Freedom has always been a big thing for me, and quite simply I always
felt that a proprietor should have the freedom to choose what type of
establishment he wants to run. If he wants to have a place that
allows smoking, so be it; if he wants a non-smoking place, more power
to him. After all, a patron has the choice to go to whichever place
he wants. If you don't want to be around smoke just go to a non-
smoking place; if you smoke, go to a place that allows it. If the
non-smoking place is across town, then you decide which is more
important to you, the convenience of going someplace closer or
staying away from second-hand smoke. If you choose convenience,
don't complain. After all if a smoke-free environment isn't
important enough to you to drive a longer distance, than why is it
important enough to infringe upon another's freedom to smoke?
Some say that smoking infringes on a non-smoker's right to air free
from second-hand smoke. That would be true if smokers were going to
the non-smoker's house to smoke. But if the non-smoker chooses to go
someplace that allows smoking, they have chosen to subject themself
to the possibility of breathing smoke, and thus have given their
consent. If I decide to sleep on train tracks and a train hits me,
the train didn't infringe on my freedom to sleep wherever I want. If
I don't want to get hit by the train, I just won't go to the tracks.
An analogy...A Catholic wants to go to church, but it's way across
town and service is at an inconvenient time. But there is a
synagogue across the street that has services at better times. He
gets the idea that he should try to pass a law so that all houses of
worship only offer Catholic services because it would be more
convenient to him...absolutely ridiculous. If you want a Catholic
service, go to a Catholic church, don't try to make every place cater
to your wants, infringing on the freedom of others to do what they
want.
By the way, I quit smoking quite a while back, and as such, am
probably more sensitive to smoke than a lot of people who never
smoked. So guess what, I DON'T FREQUENT PLACES THAT GET REALLY
SMOKEY, regardless of what they offer that I can't find elsewhere.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.
> >
> > mickeycrimm wrote:
> >
> > > So everyone you disagree with should keep their mouths shut?
> > > Who did you say was ignorant? Have you ever read any of the
> > > UNLV studies?
> > >
> > > Casino executives don't want to ban smoking for one reason.
> > > Every serious study, not propaganda, study, they have read
> > > shows a 10% loss of gaming win across the State of Nevada.
> > > That's not a recession, sir, that's a depression--
> > > corresponding layoffs. They will ban smoking when the
> > > cost/benefit analysis shows the lawsuits will cost them more
> > > than the loss of revenue.
> > >
> > > The problem with you big mouth anti-smokers is all you
> > > do is run your mouths. When the smoking bans kick in
> > > you don't show up to support the businesses who lose
> > > the smokers as customers. That's the reason for the
> > > loss of revenue. Candy Asses. Stone cold candy asses.
> >
> > I have not read the UNLV studies, but I find mickeycrimm'
> > analysis of casino management's thinking most likely to be
> > accurate.
> >
> > However....
> >
> > mickeycrimm, are you suggesting that there is a moral
> > obligation for anyone to support any business? I don't
> > think that opinion will find much support on this forum
> > or elsewhere for that matter. Also, I find your
> > denegration of non-smokers for not supporting a
> > business that obeys a smoking ban to be unwarranted.
> >
> > I find it much easier to support the opinion that everyone
> > is morally justified in asserting their right to a workplace
> > that is not unneccesarily dangerous to their health.
> >
> > Gamb00ler
> >
> I'm doing the denigrating? Do you have any idea of the insults
I've
> taken over the years? Even in the polite society of vpFREE smoking
> ban proponents have layed their insults down. I find this quite
> funny. I pop off one time after tolerating years of the lies,
myths,
> distortions by anti-smokers and now I'm the bad guy. RFLMAO!!!
>
> All they have to do is be honest. I'm honest about it. Smoking is
> bad for your health. Second hand smoke certainly can't be good for
> your health. If someone says to me:
>
> "I know the smoking ban hurts some businesses but that is the cost
> we have to pay to protect our health."
>
> I respect that opinion and that persons right to act on it
> politically. At least they are intellectually honest. And if they
> win on the issue, which I believe they will in the end, so be it.
I
> have nothing against these people.
>
> But if one says to me "The smoking ban will not decrease but rather
> will increase revenue" or "the smoking ban did not cause the loss
of
> revenue, they opened a casino in another state that took the
> business" or "there's a recession" or "people are not vacationing
> like they used to" or "people are gambling less" or any of the
> various and sundry smoke and mirror reasons they will come up with
> instead of admitting the one true cause of the loss of business,
then
> I have no respect for these people. They are intellectually
> dishonest. They ignore hard evidence when it doesn't serve their
> cause and spew propaganda instead.
>
> You wanna see some hard evidence of what a smoking ban can do then
> Google on Helena Smoking Ban.
>
> Helena, Montana instituted a smoking ban that included
bars/casinos.
> These are small casinos. Up to 20 machines. You have to have a
> liquor license to obtain a gaming license so the machines are
either
> in the bar or a room adjacent to the bar. There are about 20 of
> these casinos in Helena.
>
> The smoking ban lasted six months. During that time these
> bar/casinos experienced a $5,000,000 shortfall in revenue. The
> smoking ban was found unconstitutional for, of all reasons, the law
> didn't provide for a jury trial for anyone accused of breaking it.
>
> When the ban lifted revenue returned to pre-ban levels. That's
hard
> evidence.
>
> If you are a smoking ban proponent, fine. I support you 110% in
your
> fight---as long as you are honest on the issue.
>
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
