Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Smoke-Free Illinois Act January 2008 Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2007-12-31 10:43 AM
in reply to: #1123919

User image

Master
2808
2000500100100100
, Minnesota
Subject: RE: Smoke-Free Illinois Act January 2008
Whether smoking is bad for you, is smelly or bothers somebody is a sad reason to inconvenience business owners. It's a sad fact that in many states a business can't decide for itself whether it wants to be smoke free.

All levels of gov't have far bigger fish to fry than to worry about indoor smoking but it seems to be a popular target. Our elected officials gravitate to it so they feel like the got something done. In the meantime a couple people a day are getting shot.



2007-12-31 10:44 AM
in reply to: #1124333

User image

Elite
3519
20001000500
San Jose, CA
Subject: RE: Smoke-Free Illinois Act January 2008
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 8:26 AM
pigfinn - 2007-12-31 10:19 AM
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 10:17 AM
pigfinn - 2007-12-31 10:15 AM
CBarnes - 2007-12-31 7:58 AM

First, read my posts above.  I don't smoke.  I also know that I had a choice about going to places that did, or didn't, allow smoking.  That's why it is called a choice.  Mandates by the government, when it comes to choices like this, on a LEGAL product are a dangerously, slippery slope.  If you are that worried about this poison, lobby to get it banned.

Again, yes, you have a choice to go, or not to go.  The restaurant/bar etc also should have the CHOICE to be smoke free or not.  There have been plenty of places doing it BEFORE the government stepped in.  It is hypocritical.  If they really cared, they would ban it.  All they are doing is grandstanding.  Making it look like they are actually doing something. 

I associate this garbage law with Chicago banning foie-gras and NYC banning Trans Fats.  A waste of tax payer time when the government should be focusing on more pressing issues.  Namely, education, budgets and the overall corruption of our government from top to bottom (Federal, State, City, local, etc). 

I am assuming this was a measure that was voted on.  As far as making it illegal this may be the first step...everything that changes the way people live and survive and would vastly impact the global economy moves in little steps and usually takes decades.  I don't so much as see this as armagadeon.  This wasn't the government swooping in to control someones lives.  This most likely was a measure placed there by an elected official.  Elected by the people.  Then it was voted on by the people.  All well within reason of the current governmental structure. By the way, I do lobby for a smoke free america... I suggest that you lobby for less government if you are afraid of the government taking over.  Only vote for those candidates that feel the same as you. 
2007-12-31 10:44 AM
in reply to: #1124333

User image

Elite
2493
2000100100100100252525
Chicago, IL
Subject: RE: Smoke-Free Illinois Act January 2008
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 10:26 AM
pigfinn - 2007-12-31 10:19 AM
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 10:17 AM
pigfinn - 2007-12-31 10:15 AM
CBarnes - 2007-12-31 7:58 AM

First let me say I think smoking is a nasty disgusting habit, my Father, Mother, and Grandmother all smoked when I was a kid in the house, in the car, and quite a lot.  I did not know just how bad it smelled until I joined the Navy and moved out of the house then when I came home WOW it was bad.  My Grandmother died of smoking related illnesses and my father is experiencing problems now as well.  What may shock many of you these smoking bans are just plain wrong! A restaurant or bars are private property someone owns them and the owner should decide to allow smoking or not to not the government.  You and I have the choice to eat or drink at one of these establishments we are not forced to go there just as the employees have a choice to work there or not to.  I am 45 and during the 27 years I have been paying attention to political and social issues (yes at 18 I was interested) we as a nation have turned to the government more and more to correct all of our personal issues, smoking is the first of a long line of government interventions into the personal habits of Americans.  Why do we continue to applaud as the government takes away bit by bit our liberty and rights to personal choice.  This Socialism can be found in many other areas of our day to day lives as well.  Our kids are fat so let’s regulate serving size and content of public school lunch (if you think this is good go to a public school and eat lunch then decide) people are losing their homes we need the government to make it better (If you go too far in debt why is it my responsibility to pay your way)I can add many more but will not just look at your day to day live and see what is regulated and controlled.  If smoking is legal you should be allowed to smoke on private property isn’t that why we own property? so we can control what goes on?  And if I find the skink of tobacco smoke revolting than I can choose to go where the owner does not allow it that is freedom of choice.   Wake up people the more power you give the government to enforce your will on others the more you give it to regulate your choices as well.

