's not the tobacco: I'm fine around pipe and cigar smoke, but some additive to cigarettes (probably the stuff that keeps 'em from going out) will give me a sinus headache in a matter of minutes and at quite low levels. That said, I don't mind if you smoke, so long as it doesn't get up MY nose. If bars and restaurants had smoking sections that were ventilated like, say, laminar flow vent hoods in a chemistry lab, I wouldn't mind people smoking indoors. Anyplace the smoke goes straight up and away from everyone but the smoker. . . (Or should I say sucker?)

Eddie Muñoz 7 years, 9 months ago

"I don't mind if you smoke, so long as it doesn't get up MY nose. " +++++++++

I think that's the main thing - smoking effects everyone, not just the smoker.

jonas 7 years, 9 months ago

"Posted by logrithmic (anonymous) on March 5, 2007 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess I'll have to revise my thinking on Free State and Wheatfields again!

You know, if you go to Free State for dinner, you wait. You wait at the bar. If you go to his restaurant Wheatfields, you wait. You wait at his bread store too. It seems Mr. Magerl has plenty of business, ban or no ban. So what's his point? His point must be that come hell or high water, I want to be able to smoke in my business - damn the customers and their health. This is the sad and apparent truth of his testimony."

Yeah, because it couldn't, under any stretch of the imagination, be because a bunch of out-of-town special interest groups came in, threw around a whole bunch of bullsh@# data and scare tactics, and had the result of the government going in, where it's involvemental ability should be questionable at best, and telling owners that they have no choices in the matter of letting their patrons enjoy a legal activity, could it?

"I guess the boycott is on again..... No more eating or drinking in his establishments until the court rules. Even then, I'll continue telling his wait staff how much I appreciate the non-smoking environment."

Good lord, couldn't you have just boycotted the restaurant in the first place, without getting the ban enacted?

Tychoman 7 years, 9 months ago

A smoking section at a restaurant is like a peeing section at a pool. I greatly welcome a state-wide smoking ban in public places and restaurants.

Tailgators here in Topeka is widely regarded as the best bar in town, mainly because it is the first smoke-free bar.

Linda Endicott 7 years, 9 months ago

I guess the same could be said of any kind of gasoline powered vehicle...the convenience (and the money that is generated by said convenience) is more important than the health risks involved...never mind that they kill hundreds of thousands of people a year, either through accidents or exposure to exhaust...

No, I'm really not proposing that they ban cars. I'm trying to point out that all of you that support the smoking ban, supposedly for the evil, evil negative health effects they have on some, don't really give a rat's a&& about the health of people at all.

It's all about what YOU don't like, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. You would all still be supportive of a smoking ban, even if they could prove tomorrow that there is no negative health risk from second-hand smoke.

This is evident, because you are willing to put up with so many other things in your life that are a health risk, because they're things YOU enjoy, or think are necessary: cars, fireplaces, grills in the summer, factory emissions, perfumes, cell phones, computers...the list could go on and on.

(And by the way, I'm highly allergic to most perfumes...a lot of people are...it doesn't keep a lot of you idiot non-smokers from dousing yourselves in it to the point of being flammable every time you enter a restaurant.)

Smoking is a legal use of a legal substance. Until it becomes illegal, no one should be able to ban it anywhere.

That would be akin to allowing cars, but you can only drive between the hours of 9 PM to 5 AM, when there are fewer people on the streets.

Linda Endicott 7 years, 9 months ago

If they had a peeing section at the pool, Tychoman, would you think you just had to go into it, even though you know they allow peeing in that section of the pool, and you don't like to do that or be around people who do?

Then why on earth did you think you absolutely had to go into a restaurant when they could allow smoking and you don't smoke?

down_the_river 7 years, 9 months ago

Tychoman, Having a non-smoking area in a restaurant is like having a non-peeing area in a swimming pool or lake. It may be obnoxious, it may be gross, but it's something we have all been exposed to, and the health risk is virtually non-existent. Filtration and dilution is a wonderful thing. Like you learned in biology, the poison is in the dose.

gr 7 years, 9 months ago

"If they had a peeing section at the pool, Tychoman, would you think you just had to go into it, even though you know they allow peeing in that section of the pool, and you don't like to do that or be around people who do?"

