Applebee's will ban smoking

Tribune Chronicle ^ | 05/11/04 | Staff, wire reports

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Lower premiums do not necessarily cover the increased risk. Costs are still shifted.

[nevergore]

"I've been jokingly threatening to move to the Sahara, where there are no blasted trees."

Uughh...say hello to Achmed for me?

NeverGore :^)

[Gabz]

Don't even bother trying to use logic on these black lung fools. Trust me, it won't work.

Trust me, your better-than-thou kool-aid drinking attitude won't work on people that have done their own research and know what they are talking about.

[Just another Joe]

Lower premiums do not necessarily cover the increased risk.

Don't you mean higher premiums?
As for increased risk, smokers tend to use less, insurance, medicare, SSI, etc, than do nonsmokers over the long term.
There is documented proof of this.
Smokers may tend to an increased risk over the short term but a decreased payout over the long term.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

I do not believe that anyone should shift costs to anyone else for their choices. If you have children, I should not have to bear the cost of their education. I have taken financial responsibility for their education. If you choose to dump poop in a river running through your property, I should not have to bear that cost if I live downstream from you. Shifting the costs of your choices onto others is simply a glorified form of stealing.

[wardaddy]

Applebees is way down the list of desirable eateries around here.....way way down.

[Skooz]

At least they're doing it of their own free will. The business consequences (good or bad) will be of their own making.

That's the way it should be.

I don't like the fumes that smoker spew out, so I would support them in this (if I liked the food).

My thoughts exactly. Having to inhale others' smoky lung excrement while eating is repulsive. But, having the government impose a smoking ban is worse. This is the company making the decision, not the local government.

But, I have never cared for their food.

[Gabz]

You are forced to pick up the expenses of smokers everyday in insurance payments and healthcare costs.

Bravo Sierra. According to the Congressional Research Service smokers pay far more into the system than they ever take out or cost anyone else.

By your logic, since I am far from overweight, any of the fatsos out there eating in Applebee's are forcing my insurance and healthcare costs to go up.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

I am not trying to equate these behaviors in any way, but should government health care programs (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc.)pay for the health care costs associated with smoking, IV-drug use and homosexuality?

Should non-smokers, tee-totalers, and faithful monogamous heterosexuals have to pay higher premiums to cover the heath care costs of skmokers, drunks and homosexual prostitutes?

[Skooz]

Show any one here on this forum a credible study that conclusively shows that second hand smoke is dangerous......

I couldn't care less if credible studies proved that second hand smoke was good for you and full of nutritious vitamins and minerals. I still don't like to inhale the crap.

[Just another Joe]

You may not be trying to but you ARE equating these behaviors.
I'm telling you, and will back it up with the studies if you so desire, that smokers pay in far more than they ever take out be it insurance premiums, taxes, SSI, medicare, or what have you.
If you believe that smokers are causing you to pay more for ANYTHING you are sadly mistaken.
Insurance companies may be taking the chance to make you pay more and blaming it on smokers but if you actually do the research you will find that is exactly what they are doing. They are taking your money under false premises.

As far as the others, IV drug use can be equated to smoking only in that it is a choice. If the government would make it legal, let insurance companies charge their higher premiums, and tax it, (the same way they do smokers) it might not be the same drain it is now.

As for homosexuality, I can't say as I've done very little research, except moral and biblical, to be able to say anything about the relative costs.

[Just another Joe]

I still don't like to inhale the crap.

If you can convince the business owner to ban smoking in their establishment I have no problem with that.

The question is, are you willing to use the power of the government to ban smoking in a privately owned business establishment?

[Mears]

Smoke or no smoke,Applebee's stinks.

[Skooz]

The question is, are you willing to use the power of the government to ban smoking in a privately owned business establishment?

This entire thread is about a private business making that decision for itself. No government involvement.

[Gabz]

Morning, JaJ!!!

As usual we are on the same page and others just don't get it.

More power to Applebee's for making a business decision...........the city councilcritter is a hypocrite.......I wonder if his desire for a forced ordinance on other businesses is to protect his own wallet......because we've all seen the financial devestation these forced bans impose on businesses.

[Protagoras]

The only thing important about these smoking bans is that should be voluntary. Allow or disallow by the owner. Not force of government.

[Mears]

I died from smoking---I just haven't told anyone yet.

[Gabz]

And that is as it should be. However, many of those screaming bloody murder about being around smokers are also among those applauding the loudest when the heavy hand of the government forces businesses to do the same thing.

[aodell]

Won't be dining under the red apple anymore.

[Skooz]

Not on this thread.