I know what I am saying is unpopular and that makes me sad and a concerned because I think in 30 to 40 more years we will simply choose the leaders who will make all choices for us.

Clifford Barnes

yeah I see what you're saying... when they put in more strict laws on drinking and driving, dang... how that effected our ability to live a more free life...Yell  shame on our government for trying to prolong our lives and keep us a healthier and safer country... how dare they.

 

Ummm... you forgot the sarcastic font.  Oh, and you might want to make certain you are comparing apples to apples.  Those that die in drunk driving accidents due to another's actions had NO choice in the matter.  Those that don't smoke and don't want to be around those that do HAVE a choice.  It is called not going.

Thanks for playing.

so I have to avoid a public place because you decide to spread poison?... how is that fair?  why not take your poison to a place where it's only killing you.  doesn't it bother you that you are killing others while you are killing yourself.  oh i didn't think so.

First, read my posts above.  I don't smoke.  I also know that I had a choice about going to places that did, or didn't, allow smoking.  That's why it is called a choice.  Mandates by the government, when it comes to choices like this, on a LEGAL product are a dangerously, slippery slope.  If you are that worried about this poison, lobby to get it banned.

Again, yes, you have a choice to go, or not to go.  The restaurant/bar etc also should have the CHOICE to be smoke free or not.  There have been plenty of places doing it BEFORE the government stepped in.  It is hypocritical.  If they really cared, they would ban it.  All they are doing is grandstanding.  Making it look like they are actually doing something. 

I associate this garbage law with Chicago banning foie-gras and NYC banning Trans Fats.  A waste of tax payer time when the government should be focusing on more pressing issues.  Namely, education, budgets and the overall corruption of our government from top to bottom (Federal, State, City, local, etc). 

I agree with you on alot of things, but I don't agree with you that people have the right to poison what is considered to be a public place.   Public means I have a right to be there, and so do you... but it doesn't mean you have the right to kill me while I'm there

2007-12-31 10:45 AM
in reply to: #1124333

User image

Expert
864
5001001001002525
Lake in the Hills
Subject: RE: Smoke-Free Illinois Act January 2008
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 10:26 AM
pigfinn - 2007-12-31 10:19 AM
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 10:17 AM
pigfinn - 2007-12-31 10:15 AM
CBarnes - 2007-12-31 7:58 AM

First let me say I think smoking is a nasty disgusting habit, my Father, Mother, and Grandmother all smoked when I was a kid in the house, in the car, and quite a lot.  I did not know just how bad it smelled until I joined the Navy and moved out of the house then when I came home WOW it was bad.  My Grandmother died of smoking related illnesses and my father is experiencing problems now as well.  What may shock many of you these smoking bans are just plain wrong! A restaurant or bars are private property someone owns them and the owner should decide to allow smoking or not to not the government.  You and I have the choice to eat or drink at one of these establishments we are not forced to go there just as the employees have a choice to work there or not to.  I am 45 and during the 27 years I have been paying attention to political and social issues (yes at 18 I was interested) we as a nation have turned to the government more and more to correct all of our personal issues, smoking is the first of a long line of government interventions into the personal habits of Americans.  Why do we continue to applaud as the government takes away bit by bit our liberty and rights to personal choice.  This Socialism can be found in many other areas of our day to day lives as well.  Our kids are fat so let’s regulate serving size and content of public school lunch (if you think this is good go to a public school and eat lunch then decide) people are losing their homes we need the government to make it better (If you go too far in debt why is it my responsibility to pay your way)I can add many more but will not just look at your day to day live and see what is regulated and controlled.  If smoking is legal you should be allowed to smoke on private property isn’t that why we own property? so we can control what goes on?  And if I find the skink of tobacco smoke revolting than I can choose to go where the owner does not allow it that is freedom of choice.   Wake up people the more power you give the government to enforce your will on others the more you give it to regulate your choices as well.

I know what I am saying is unpopular and that makes me sad and a concerned because I think in 30 to 40 more years we will simply choose the leaders who will make all choices for us.