As in, if you don't like pee in pools, don't go swimming?

Why should one segment of the population not be able to swim if all available pools allow peeing?

jonas 7 years, 9 months ago

"Posted by Tychoman (anonymous) on March 5, 2007 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A smoking section at a restaurant is like a peeing section at a pool."

I nominate this for "Silliest Cliche-Post of the Day."

psssst. . . all those people, they ARE peeing in the pool. You probably never noticed, did you?

Linda Endicott 7 years, 9 months ago

No, gr, as in:

If you don't like peeing in the pool, or being around people who do, then don't go to a pool that has a peeing section. Go to one that does not. If you choose to go to a pool that has a peeing section, even knowing ahead of time that they have one, then don't complain because you may have come in contact with pee.

Linda Endicott 7 years, 9 months ago

Besides, everyone knows that, allowed or not, every time you go to a public pool you're going to be peed on, even if you don't see it coming, don't they?

There's always gonna be someone in the pool who will pee in it, rules or not (children are especially good at this). This is why they put all those chemicals in the water, didn't you know?

jonas 7 years, 9 months ago

"Posted by logrithmic (anonymous) on March 5, 2007 at 7:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You can tell the smokers by these posts. They're almost desperate."

If the only posting motives you can comprehend are ones based solely on pure self-interest and self-fulfillment, then perhaps you have a problem. I don't suppose it would occur to you that someone may not smoke, and yet still think the ban is an infringement on personal choice and responsability.

Linda Endicott 7 years, 9 months ago

I'll say it again.

Smoking is a legal use of a legal substance. Until it becomes illegal, no one should be able to ban it anywhere.

No one should be able to dictate to a business owner what they can and can't allow in their own establishment, when it is a legal activity.

Linda Endicott 7 years, 9 months ago

And it sounds much more desperate to me to equate smoking to the peeing section of the swimming pool.

ScottyMac 7 years, 9 months ago

Tychoman: "Tailgators here in Topeka is widely regarded as the best bar in town, mainly because it is the first smoke-free bar."

If that's the case, why not simply allow the market to decide? If smoke-free bars are so popular, why is it necessary require all bars to be smoke-free?

Do you suppose that Chuck, who obviously knows a thing or two about the hospitality business, would have voluntarily gone smoke-free if it would have made sense for his business?

I'd venture to say that almost no one who owns a bar or restaurant likes the ban. Why? Because they detest pink lungs? Because they cherish cancer? Because they hate America? No. Because their customers prefer to have a place to smoke.

Tell all of your friends about Tailigators and what a snazzy, comfortable place it is. Maybe they'll be so busy, other joints in Topeka will want to ban smoking too.

McDonalds, Gaslight Tavern, First Watch, etc. went smoke-free on their own without any intervention because they determined that is what their customers prefer. Why can't Chuck decide the way he wants to cater to his customers?

FYI: I do not smoke tobacco, and generally think cigarettes are a scourge upon mankind. But I still believe in something called "freedom." Thus, if you think you can find a market for a pee-friendly swimming pool, I say go for it. Why should I care?

scott3460 7 years, 9 months ago

"OK, let's lay out this scenario one more time. Haven't yet seen an unemotional, logical argument in opposition. And yes, that is a dare to all you nanny staters out there."

Well, here's your response. First, your proposal is just as "nanny state" as an outright ban. You propose to force business owners to make a choice and then never be able to respond to the consequences of that choice. How ridiculous. It's nanny state with a different result, that's all.

