Comments by fudgesickle
Page 1 of 1
Posted on September 16 at 4:04 p.m.
I do not see it as a failed argument.
Is forcing a restaurant to provide non-tainted food infringing on rights?
Is forcing a business to provide a clean and healthy establishment for workers and patrons infringing on rights?
By the counter argument I am seeing here. If we allow an establishment to provide unhealthy air, then is it unreasonable to expect them to provide untainted products? These are both public health concerns.
I see where you are going with the "Thank You for Smoking" argument. I just don't believe it applies here.
Also, I think you misunderstood me earlier. I am a smoker. I also choose to step outside whether in an establishment or at home when I light up. It's a disgusting habit, but dang it.... it's the only thing that calms me down.
I respect your point of view and agree to disagree with it. No amount of bickering has ever solved a problem.
I also do not believe that the proposal should be passed as is if Matt is correct on the regulations they want to impose on alcohol serving institutions.
Posted on September 16 at 3:01 p.m.
jayhawker.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on personal freedoms. I believe that the government stepping in to save us from ourselves has, in general, caused more problems than they have prevented. Prohibition was a disaster and empowered the Al Capone's of history. The war on drugs is another example of disastrous consequences. Sure, both of these may have had good intentions, but the problems they have caused far outweigh those which they were intended to prevent. I also believe many censorship laws are ridiculous.
I believe this, however, is a different issue. I do not believe this to be an issue of personal freedoms. This is an issue of public health. I do have the choice to go to a smoking or non-smoking establishment. I also believe that the locations impact on my personal health should not have to be a deciding factor on where I eat dinner. I shouldn't have to worry that the food is tainted or cockroaches are crawling around the prep table(thank you FDA). I also shouldn't have to worry that the air I am breathing will be tainted. What I eat, what I drink is again a personal choice, and I can then choose to eat fatty food and drink beer that is likely detrimental to my health. That is personal freedom.
Posted on September 16 at 1:51 p.m.
business is driven by profit??? That is just crazy....
It happened in Lawrence, where I used to live. Bar owners were against it and more people are going out now that smoking is not allowed inside. Now I live in Overland Park and the same is true.
I don't know where they stand, but I would think the bars that already do not allow smoking would be the most opposed to this right now. They have the most to lose.
Look at it this way. Most people that smoke, me included, are not going to stop going out because they can't smoke inside. It isn't too difficult to step outside for 5 minutes. A lot more non-smokers will go out with the knowledge that they have more clean air opportunities to go to. I generally will select a non-smoking bar over a smoking bar even though I am a smoker.
The reason a ban hasn't passed is because of the fear of infringement on personal freedom, even when, in this case, it is more a matter of public health.
Posted on September 16 at 1:05 p.m.
First... Vince. This comment: There is ample physical evidence that Cal. (& the western seaboard) will become ocean bottom at some time in the future.Millions will die.Shouldn't the governments save people from the greater danger and start evacuating this area now?Why haven't the members of these anti-smoker,so-called citizen groups started fleeing in panic?
is one of the dumbest things I have ever read in my life.
Second, this is a public health issue and not the removal of an individuals or business owners rights as many believe. There are plenty of things out there that a business owner can't do in terms of keeping public health in mind. This is no different.
I will agree with Matt that bars and alcohol serving restaurants are being unfairly targeted. Fines should be straight across the board from a bar to a fast food restaurant to the individual who is smoking. A ban should not be allowed with a provision discriminating the type of establishment involved.
I do however agree with a ban. It is a positive for public health, and for the business owner, I have yet to live in a town that banned smoking where business didn't increase for most establishments after the ban.
Posted on August 20 at 3:04 p.m.
I heard this same opposition when Lawrence banned smoking. I notice they don't reference how that turned out in this article. Business actually increased because more people were going out to smoke free establishments. Smokers just stepped outside when they wanted a puff.
I'm a smoker and I prefer being in a non-smoking establishment. It's not difficult to step outside for a couple of minutes and smoke.
On Opponents say Clean Air Emporia over-reaches with smoking ban plan
Posted on April 23 at 3:40 p.m.
We live in a state with some of the best wind energy potential in the country(only North Dakota and Texas are better) and extremely good solar energy potential as well. The state of Kansas could feasibly power half of the United States or more just with our own renewable and clean resources. I am appalled that our state government is so backward thinking when it comes to energy(or any level of science for that matter). Oh well, I guess when we are all paying 10-15 dollars for a gallon of gasoline as the middle east continues to put on the squeeze even the big pockets of the politicians might start feeling the strain and they might pull their heads out.
Posted on January 23 at 1:37 p.m.
lol, the envy of Olpe continues...
Page 1 of 1
Posted on September 16 at 7:01 p.m.
"The only right we are dealing with is the right to manage your property as you see fit"
Time and time again throughout history, government intervention has saved us from this belief.
This was one of the South's main contentions for seceding from the Union.
Child Labor, worker's rights, US Bank, monopoly control, regulations to what is in our food, what we drink, etc..
If you think we live in a true free market and capitalist society you are very very blind to the truth.
I'm all for letting the free market roll as is, but many times, influence from governments, unions, and social uprising has changed acceptable policy on how you treat your workers, patrons, and how you conduct business.
jayhawk: I get your critique of the analogy to FDA food and drug inspection and board of health checks. I will say this. With no regulation, there is no guarantee that any place will have quality food. We live on the assumption that without regulation, people will act in an acceptable way in the business world. That is not an assumption I would be willing to make in any industry. These regulations have led to the society we have today where we can feel very safe about the integrity of what we are putting in our bodies. 100 years ago, this was not the case.
Also, they would try to turn your statement into a straw man, not a red herring. ;)
On Opinion: Smoking ban - What’s right?