Clifford Barnes

yeah I see what you're saying... when they put in more strict laws on drinking and driving, dang... how that effected our ability to live a more free life...Yell  shame on our government for trying to prolong our lives and keep us a healthier and safer country... how dare they.

 

Ummm... you forgot the sarcastic font.  Oh, and you might want to make certain you are comparing apples to apples.  Those that die in drunk driving accidents due to another's actions had NO choice in the matter.  Those that don't smoke and don't want to be around those that do HAVE a choice.  It is called not going.

Thanks for playing.

so I have to avoid a public place because you decide to spread poison?... how is that fair?  why not take your poison to a place where it's only killing you.  doesn't it bother you that you are killing others while you are killing yourself.  oh i didn't think so.

First, read my posts above.  I don't smoke.  I also know that I had a choice about going to places that did, or didn't, allow smoking.  That's why it is called a choice.  Mandates by the government, when it comes to choices like this, on a LEGAL product are a dangerously, slippery slope.  If you are that worried about this poison, lobby to get it banned.

Again, yes, you have a choice to go, or not to go.  The restaurant/bar etc also should have the CHOICE to be smoke free or not.  There have been plenty of places doing it BEFORE the government stepped in.  It is hypocritical.  If they really cared, they would ban it.  All they are doing is grandstanding.  Making it look like they are actually doing something. 

I associate this garbage law with Chicago banning foie-gras and NYC banning Trans Fats.  A waste of tax payer time when the government should be focusing on more pressing issues.  Namely, education, budgets and the overall corruption of our government from top to bottom (Federal, State, City, local, etc). 

Crowny,

I see your point....I like going to PUBLIC places and not have to worry about smoking.  It is nice. There are laws that regulate the consumption of Alcohol and where it can be consumed.  This is a regulation of a legal product.  You have to have a license to sell alcohol.  A regulation of a legal product.  There is precedent to this action.  I have no problem to what people do in thier home.  I do not want to be forced out of doibg things that I enjoy because I have to exercise my choice of not going because of smokers.

Another Example:  I traveled to work with customers to train them on product that we sold.  While I was training someone they lit up a cigarette and started smoking as I was training them on the product.  I end up smoking with them.  No way around it they were all smoking.  I do not have the choice NOT to work with the client.  They paid us for the service.

I know you can argue the point of government intervention and the caretaker society that the government could create.

There used to be smoking on an Airplane

There used to be smoking in offices

 

2007-12-31 10:49 AM
in reply to: #1123919

User image

Elite
3972
200010005001001001001002525
Reno
Subject: RE: Smoke-Free Illinois Act January 2008

I can see the point about government intervention etc,.   But, boy, do I love living smoke-free!  And from a safe-work environment, I think we have to protect employess. 

In Nevada, they exempted casino's from the smoking ban, and in my observations, in the rural areas, they ignore the state-wide ban.

2007-12-31 10:52 AM
in reply to: #1124387

User image

Champion
15211
500050005000100100
Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL
Subject: RE: Smoke-Free Illinois Act January 2008
runningwoof - 2007-12-31 10:44 AM
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 8:26 AM
pigfinn - 2007-12-31 10:19 AM
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 10:17 AM
pigfinn - 2007-12-31 10:15 AM
CBarnes - 2007-12-31 7:58 AM

First, read my posts above.  I don't smoke.  I also know that I had a choice about going to places that did, or didn't, allow smoking.  That's why it is called a choice.  Mandates by the government, when it comes to choices like this, on a LEGAL product are a dangerously, slippery slope.  If you are that worried about this poison, lobby to get it banned.

Again, yes, you have a choice to go, or not to go.  The restaurant/bar etc also should have the CHOICE to be smoke free or not.  There have been plenty of places doing it BEFORE the government stepped in.  It is hypocritical.  If they really cared, they would ban it.  All they are doing is grandstanding.  Making it look like they are actually doing something. 

I associate this garbage law with Chicago banning foie-gras and NYC banning Trans Fats.  A waste of tax payer time when the government should be focusing on more pressing issues.  Namely, education, budgets and the overall corruption of our government from top to bottom (Federal, State, City, local, etc). 