Second, forced to make a choice, why would a business owner choose to be nonsmoking when such a choice ensures that his pool of potential customers is diminished by 5-10 percent. Would it not make more sense for him to choose to be a smoking establishment and force the nonsmokers to put up with the risks and annoyance of the nicotine addict's behavior? Isn't this what years and years and years of experience in the marketplace has demonstrated is the result if the market is left to its own devices? Fully 80-85+ percent of the Lawrence restuarant going public are nonsmokers. Why haven't the vast majority of such businesses voluntarily converted to nonsmoking? I believe it is because the owners refuse to give up the smoker's business & would rather have it & force the nonsmoker to accept the smoker's carcinogens.

An overwhelming majority of the public supports the ban, as evidenced by the strong support it got in passage. It stands to reason that with such strong support there would be a large and viable market for nonsmoker establishments. Yet, absent the law, the marketplace failed to provide any such meaningful choice for the nonsmoker. It is silly to argue, just don't go, if the marketplace has offered you virtually no alternatives.

If you disagree with this reasoning, would you please clarify why the marketplace does not supply what the public wants.

budwhysir 7 years, 9 months ago

I think we could have a "opinion" section for our posts.

I dont smoke and I think a ban is the worst thing that could happen

budwhysir 7 years, 9 months ago

convoluted yes, I think, this means more of a curved but straight angle correct

jonas 7 years, 9 months ago

Marion: Was that a riddle? Can I answer D) For Friends, Food, and Beer?

allateup 7 years, 9 months ago

Posted by Agnostick (anonymous) on March 5, 2007 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Looks like the liberals are still in bed."

Or, maybe they're at work... rather than drawing welfare and building pipe bombs in the basement, like you and your Conservaturd TaliBaptist friends. :)

Does your boss pay you to post?

Tychoman 7 years, 9 months ago

Okay, you lunatics, if circular logic is the way you want to go around with it, let's use this for all the subjects since circular logic is what you're so fond of.

Against gay marriage? Don't get one. You don't like it when gay guys hit on you? Don't go where they are.

Against abortion? DON'T GET ONE.

Against affirmative action? Don't go to a university that incorporates it!

And right_thinker, I'm sick of your moronic homophobic remarks. They are offensive, so knock it off.

scott3460 7 years, 9 months ago

Crazyks:

If you go back and read my prior posts, you'll see that it is my contention that the marketplace, left to its own devices, will not provide the nonsmoker the "choice" so many here keep claiming the nonsmoker should make. In a nutshell, no business owner will limit the size of his potential customer base as long as he can get away with asking the nonsmoker to just put up with it. That is the situation we endured for generations. It was the norm to allow smoking everywhere. WIth time, progress and better education, has come a decreasing willingness of the majority of the public to put up with such nonsense & you see more and more examples of various business segments going smoke free, or being forced to do so via a majority of the public imposing bans such as the one under discussion here. I have yet to see anyone explain why this contention is not correct. What you get, instead, is a lot of, "well, you can choose not to go to a bar, so just don't go." But it is not much of a choice is it, if the majority of bars are all smoke-filled. Maybe you would be so kind as to explain where I have gone wrong.

Jonas: What, exactly, is it that you think I am not being truthful about? Please explain.

Linda Endicott 7 years, 9 months ago

If non-smokers are in the majority as you claim, scott, then why weren't there many more non-smoking establishments before the ban?

jonas 7 years, 9 months ago

sigh. . . . it's like having an argument with a teddy-Ruxpin with a broken tape, isn't it?

but, why can't animals and dead people get married repeat but, why can't animals and dead people get married repeat but, why can't. . . . ad infinitum

jonas 7 years, 9 months ago

scott: Riiiiiiiiiiggggghht. Truth. . . . .

chuckle

whistlestop75 7 years, 9 months ago

Smoking in private establishments that have been financed with the individual owner's money should not be legislated in the use of a product that is legal. If the public does not want to inhale tobacco smoke they have the right to not eat/drink at that establishment. Same goes for any business that is not financed by the State or Federal government. The public can spend their money wherever they choose...the retailer can allow any legal product they choose. How did this get so complex? Until tobacco is declared illegal by the State or Federal government...who really has the right to say it cannot be used? Placing informational signs at business entrances was legislated back in the 90's...

