It's about control

Thomas-we have had this discussion many times on this forum. You are 100% correct. It is sad that the pro-ban folk really have no argument that withstands scrutiny, but it does not matter. They stick to their position like a cultist.

Bob in the Grove wrote:

It is sad that the pro-ban folk really have no argument that withstands scrutiny

Cancer deaths and their costs. I think that easily withstands scrutiny. The majority have spoken, so deal with it.

Randolph wrote:

<quoted text>
Cancer deaths and their costs. I think that easily withstands scrutiny. The majority have spoken, so deal with it.

Cancer deaths and the associated cost have NOTHING to do with letting the individual owners decide their own smoking policy. So, yes nothing antis have offered up withstands any scrutiny. Just stay out of bars that permit smoking and then smokers and antis are covered.

I like to smoke and breathe it into other peoples faces. I don't care if they don't like it, because it's my right. When they complain, I whine. When they legislate, I whine. But I'll show them: I'm going to smoke nonstop, just to show my disagreement with them. Yea... I'll show them....

Bob in the Grove wrote:

Thomas-we have had this discussion many times on this forum. You are 100% correct. It is sad that the pro-ban folk really have no argument that withstands scrutiny, but it does not matter. They stick to their position like a cultist.

Like Scalia says: GET OVER IT.... loser...

Go away, Sport!

Randolph wrote:

<quoted text>
Cancer deaths and their costs. I think that easily withstands scrutiny. The majority have spoken, so deal with it.

Sadly you are correct, common sense lost.

It is funny that while I was able to avoid smoke for 43 years the nanny staters decided that I needed more protection.

Jack in the Pulpit wrote:

<quoted text>
Like Scalia says: GET OVER IT.... loser...

Randolph wrote:

<quoted text>
Cancer deaths and their costs. I think that easily withstands scrutiny. The majority have spoken, so deal with it.

The smoking bans are supposed to protect the 53,000 "estimated" non smoker deaths from smoking related diseases. Compare that to the 440,000 actual smoker’s deaths from smoking related diseases and I don't imagine the savings (in life or cost) will be all that great. Add to that the other lifestyle habits that can contribute to the same diseases (heart attacks-#1 and cancer #2). Without putting a stop to a lot of other bad habits, as with everything else, the cost will probably continue to go up. I should think the cost of new technology plays a large part in health costs. And I definately don't think those costs will go down.

fluteman greg wrote:

<quoted text>Cancer deaths and the associated cost have NOTHING to do with letting the individual owners decide their own smoking policy.

Your opinion. The majority think differently.

Bob in the Grove wrote:

Go away, Sport!
<quoted text>

So much for your "withstands scrutiny" assertion, Sport.

Randolph wrote:

<quoted text>
Cancer deaths and their costs. I think that easily withstands scrutiny. The majority have spoken, so deal with it.

The majority have spoken?

Excuse me.

When was the public allowed to vote on this?

Obviously the majority didn't frequent the bars and restaurants that closed because of this law.

replace the personal choice of "smoking" with the personal choice of "unproteced gay sex" and Randy would be singing a different tune regarding deaths and the cost to the "majority".

Randolph wrote:

<quoted text>
So much for your "withstands scrutiny" assertion, Sport.

Ok Rudolph, explain to the world how Joe Camel's Bar and Grille, which allows smoking, has any impact on me whatsoever. Please do.

Red Ryder wrote:

replace the personal choice of "smoking" with the personal choice of "unproteced gay sex" and Randy would be singing a different tune regarding deaths and the cost to the "majority".

Tell us more, bigot.

Bob in the Grove wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok Rudolph, explain to the world how Joe Camel's Bar and Grille, which allows smoking, has any impact on me whatsoever. Please do.

Do you work at this place? Do you pay taxes? Health insurance?

Randolph wrote:

<quoted text>
Your opinion. The majority think differently.

That's where you're wrong. The vast majority of posts I've read on this forum is in support of the business owners deciding for themselves. Only the antis are against freedom of business owners dictating their own smoking policy. Quite sad and pathetic.

Torque wrote:

Obviously the majority didn't frequent the bars and restaurants that closed because of this law.

LOL. Remember after 9/11 when all kinds of business blamed their problems on Osama? I know this is shocking news, but bars and restaurants have an extremely high failure rate, regardless of smoking laws. The bars and restaurants I go to are still packed to the walls every time I go out, and I definitely go out more frequently now that the ban is in effect.

Randolph wrote:

<quoted text>
Cancer deaths and their costs. I think that easily withstands scrutiny.

And we've had this discussion many times before too. Big Medicine does not know for sure what causes cancer. They don't know why some smokers get it and other don't and the same for non-smokers. And the second hand smoke fallacy has been shot down from every possible direction and their propagandists along with it. As for cost, it's recently been proven that non-smoker health care costs are more than both smokers and the obese.

The majority have spoken, so deal with it.

No, a minority of anti-smoking lobbyists and their Democrat and RINO legislative lapdogs have spoken, but that's going to change.

Smokers are a plague upon our society and they need to be extinquished. They have driven up our health care premiums and killed hundreds of thousands of non smokers with their deadly gases. We must force these depraved citizens to quit their deadly habit by any means necessary. I think we need to re-educate these sinful people either by putting these morions in jail or some type of hospital to get them to give up their cancer sticks. Minnesotans have spoken and more than 78% of us hate smokers and do not want them killing us anylonger! We want them out of our state as soon as possible before they cause anymore harm and deaths to us. We must ask our legislators to stiffen the smoking ban by outlawing these cigar clubs and theater exceptions and banning the sale and use of this deadly product. You don't need cigarettes to survive and they only harm us. We must get these people to give up their habit NOW!!

Randolph wrote:

<quoted text>
Tell us more, bigot.

sorry, I forgot.AIDS is only prevented by taking more money from people who pay taxes in the US.