I am assuming this was a measure that was voted on.  As far as making it illegal this may be the first step...everything that changes the way people live and survive and would vastly impact the global economy moves in little steps and usually takes decades.  I don't so much as see this as armagadeon.  This wasn't the government swooping in to control someones lives.  This most likely was a measure placed there by an elected official.  Elected by the people.  Then it was voted on by the people.  All well within reason of the current governmental structure. By the way, I do lobby for a smoke free america... I suggest that you lobby for less government if you are afraid of the government taking over.  Only vote for those candidates that feel the same as you. 

Not entirely certain about the smoking but I don't believe any of these "laws" were voted on by the general public but passed as resolutions by the government.  Actually, I believe the Trans Fat issue was by the Department of Public Health in NYC.  But I digress.  I could care less if it was made illegal, but if that happens, it will make the war on drugs look like a summer picnic. 

I have mentioned, in many other threads, that I have strong libertarian leanings.  Very socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  Last major election I voted outside of the other two parties because I couldn't stand either of them.  Still can't.  And you know as well as I do that there never will be a candidate that will vote exactly the way I would like.   Thankfully!!! 

Long and short of it, I find these "actions on our behalf" insulting.  Nothing more than grandstanding to make it look like they are doing something.  When in actuality, they are doing nothing.  SO many other issues they SHOULD be focusing their time on and instead they chose to WASTE it on debating these topics.  FIX the budgets, FIX the schools (education that is), STOP the corruption (which is quickly becoming one of the biggest issues in almost every level of government).  Most importantly, ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books. 

NOW look whose rambling. 



2007-12-31 10:54 AM
in reply to: #1124390

User image

Champion
15211
500050005000100100
Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL
Subject: RE: Smoke-Free Illinois Act January 2008
AddysDaddy - 2007-12-31 10:45 AM
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 10:26 AM
pigfinn - 2007-12-31 10:19 AM
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 10:17 AM
pigfinn - 2007-12-31 10:15 AM
CBarnes - 2007-12-31 7:58 AM

First let me say I think smoking is a nasty disgusting habit, my Father, Mother, and Grandmother all smoked when I was a kid in the house, in the car, and quite a lot.  I did not know just how bad it smelled until I joined the Navy and moved out of the house then when I came home WOW it was bad.  My Grandmother died of smoking related illnesses and my father is experiencing problems now as well.  What may shock many of you these smoking bans are just plain wrong! A restaurant or bars are private property someone owns them and the owner should decide to allow smoking or not to not the government.  You and I have the choice to eat or drink at one of these establishments we are not forced to go there just as the employees have a choice to work there or not to.  I am 45 and during the 27 years I have been paying attention to political and social issues (yes at 18 I was interested) we as a nation have turned to the government more and more to correct all of our personal issues, smoking is the first of a long line of government interventions into the personal habits of Americans.  Why do we continue to applaud as the government takes away bit by bit our liberty and rights to personal choice.  This Socialism can be found in many other areas of our day to day lives as well.  Our kids are fat so let’s regulate serving size and content of public school lunch (if you think this is good go to a public school and eat lunch then decide) people are losing their homes we need the government to make it better (If you go too far in debt why is it my responsibility to pay your way)I can add many more but will not just look at your day to day live and see what is regulated and controlled.  If smoking is legal you should be allowed to smoke on private property isn’t that why we own property? so we can control what goes on?  And if I find the skink of tobacco smoke revolting than I can choose to go where the owner does not allow it that is freedom of choice.   Wake up people the more power you give the government to enforce your will on others the more you give it to regulate your choices as well.

I know what I am saying is unpopular and that makes me sad and a concerned because I think in 30 to 40 more years we will simply choose the leaders who will make all choices for us.

Clifford Barnes

yeah I see what you're saying... when they put in more strict laws on drinking and driving, dang... how that effected our ability to live a more free life...Yell  shame on our government for trying to prolong our lives and keep us a healthier and safer country... how dare they.

 

Ummm... you forgot the sarcastic font.  Oh, and you might want to make certain you are comparing apples to apples.  Those that die in drunk driving accidents due to another's actions had NO choice in the matter.  Those that don't smoke and don't want to be around those that do HAVE a choice.  It is called not going.