Tychoman 7 years, 9 months ago

Marion, you know that your argument isn't practical. Everyone should have the right to go to a restaurant without dealing with the disgusting smell and health hazards. It's not practical to boycott every restaurant that allows smoking. It just doesn't make sense (much like the disgusting act of smoking itself).

Tychoman 7 years, 9 months ago

I've got a simpler idea: QUIT SMOKING. It's disgusting and dangerous to your health and the health of those around you.

Tychoman 7 years, 9 months ago

The majority of places to eat AREN'T non-smoking. Hence, the impracticality.

scott3460 7 years, 9 months ago

Marion:

The point that you keep ignoring is the marketplace, on its own, fails to offer the nonsmoker meaningful alternatives. As I have pointed out previously, the business owner has a selfish motiver to cater to the lowest common denominator (i.e. the smoker) and keep the pool of potential customers as wide & deep as possible. Given the long history and cultural norms of allowing smoking, any businessman who elects to open a nonsmoking only establishment automatically reduces his chances of success. As a result, few choose to do so and therefore the nonsmoker has few choices. Nonsmokers have put up with years and decades of that situation. Eventually, as more and more of the public has become educated and informed of the harm inflicted by smokers, the public has risen up and voiced its opinion at the ballot box. To me there is little difference between voting with your dollars (which you seem to suggest is the only valid manner in which someone may express their choice) and voting with a ballot. The majority has spoken. Either overturn the law, or get over it. You are a part of a disgusting minority that is slowly, but surely, and deservedly, being shunned by the rest of society.

Tychoman 7 years, 9 months ago

Marion, are you making the point that millions of smokers (have I mentioned how GROSS smoking is?) are unable to refrain from going out in public and having to interact with people without smoking? Are they not satisfied to do it around their children and families in the privacy of their own homes and cars? Is that not enough? When will the tyranny of the cancer stick lovers end?! Is it to the point where we have to make laws because SMOKERS can't control themselves?

scott3460 7 years, 9 months ago

Pilgrim, the day is rapidly approaching when nonsmoking will, in fact, be the norm throughout society. The vast majority of businesses everywhere will be smoke free & smokers will be relegated to their own private property. And business will go on. The majority does not need to take the risk of running a business in order to exert its influence. All it take is votes.

Jonas: Nope, just speaking the truth.

jonas 7 years, 9 months ago

Go back over your posts, and count the superlatives and descriptive adjectives. Those are all opinions. Not truths. Your opinion is that smoking is disgusting. Surely, your opinion is shared by a great many people, but that still doesn't make it truth.

Not, in the end, that it matters much. Such a large majority means you get your own way, and that's reality. I think its a shame, but that's my opinion, again.

scott3460 7 years, 9 months ago

Tychoman:

They are drug addicts. It is probably unreasonable to expect them to exert control over their addictions. All we can do is try to regulate their behavior. Personally, I could care less what they do so long as I don't have to be bothered in anyway. They can smoke every minute of every day at their homes & I could care less (just speeds the day when we'll be rid of another one of them.)

It is funny, however, how hysterical they are becoming over their last public bastion of filth going away. And this notion that somehow businesses just cannot survive under the jackbooted thuggary of such oppressive regulation. How hilarious. Guess that's why we see so many grocery stores & banks and hospitals & etc.... that cater to the smoking crowd.

Tychoman 7 years, 9 months ago

Hear hear, Scott. I don't care if they smoke in their homes. Just don't do it at a restaurant when I'm trying to eat my dinner.

RT, read Marion's posts. Why aren't you b*tching at him about tolerance? I shouldn't have to be "tolerant" of something that's dangerous and a hazard to my health.

Tychoman 7 years, 9 months ago

Some people DON'T have a choice. When I walk to class I can't count the number of people leaning up against the doors of buildings puffing away and then stinking up the classrooms with that awful smell.

