LAS VEGAS! Casino profits could go up in (no) smoke

PressAtlanticCity.com ^ | 24 September 2002 | JOE WEINERT

[SheLion]

Some like to go out terminal early with cancer. Too bad!

Better to have died of SOMETHING then to die of just anything and not to have enjoyed life.

[SheLion]

I guess smokers don't really know what they're doing

We had a friend who smoked. He quit. Two weeks after he quit, he got his by a semi-truck and was killed. He should have continued smoking. He died anyway. He was only 27.

[SheLion]

And there are NO smokers who could last more than two minutes or so -- I KNOW -- I've been there!

I was a professional dancer up until the age of 28 and got married. I smoked. Never hurt me one bit.

[SheLion]

I am not bothered from a moral standpoint, as long as smokers pay off their medical bills like everyone else.

Smokers are not a financial burden as you imply: Smoking-related healthcare costs are a pittance to overall healthcare costs (8% in my state of Maine). If every smoker quit, healthcare costs would go down only temporarily and then rise above the amount you are complaining about now, because nonsmokers get sick too and for more years.

Smokers more than make up for their extra cost by dying (their choice-not yours) sooner; collecting less social security and pensions, and less time in nursing homes. The state tax on cigarettes is all gravy. This is all backed up by facts.

Aside from that, we have our own health insurance, thank you. No one pays our way but us.

[Royce]

Absolutely correct. Here in Palm Springs I stopped going to any restaurant and bar when Ca. law went into effect , no smoking at all.

I used to eat lunch & dinner out every day. I'm used to eating at home now and find I don't miss going out as I used to do.

I'm only one person of course but my not eating out has to have had at least a small effect on the restaurants profits and the servers tip , as I'm a generous person in the tip dep't.

Sadly , many people see this as Gov't protecting the health of it's citizens. Not so , It's about higher taxes and more control over people. Now we hear about higher taxes on fast food servers because they cause obesety. Next , it will be the liquor industry . Alcoholism is a major heath problem and drunk drivers kill innocent people.

Socialism is not on it's way , it's here. Non-smokers enjoy your new National Socialistic Big Brother on the left of the aisle.

[SheLion]

Alcoholism is a major heath problem and drunk drivers kill innocent people.

Royce, you are SO right! All the restaurants in Maine were forced to go smoke free two years ago. We have not set foot in one since. We have three restaurants/bars up here that we patronize. They get our money and our tips. I absolutely refuse to spend our hard earned money in a place that cannot accomodate us. Pity that they couldn't stand up for us. But it's their loss, I say.

Look at this cartoon I just found. It says it all about our Big Government putting a red X on our foreheads:

They want our money but they want to KILL us. Well, they can't have both, can they?!

[Just another Joe]

I am not bothered from a moral standpoint, as long as smokers pay off their medical bills like everyone else.
I also after 45 years of warnings of cancer, can't see how smokers can still go to court over anything regarding cigs.

I agree with both points.
So why are you giving us so much heck?

[A CA Guy]

I don't mean to, just felt it made sense that being the majority of gamblers are smokers, that therefore the risktaking is a factor.

[Crowcreek]

"We had a friend who smoked. He quit. Two weeks after he quit, he got his by a semi-truck and was killed. He should have continued smoking. He died anyway."

THANK YOU for sharing that! Cheated out of two weeks of smoking, what a tragedy!

You'll have to excuse me now. I feel a choking attack coming on . . .