Thanks for playing.

so I have to avoid a public place because you decide to spread poison?... how is that fair?  why not take your poison to a place where it's only killing you.  doesn't it bother you that you are killing others while you are killing yourself.  oh i didn't think so.

First, read my posts above.  I don't smoke.  I also know that I had a choice about going to places that did, or didn't, allow smoking.  That's why it is called a choice.  Mandates by the government, when it comes to choices like this, on a LEGAL product are a dangerously, slippery slope.  If you are that worried about this poison, lobby to get it banned.

Again, yes, you have a choice to go, or not to go.  The restaurant/bar etc also should have the CHOICE to be smoke free or not.  There have been plenty of places doing it BEFORE the government stepped in.  It is hypocritical.  If they really cared, they would ban it.  All they are doing is grandstanding.  Making it look like they are actually doing something. 

I associate this garbage law with Chicago banning foie-gras and NYC banning Trans Fats.  A waste of tax payer time when the government should be focusing on more pressing issues.  Namely, education, budgets and the overall corruption of our government from top to bottom (Federal, State, City, local, etc). 

Crowny,

I see your point....I like going to PUBLIC places and not have to worry about smoking.  It is nice. There are laws that regulate the consumption of Alcohol and where it can be consumed.  This is a regulation of a legal product.  You have to have a license to sell alcohol.  A regulation of a legal product.  There is precedent to this action.  I have no problem to what people do in thier home.  I do not want to be forced out of doibg things that I enjoy because I have to exercise my choice of not going because of smokers.

Another Example:  I traveled to work with customers to train them on product that we sold.  While I was training someone they lit up a cigarette and started smoking as I was training them on the product.  I end up smoking with them.  No way around it they were all smoking.  I do not have the choice NOT to work with the client.  They paid us for the service.

I know you can argue the point of government intervention and the caretaker society that the government could create.

There used to be smoking on an Airplane

There used to be smoking in offices

 

And if California has anything to do with it your next one would say:

There used to be smoking in homes.

 

2007-12-31 11:00 AM
in reply to: #1124410

User image

Master
3019
20001000
West Jordan, UT
Subject: RE: Smoke-Free Illinois Act January 2008
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 9:54 AM

And if California has anything to do with it your next one would say:

There used to be smoking in homes.

 

 

How about just "there used to be smoking."

 

2007-12-31 11:09 AM
in reply to: #1124430

User image

Champion
15211
500050005000100100
Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL
Subject: RE: Smoke-Free Illinois Act January 2008
tkbslc - 2007-12-31 11:00 AM
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 9:54 AM

And if California has anything to do with it your next one would say:

There used to be smoking in homes.

 

 

How about just "there used to be smoking."

 

Yep.  Could be.  Imagine the organized crime that would flourish after that one. 

2007-12-31 11:10 AM
in reply to: #1124410

User image

Expert
864
5001001001002525
Lake in the Hills
Subject: RE: Smoke-Free Illinois Act January 2008
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 10:54 AM
AddysDaddy - 2007-12-31 10:45 AM
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 10:26 AM
pigfinn - 2007-12-31 10:19 AM
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 10:17 AM
pigfinn - 2007-12-31 10:15 AM
CBarnes - 2007-12-31 7:58 AM

First let me say I think smoking is a nasty disgusting habit, my Father, Mother, and Grandmother all smoked when I was a kid in the house, in the car, and quite a lot.  I did not know just how bad it smelled until I joined the Navy and moved out of the house then when I came home WOW it was bad.  My Grandmother died of smoking related illnesses and my father is experiencing problems now as well.  What may shock many of you these smoking bans are just plain wrong! A restaurant or bars are private property someone owns them and the owner should decide to allow smoking or not to not the government.  You and I have the choice to eat or drink at one of these establishments we are not forced to go there just as the employees have a choice to work there or not to.  I am 45 and during the 27 years I have been paying attention to political and social issues (yes at 18 I was interested) we as a nation have turned to the government more and more to correct all of our personal issues, smoking is the first of a long line of government interventions into the personal habits of Americans.  Why do we continue to applaud as the government takes away bit by bit our liberty and rights to personal choice.  This Socialism can be found in many other areas of our day to day lives as well.  Our kids are fat so let’s regulate serving size and content of public school lunch (if you think this is good go to a public school and eat lunch then decide) people are losing their homes we need the government to make it better (If you go too far in debt why is it my responsibility to pay your way)I can add many more but will not just look at your day to day live and see what is regulated and controlled.  If smoking is legal you should be allowed to smoke on private property isn’t that why we own property? so we can control what goes on?  And if I find the skink of tobacco smoke revolting than I can choose to go where the owner does not allow it that is freedom of choice.   Wake up people the more power you give the government to enforce your will on others the more you give it to regulate your choices as well.