RT, If you don't like secondhand smoke, why tolerate it? Just so you can still call yourself a Republican? I notice you haven't addressed any other part of my arguments. Just regurgitating your moronic old talking points.

Economics, Pilgrim. Not that I'd expect you to understand, but I should have the freedom to go to a smoke-free environment when I want to eat out at a restaurant. It just doesn't make sense when most cities have one or two smoke-free establishments if they don't already have an all-out ban.

scott3460 7 years, 9 months ago

Well, I am not sure I buy your logic. My opinion can also be the truth. They are not necessarily contradictory. My opinion is that gravity is real. The fact that it is my opinion does not make it untrue.

In any event, my central contention, throw away the superlatives and the adjectives if you like, is that the nonsmoker has no true choice in the marketplace & never will so long as business is left to its own devices. Thus the argument that the ban is unwarranted, unnecessary, etc. because a nonsmoker can always just "choose" not to go in to the smoky bar is faulty.

And this is not an issue of me getting my way. Such a large majority means that the majority gets their way in public & in these sorts of quasi-public places, and that's exactly the way it should be. I don't think that's a shame at all. The more incredible thing is that a nicotine addict thinks they have the right to impose the secondary effects of their addiction on innocent members of the public.

whistlestop75 7 years, 9 months ago

Posted by scott3460 (anonymous) on March 7, 2007 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, I am not sure I buy your logic. My opinion can also be the truth. They are not necessarily contradictory. My opinion is that gravity is real. The fact that it is my opinion does not make it untrue.

In any event, my central contention, throw away the superlatives and the adjectives if you like, is that the nonsmoker has no true choice in the marketplace & never will so long as business is left to its own devices. Thus the argument that the ban is unwarranted, unnecessary, etc. because a nonsmoker can always just "choose" not to go in to the smoky bar is faulty.

And this is not an issue of me getting my way. Such a large majority means that the majority gets their way in public & in these sorts of quasi-public places, and that's exactly the way it should be. I don't think that's a shame at all. The more incredible thing is that a nicotine addict thinks they have the right to impose the secondary effects of their addiction on innocent members of the public.

Scott3460... Until you establish a non-smoking business with your own dollars you have no conception of the committment it takes to be in business. True, the public drives the market place, but the Legislature has no authority to prohibit a LEGAL product. IF you want true reform in the retail/business industry lobby Washington D.C. and see how far you get taking away tax dollars and lobbying fees the Tobacco industry pays. You and the anit-smoking public have a long battle to fight...and it starts in Washington...not at the local/or state level. There are establishments I can't go into because of my allergies that burn certain candles...instant miagrain. Should I lobby the fragrance industry or ask for Legislation? That affects my health...leave the small businessman alone that pays the taxes that keeps YOUR personal property taxes down to pay for public infrastructure...

Linda Endicott 7 years, 9 months ago

But if the non-smokers are such a clear and large majority, then why wouldn't more businesses have catered to them prior to the ban?

If the market gives people what they want (and it does; businesses that don't provide what customers want don't last), and non-smokers are in the majority, then why wouldn't you have a business that caters to the wants of the majority, in this case non-smokers (your claim)?

Businesses make decisions that will make them the most money. Ticking off the supposed majority wouldn't be in the best interests of the business, would it?

If non-smokers, before the ban, were so willing to put up with something they didn't like to be around (second-hand smoke), then what incentive did the businesses have to change their policies? Why didn't the non-smokers, if they are the majority, stay away from these places in droves, and make their wishes clear? If they had, maybe some places would have become non-smoking long before the ban ever took place.

But they didn't do that, did they? Why not?

jonas 7 years, 9 months ago

"My opinion can also be the truth. They are not necessarily contradictory. My opinion is that gravity is real. The fact that it is my opinion does not make it untrue."

On a non-subjective topic, then that's true. Very little of this topic is non-subjective.

"In any event, my central contention, throw away the superlatives and the adjectives if you like, is that the nonsmoker has no true choice in the marketplace & never will so long as business is left to its own devices."

