Posted on 08/02/2005 10:24:13 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
It may have been "robust" but it was also biased ........ follow the money. Much of the money came from the same entities as the firearm "study."
Perhaps it would help you to understand if you would lay aside the fact that you dislike smokers. I think if you would concentrate on the fact that these smoking bans are taking away the rights of bar owners to conduct their business as they see fit, then perhaps you wouldn't support these bans.
Do you really believe that the government has the right to tell you, a private property owner, what you can and cannot do on your own property? Take smoking out of the equation long enough to realize that this is an attack against ALL private property owners and private businesses.
Those diseases only happen to smokers??? Apparently not, since my ex-sister-in-law had lung cancer and never smoked a day in her life!!!!
Hey Eugene isn't exactly Cancun either. Those smokers are a hearty lot. They bundle up, go gather around the gas stove on the smoking deck, and have their fix. It works in Eugene, and it gets damn cold here too.
That does not surprise me in the least. Some folks just can't see that to infringe on one person's property rights is to infringe on ALL of our property rights. There's always another group of "anti-something" to take the place of another. When they are allowed to win, we all lose.
Then don't.
Spot on, Chena.
When a person acquires real estate, they acquire a "bundle of rights" associated with said real estate.
To arbitrarily usurp ANY of these rights is undoubtably unconstitutional and the owner should be compensated for the loss of use of their real estate.
"Perhaps it would help you to understand if you would lay aside the fact that you dislike smoker"
Quite honestly, I don't dislike smokers.
"Do you really believe that the government has the right to tell you, a private property owner, what you can and cannot do on your own property? "
No, I don't. In none of the posts did I support what is being proposed.
You are missing my point - smoke all you want, just don't expect me to pay for it (through taxes)
I wonder if this is some type of 'eminent domain' back door move. Like we talked about with the Farmers Gabz.
This places can't do business, so they have to sell....
Just a speculation.
"Those diseases only happen to smokers??? Apparently not, since my ex-sister-in-law had lung cancer and never smoked a day in her life."
Not only to smokers, but at a much much higher rate than non-smokers.
I agree with you that people know what they are getting into when they go into a bar, bingo parlor, or bowling alley. In Eugene, all the bars said they would be going out of business because of this. That was not the case and in fact the businesses did better because nonsmokers returned to the bars and the smokers adapted to the smoking decks. It gave them something to do to get up every once in a while and go hang out on the deck. Didn't matter what the weather was.
Bingo parlors, now that's a little tougher gig. People aren't just lounging around there.
It's you, my FRiend, that doesn't get it. For them, it's going exactly as planned. Back door prohibition.
I remember during the big tobacco trials that the tobacco lawyers wanted to enter just that type of evidence to rebut the government's claims that smoking was costing them more money, but the judge refused to let them.
>>>Back door prohibition.
Ok, than dual purpose. Cause yours makes sense too.
Mine was back door eminent domain.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1455462/posts?page=69#69
"These people who enact these bans truly do not get it and end up running taverns and bars out of business. "
Oh they get it alright. They know exactly what they are doing. What we have is Prohibitionists in disguise using tobacco as their excuse. These people know that drinkers who smoke won't go to a pub where smoking is banned...and that the few non-smokers who would continue to patronize the pub are not nearly enough to sustain the business.
Let's just call it for what it is...backdoor prohibition.
OK, I'm confused. You replied to a post of mine, telling me to see post #32. Your comment on post #32 was "what an idiotic statement". That was supposed to answer my questions? Are your parents home?
See post 39
I'm kind of a hypocrite with these rules. I personally oppose such rules and would never vote in favor of them.
However, I can't say that I didn't enjoy going out to bars in smoke-free NY and LA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.