I know what I am saying is unpopular and that makes me sad and a concerned because I think in 30 to 40 more years we will simply choose the leaders who will make all choices for us.

Clifford Barnes

yeah I see what you're saying... when they put in more strict laws on drinking and driving, dang... how that effected our ability to live a more free life...Yell  shame on our government for trying to prolong our lives and keep us a healthier and safer country... how dare they.

 

Ummm... you forgot the sarcastic font.  Oh, and you might want to make certain you are comparing apples to apples.  Those that die in drunk driving accidents due to another's actions had NO choice in the matter.  Those that don't smoke and don't want to be around those that do HAVE a choice.  It is called not going.

Thanks for playing.

so I have to avoid a public place because you decide to spread poison?... how is that fair?  why not take your poison to a place where it's only killing you.  doesn't it bother you that you are killing others while you are killing yourself.  oh i didn't think so.

First, read my posts above.  I don't smoke.  I also know that I had a choice about going to places that did, or didn't, allow smoking.  That's why it is called a choice.  Mandates by the government, when it comes to choices like this, on a LEGAL product are a dangerously, slippery slope.  If you are that worried about this poison, lobby to get it banned.

Again, yes, you have a choice to go, or not to go.  The restaurant/bar etc also should have the CHOICE to be smoke free or not.  There have been plenty of places doing it BEFORE the government stepped in.  It is hypocritical.  If they really cared, they would ban it.  All they are doing is grandstanding.  Making it look like they are actually doing something. 

I associate this garbage law with Chicago banning foie-gras and NYC banning Trans Fats.  A waste of tax payer time when the government should be focusing on more pressing issues.  Namely, education, budgets and the overall corruption of our government from top to bottom (Federal, State, City, local, etc). 

Crowny,

I see your point....I like going to PUBLIC places and not have to worry about smoking.  It is nice. There are laws that regulate the consumption of Alcohol and where it can be consumed.  This is a regulation of a legal product.  You have to have a license to sell alcohol.  A regulation of a legal product.  There is precedent to this action.  I have no problem to what people do in thier home.  I do not want to be forced out of doibg things that I enjoy because I have to exercise my choice of not going because of smokers.

Another Example:  I traveled to work with customers to train them on product that we sold.  While I was training someone they lit up a cigarette and started smoking as I was training them on the product.  I end up smoking with them.  No way around it they were all smoking.  I do not have the choice NOT to work with the client.  They paid us for the service.

I know you can argue the point of government intervention and the caretaker society that the government could create.

There used to be smoking on an Airplane

There used to be smoking in offices

 

And if California has anything to do with it your next one would say:

There used to be smoking in homes.

 

In Cali the people vote the laws in by referendum.  So the Majority will decide the issue.  Loves me democracy.

2007-12-31 11:12 AM
in reply to: #1124458

User image

Expert
864
5001001001002525
Lake in the Hills
Subject: RE: Smoke-Free Illinois Act January 2008
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 11:09 AM
tkbslc - 2007-12-31 11:00 AM
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 9:54 AM

And if California has anything to do with it your next one would say:

There used to be smoking in homes.

 

How about just "there used to be smoking."

 

Yep.  Could be.  Imagine the organized crime that would flourish after that one. 