If you say so. I think it's more likely that it means that aggressive non-smokers as a demographic lack the willpower and initiative to properly organize themselves to get their viewpoints and desires heard and reacted to. It's not that much of a surprise, though, as special interest groups and the govt have been willing to hold your hand and do your work for you.

"Thus the argument that the ban is unwarranted, unnecessary, etc. because a nonsmoker can always just "choose" not to go in to the smoky bar is faulty."

How so? You certainly haven't shown that up to this point.

"The more incredible thing is that a nicotine addict thinks they have the right to impose the secondary effects of their addiction on innocent members of the public."

Well, I won't argue with that. But I don't think this issue is properly broken down into smoker vs non-smoker rights. There aren't any such rights.

OfficeGirl 7 years, 9 months ago

I've gone to restaurants with smoking sections and found people with children are sitting there. Why do people bring their children to a smoking section of a restaurant? Stupidity, I guess. I do appreciate the smoking ban at restaurants. It eliminates the above idiocy and eating is always better without the smell of cigarette smoke in your face. But bars.....that was always part of the deal with bars--drinking and smoking. I don't go to bars anymore but I can only imagine that maybe it's nice for some to be able to go home and pass out without having to either shower beforehand or have to change your sheets the next day because they smell like an ashtray. I can appreciate both sides of the debate. I've had periods of my life as both a smoker and a non-smoker and currently smoke-a little. I never smoked in the house or anywhere around my kids, not in the car. As a child I watched a grandfather die of emphysema and remember when they said my grandmother had it too but she never smoked a cigarette in her life. The dangers of second hand smoke are very real. I really don't see what it could hurt to let business owners decide as long as their businesses were places that only adults could enter. Children are too young to make the decision. If adults want to make a decision to kill themselves, fine, but not kids.

scott3460 7 years, 9 months ago

Marion: On this subject you seem intent on simply ignoring anything I have to say, so, I'm not going to bother... I think anyone that reads through these posts can see your game pretty clearly.

Jonas: You say "I think it's more likely that it means that aggressive non-smokers as a demographic lack the willpower and initiative to properly organize themselves to get their viewpoints and desires heard and reacted to. It's not that much of a surprise, though, as special interest groups and the govt have been willing to hold your hand and do your work for you." And yet, somehow a majority of the public exerted the willpower and initiative to get the ban we are discussing enacted in Lawrence. Since I know you enjoy facts & the truth so much I will leave it to you to conclude what that inconvenient morsel does to your point.

And, after giving this issue more thought than I had really intended over the last several days, I say, let those businesses that want to be smoker exclusive bars become private clubs. Then if you'd like to join or partake, you do know what you are getting in to & are choosing to do so. Those businesses that hold themselves open to the public, however, should abide by the wishes of the majority as enacted in the duly passed ordinances of the City.

That may be my last word on the matter (for now anyway.)

jonas 7 years, 9 months ago

Your inconvenient morsal does nothing Scott. An out of town special interest group came in and set everything up for you. You didn't even have to show up and vote, I don't think.

Local initiative!

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0UADrAvsYzgtXYjCaMHrdpyFyeL8Ujn62hP!DVVc3BQngJWKnPfyYMVrtJAg50tdPw1PmrCmko9a4ztr14yCHkMIFIVETjPxHfI4YUwIYCnfiSzg06rd2i3SCzxYAcM8W/vash%20laughing.gif?dc=4675401830455813961

Tychoman 7 years, 9 months ago

Economics has nothing to do with your insistence that everybody behave the way you want them to. On the other hand, economics has a lot to do with running a business. But you don't give a sh*t about that. You just want to jam your world view down everybody's throats.

Why are you so afraid of letting adults have choices? -Pilgrim.

"Everybody behave the way you want them to...you just want to jam your world view down everybody's throats."

That's only partway true, and more true about idiots like you. You want people to behave according to your beliefs just as much as I do. That's human nature. But why do you insist on having smoke shoved down people's lungs?

scott3460 7 years, 9 months ago

"Confused much? In one breath you say the market is working, and in the next you say it's not.

Wait a minute. Is this really John Kerry?"

Not at all, Pilgrim. My point is the market will not offer a choice & there is a decades long track record to show that a nonsmoker has never had the "choice" of choosing to patronize a nonsmoking bar. What it takes is outside influence via special interest group agitation, government regulation, etc. to force the change upon the business. Left alone the vast, vast majority of businessmen simply will not act to reduce their pool of potential customers & you end up with situations like bars where it is just expected that the nonsmoker should put up with the minority of nicotine addicts who want to smoke in such places. The original contention of Marion was, well, nonsmokers should just vote with their dollars and choose to patronize only places that did not expose them to the smoke. My point is the marketplace never offered that choice so it is perfectly legitimate for the majority to insist upon the right via City ordinance.

Jonas: Whine, whine, whine....the fact remains the ban was enacted via legitimate political processes. Whether an out of town special interest helped or not is not really relevant. And somehow I doubt the cigarette industry was just standing on the sidelines. There are volumes and volumes written that establish their illegal and corrupt influence on public policy.

Tychoman 7 years, 9 months ago

"Just give me my world the way I want it, and everyone else be damned."

That's exactly what you're guilty of as well. Pointing out the obvious and being a hypocrite about it aren't the best ways to settle this debate.

jonas 7 years, 9 months ago

"Jonas: Whine, whine, whine....the fact remains the ban was enacted via legitimate political processes. Whether an out of town special interest helped or not is not really relevant. And somehow I doubt the cigarette industry was just standing on the sidelines. There are volumes and volumes written that establish their illegal and corrupt influence on public policy."

Sure it's relevent, in the context of non-smokers who can't help themselves, which is what the conversation context was. I could also care less about the tobacco industry. I broke their hold on me when I quit smoking. Now I'm just working on yours!

Was I whining? I don't think so!

gr 7 years, 9 months ago

Posted by Tychoman: "Hear hear, Scott. I don't care if they smoke in their homes. Just don't do it at a restaurant when I'm trying to eat my dinner."

Hear hear, Tychoman. I don't care if they mate with dead animals or each other in their homes. Just don't bring their "marriage" out into public.

Heh, Heh.

Tychoman 7 years, 9 months ago

And that post of yours makes you look nothing more than like the ass you are.

jonas 7 years, 9 months ago

But I thought dems were the asses. We need a derisive term related to elephants.

scott3460 7 years, 9 months ago

Give the vast majority of the public, not just me, what it wants. If you wanna smoke, go home, or go to a private club, but quit imposing your drug addiction on the majority of us that don't wish to put up with it.

Pilgrim, if you think McDonalds, First Watch and Gaslight constitutes a meaningful choice, then I don't know that there is any point in belaboring my point which has, frankly, been belabored. Of course there are occasional examples of businesses that bucked the trend and chose to be smoke-free. The vast, vast majority of such establishments over the years, however, did not & unless one enjoys hanging out again and again at McDonald & watching the trailer trash behemoths pick up their evening chow, a nonsmoker has had very, very little choice but to put up with the smoking that the majority of businesses still allowed. Obviously, the majority of us got tired of that & said screw you folks, we want smoke free bars & got the ban passed without having to wait for the market to catch up with our wishes. Too bad you don't like it, but it is reality & I am not going to lose any sleep worrying about imposing on the "rights" of businessmen run things the way they want. The business world is full of rules and regulations. It's called the price of doing business.