Yeah, just like the success of prohibition



2007-12-31 11:18 AM
in reply to: #1124404

User image

Elite
3519
20001000500
San Jose, CA
Subject: RE: Smoke-Free Illinois Act January 2008
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 8:52 AM
runningwoof - 2007-12-31 10:44 AM
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 8:26 AM
pigfinn - 2007-12-31 10:19 AM
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 10:17 AM
pigfinn - 2007-12-31 10:15 AM
CBarnes - 2007-12-31 7:58 AM

First, read my posts above.  I don't smoke.  I also know that I had a choice about going to places that did, or didn't, allow smoking.  That's why it is called a choice.  Mandates by the government, when it comes to choices like this, on a LEGAL product are a dangerously, slippery slope.  If you are that worried about this poison, lobby to get it banned.

Again, yes, you have a choice to go, or not to go.  The restaurant/bar etc also should have the CHOICE to be smoke free or not.  There have been plenty of places doing it BEFORE the government stepped in.  It is hypocritical.  If they really cared, they would ban it.  All they are doing is grandstanding.  Making it look like they are actually doing something. 

I associate this garbage law with Chicago banning foie-gras and NYC banning Trans Fats.  A waste of tax payer time when the government should be focusing on more pressing issues.  Namely, education, budgets and the overall corruption of our government from top to bottom (Federal, State, City, local, etc). 

I am assuming this was a measure that was voted on.  As far as making it illegal this may be the first step...everything that changes the way people live and survive and would vastly impact the global economy moves in little steps and usually takes decades.  I don't so much as see this as armagadeon.  This wasn't the government swooping in to control someones lives.  This most likely was a measure placed there by an elected official.  Elected by the people.  Then it was voted on by the people.  All well within reason of the current governmental structure. By the way, I do lobby for a smoke free america... I suggest that you lobby for less government if you are afraid of the government taking over.  Only vote for those candidates that feel the same as you. 

Not entirely certain about the smoking but I don't believe any of these "laws" were voted on by the general public but passed as resolutions by the government.  Actually, I believe the Trans Fat issue was by the Department of Public Health in NYC.  But I digress.  I could care less if it was made illegal, but if that happens, it will make the war on drugs look like a summer picnic. 

I have mentioned, in many other threads, that I have strong libertarian leanings.  Very socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  Last major election I voted outside of the other two parties because I couldn't stand either of them.  Still can't.  And you know as well as I do that there never will be a candidate that will vote exactly the way I would like.   Thankfully!!! 

Long and short of it, I find these "actions on our behalf" insulting.  Nothing more than grandstanding to make it look like they are doing something.  When in actuality, they are doing nothing.  SO many other issues they SHOULD be focusing their time on and instead they chose to WASTE it on debating these topics.  FIX the budgets, FIX the schools (education that is), STOP the corruption (which is quickly becoming one of the biggest issues in almost every level of government).  Most importantly, ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books. 

NOW look whose rambling. 

Sorry, I was referring to the smoking not the transfat or the Foie Gras.  But to address those, I am conflicted on the Foie Gras and the Transfat issues too...One is cruel to an animal...but what slaughter isn't, so in order to ban that, shouldn't they ban all meat....and the transfat is along the same lines as smoking, but there is a different in the choice that is made.  If I choose to eat transfat, it does not affect anyone immediately (although in the long run, the adverse affects affect everyones health care costs).  But if you light up a cigarette, I cannot help but breath in your bad habit.  And some people can eat transfat in moderation...I know far fewer people that smoke in moderation.  But someone brought up a good point, Alcohol is a legal substance and the governement has laws that regulate drinking.  Should this be changed also...if an establishment wants to serve alcohol to minors, should the be able to? 

2007-12-31 11:34 AM
in reply to: #1124489

User image

Champion
15211
500050005000100100
Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL
Subject: RE: Smoke-Free Illinois Act January 2008
runningwoof - 2007-12-31 11:18 AM
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 8:52 AM
runningwoof - 2007-12-31 10:44 AM
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 8:26 AM
pigfinn - 2007-12-31 10:19 AM
crowny2 - 2007-12-31 10:17 AM
pigfinn - 2007-12-31 10:15 AM
CBarnes - 2007-12-31 7:58 AM

First, read my posts above.  I don't smoke.  I also know that I had a choice about going to places that did, or didn't, allow smoking.  That's why it is called a choice.  Mandates by the government, when it comes to choices like this, on a LEGAL product are a dangerously, slippery slope.  If you are that worried about this poison, lobby to get it banned.