missymccoy 7 years, 9 months ago

Let's keep in mind this is not so much an issue of emotions but of simple common sense: 1. Debating whether secondhand smoke is harmful is useless and unneccesary---when you consider that the smoker is getting their smoke through a filter (like that does a lot of good), but the smoke wafting off the other end of the cigarette is completely unfiltered, how could it NOT be harmful to others being forced to breathe it by sheer proximity to the smoker? The answer is obvious. 2. The natural state of the oxygen we breathe is SMOKE FREE, and it is not unreasonable to expect to be able to breathe air as it should be taken in to one's lungs, free of smoke, when one ventures out into the world and into an enclosed public space, such as a restaurant. 3. It is simply not fair for a minority of people, who happen to have an unpleasant and unhealthy habit, to (again) force others around them to essentially engage in the same unpleasant and unhealthy activity. Ask any non-smoker who has had a dinner ruined by having to sit there, trying to enjoy their meal, with eyes watering, nose burning, and throat hurting.

missymccoy 7 years, 9 months ago

Marion, I stand by my comments. The natural, normal state of air is smoke-free. Any smoke anyone takes into their lungs has been put there by a human being. People who don't smoke should be able to enjoy a meal in a restaurant, ANY restaurant, and not have to breathe smoke. Period. People who do smoke can do so in their house, their car, outside---just anywhere there aren't others who don't want smoke in their lungs. Simple and fair. A smoker's "rights" end where my lungs begin.
Until someone invents a portable 'personal smoking environment' that keeps it confined to your personal space and out of my lungs, I'm sorry. It's just simply not fair to expect non-smoking people to have to breathe in a substance they don't want, even in the name of 'civil liberty'. Smokers can eat anywhere and smoke before, or after, or outside between courses (if they're that pitiful), and still enjoy the restaurant. What you're suggesting is that non-smokers are just s.o.l. That ain't fair, or cool.

missymccoy 7 years, 9 months ago

Marion, Marion, you just truly don't get it, do you? Why should I have to stay away from a restaurant I love because of a completely unrelated personal habit of someone else? How fair is that? You don't HAVE to smoke in a restaurant. We ALL have to breathe. Once again , it is not unreasonable to expect clean air in a public building shared by everyone (that one's for you, Chuck). That is not an unreasonable request. You can smoke anywhere else you want, just not where there are people who don't want to breathe it. Like people with small children for instance, or asthma, or who are just trying to be healthy. Marion, what gives you the right to impose your habit on my body? And why should that dicate where I eat? Why should I have to limit where I can go eat because of you?
Smoking is unneccesary. It puts something unpleasant and unhealthy into the air that wasn't there before. There is no way to contain it to one person, table, or section. It pervades the entire atmosphere of the restaurant and brings the ambiance down several notches, to say the least. Lawrence is actually very far behind the curve on this one (not a huge shocker). Many, many cities have gone completely non-smoking in public buildings, and nobody's business has suffered in the long run. We lived in New Mexico for years and even Albuquerque (think Wichita) went non-smoking 15 years ago. And nobody died. It levels the playing field. Everyone can enjoy nice clean air where they eat, and smokers can simply smoke elsewhere, where it doesn't bother other people.
This isn't about politics, or even personal freedom. It's about sharing common areas and being civilized and fair. It's just not fair to subject those around you to your personal habit. No one is saying you can't smoke---just not where it affects others. For you to say non-smokers can just stay away is a ridiculous infringement on OUR rights---that is, the right to breathe clean air and eat where we choose. You smokers just don't realise how unpleasant it is to have a meal essentially ruined by cigarette smoke. It ruins the entire atmosphere of a restaurant. The smoke alters the aroma and taste of the food. You're paying good money for a good meal that you can't enjoy fully because every time you breathe in you're getting cigarette smoke along with everything else. Your eyes start burning, your nose starts running, your start to cough, and your clothes stink at the end of the evening------real fun. I'm guessing you're pretty young---you're more worried about your "rights", at the expense of others', than you are about your health or your finances. I mean, think of the money you'd save if you didn't smoke. And maybe you've just never watched someone die of lung cancer in their 50's after smoking through their younger years.

Tychoman 7 years, 9 months ago

A business shouldn't have to pay because of the idiotic habits a portion of its customers have. The market can take non-smoking businesses. If anything, it will do better if restaurants, and certain bars remained non-smoking.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.