Again, yes, you have a choice to go, or not to go.  The restaurant/bar etc also should have the CHOICE to be smoke free or not.  There have been plenty of places doing it BEFORE the government stepped in.  It is hypocritical.  If they really cared, they would ban it.  All they are doing is grandstanding.  Making it look like they are actually doing something. 

I associate this garbage law with Chicago banning foie-gras and NYC banning Trans Fats.  A waste of tax payer time when the government should be focusing on more pressing issues.  Namely, education, budgets and the overall corruption of our government from top to bottom (Federal, State, City, local, etc). 

I am assuming this was a measure that was voted on.  As far as making it illegal this may be the first step...everything that changes the way people live and survive and would vastly impact the global economy moves in little steps and usually takes decades.  I don't so much as see this as armagadeon.  This wasn't the government swooping in to control someones lives.  This most likely was a measure placed there by an elected official.  Elected by the people.  Then it was voted on by the people.  All well within reason of the current governmental structure. By the way, I do lobby for a smoke free america... I suggest that you lobby for less government if you are afraid of the government taking over.  Only vote for those candidates that feel the same as you. 

Not entirely certain about the smoking but I don't believe any of these "laws" were voted on by the general public but passed as resolutions by the government.  Actually, I believe the Trans Fat issue was by the Department of Public Health in NYC.  But I digress.  I could care less if it was made illegal, but if that happens, it will make the war on drugs look like a summer picnic. 

I have mentioned, in many other threads, that I have strong libertarian leanings.  Very socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  Last major election I voted outside of the other two parties because I couldn't stand either of them.  Still can't.  And you know as well as I do that there never will be a candidate that will vote exactly the way I would like.   Thankfully!!! 

Long and short of it, I find these "actions on our behalf" insulting.  Nothing more than grandstanding to make it look like they are doing something.  When in actuality, they are doing nothing.  SO many other issues they SHOULD be focusing their time on and instead they chose to WASTE it on debating these topics.  FIX the budgets, FIX the schools (education that is), STOP the corruption (which is quickly becoming one of the biggest issues in almost every level of government).  Most importantly, ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books. 

NOW look whose rambling. 

Sorry, I was referring to the smoking not the transfat or the Foie Gras.  But to address those, I am conflicted on the Foie Gras and the Transfat issues too...One is cruel to an animal...but what slaughter isn't, so in order to ban that, shouldn't they ban all meat....and the transfat is along the same lines as smoking, but there is a different in the choice that is made.  If I choose to eat transfat, it does not affect anyone immediately (although in the long run, the adverse affects affect everyones health care costs).  But if you light up a cigarette, I cannot help but breath in your bad habit.  And some people can eat transfat in moderation...I know far fewer people that smoke in moderation.  But someone brought up a good point, Alcohol is a legal substance and the governement has laws that regulate drinking.  Should this be changed also...if an establishment wants to serve alcohol to minors, should the be able to? 

First, don't get me started on drinking age.  That's an entirely different topic. 

There are laws that regulate who can buy smokes, and now there are laws about where they can be used.  Fine.  I'm over that.  But you bring up other issues in your argument.  So YOU eating TFA (trans fatty acids) raises the cost of insurance.  Fine.  What about those of us that are healthy and have low cholesterol, should we be forced to pay higher premiums than those that aren't?  What about Nationalized Health Care?  Then what? Will the government THEN determine that we are all unhealthy and implement mandatory excercise?  Ration the amount of alcohol we are allowed to consume?  Carbs?  Red meat

Yes, I know that example is a ludicrous example that goes to the far end of the "yeah like that will ever happen" spectrum.  And I highly doubt that would ever happen.  Then again, I never thought we would see some of the laws on the books these days that we do.

Also, I'm doing a terribly poor job at really trying to get to the main point of my gripe.  The amount of time our government officials waste on debating seemingly trivial issues and then lauding their own accomplishments when they SHOULD be doing something infinitely more important.

New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Smoke-Free Illinois Act January 2008 Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2