Dexter debates going smoke free

Apr 18, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: KAIT-TV Jonesboro

Should smoking be allowed in public places? Lay says he's allowed smoking since opening almost five years ago.

Comments (Page 2)

Showing posts 21 - 40 of75
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Hello

Kennett, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Smoke Free Forever wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry A-hole but I'm a die hard Republican just like you. I believe the government DOES have the responsibility to protect patrons and employees from most of the idiot business owners that think they know how to run a business and feel they know everything. It's those idiots (like you) that we need to be protected from.
Are you suggesting we get rid of the hundreds of codes, laws and ordinances that already exist for your business to keep your doors open to the public? Let the business owners decide everything? Fire Codes? Who needs them let the business owner decide how many patrons to let in? Health Codes? Let the business owner decide.
The business owner is there to make a buck, he will and can cut corners if he has no rules. Are you for F'n real PAL???
Your ignorant attitude and stupidity is exactly why we need the government to step in and watch you ass-holes and protect the patrons and employees especially from second hand smoke.
Second Hand Smoke is a proven health hazard and has NO PLACE in any business. Every employee has a right to a safe and clean environment to work in.
And you prove how much of a retard you really are.

Here are the facts,

IF, you do not like an establishment that caters to smokers, DON'T GO!

IF, employees do not like the second hand smoke at the job that pays their bills, clothes, puts a roof over their head and feeds them, JUST QUIT and find another job! That is looking easier nowadays in this economy.

IF, you do not like a business because, it caters partially to smokers, find another Fkn' business that does not cater partially to smokers.

As for the codes, those are business practice and operating codes dumb ass, the fact that a business partially caters to smokers is not something that is a real safety violation or a business practice that could effect the government.

You are becoming just as communistic as the rest of the Government Officials are becoming in this country, what is the next thing you want? Blood? Because, I can give it anytime you feel you think you can take it!

Have a good day PAL!
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Hello wrote:
<quoted text>
And you prove how much of a retard you really are.
Here are the facts,
IF, you do not like an establishment that caters to smokers, DON'T GO!
Here are the facts: in Ohio, only 20% of the population still smokes. And yet, it was just about impossible to find a non-smoking bar before the the smoking ban passed. About 65% of voters voted for the ban. Despite the claims of opponents, the bars are doing just fine, by catering to the majority of their clientele. Many smokers stayed away in the beginning, but most eventually returned and adapted to the new reality: you now have to go outside to smoke.
Hello wrote:
<quoted text>
IF, employees do not like the second hand smoke at the job that pays their bills, clothes, puts a roof over their head and feeds them, JUST QUIT and find another job! That is looking easier nowadays in this economy.
You must be kidding. Are you suggesting that Obama is doing a good job and that the economy has recovered? With 8% unemployment, jobs are not so easy to find.
Hello

Kennett, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are the facts: in Ohio, only 20% of the population still smokes. And yet, it was just about impossible to find a non-smoking bar before the the smoking ban passed. About 65% of voters voted for the ban. Despite the claims of opponents, the bars are doing just fine, by catering to the majority of their clientele. Many smokers stayed away in the beginning, but most eventually returned and adapted to the new reality: you now have to go outside to smoke.
<quoted text>
You must be kidding. Are you suggesting that Obama is doing a good job and that the economy has recovered? With 8% unemployment, jobs are not so easy to find.
Fk Ohio, this is Missouri!

And if you read the part about the jobs, it was sarcasm talkin about how bad it is to find a job!
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Hello wrote:
<quoted text>
Fk Ohio, this is Missouri
The circumstances aren't that different. In Missouri, only about 25% of adults smoke. But I bet it's hard to find a nonsmoking bar. How many nonsmokers do you think enjoy the smell cigarette smoke? If it ever comes to a statewide vote, the nonsmoking majority will vote the smokers outside in a heartbeat, as they did in Ohio and so many other states.
Quotes

Dexter, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It's amazing how everyone ignores the fact that the government is to blame for all of this. Instead you people go after each other, which is exactly what they want. And its probably because you believe you can't do anything about it. Hell maybe you're right...but still....think people!
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Quotes wrote:
It's amazing how everyone ignores the fact that the government is to blame for all of this. Instead you people go after each other, which is exactly what they want. And its probably because you believe you can't do anything about it. Hell maybe you're right...but still....think people!
Here in Ohio, we voted on the smoking ban, so you can't blame the government for that. And in Missouri, the Republican majority is working to preserve public smoking.

The real problem (from the smoker's point of view) is that there are fewer smokers than there were in the 1950s and 1960s (when the majority of men smoked.) Most nonsmokers do not enjoy cigarette smoke. Eventually, the majority will get their way, and public spaces will become smoke free.
Sterkfontein Swartkrans

Pennington, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Smoke Free Forever wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry A-hole but I'm a die hard Republican just like you. I believe the government DOES have the responsibility to protect patrons and employees from most of the idiot business owners that think they know how to run a business and feel they know everything. It's those idiots (like you) that we need to be protected from.
Are you suggesting we get rid of the hundreds of codes, laws and ordinances that already exist for your business to keep your doors open to the public? Let the business owners decide everything? Fire Codes? Who needs them let the business owner decide how many patrons to let in? Health Codes? Let the business owner decide.
The business owner is there to make a buck, he will and can cut corners if he has no rules. Are you for F'n real PAL???
Your ignorant attitude and stupidity is exactly why we need the government to step in and watch you ass-holes and protect the patrons and employees especially from second hand smoke.
Second Hand Smoke is a proven health hazard and has NO PLACE in any business. Every employee has a right to a safe and clean environment to work in.
Anyone would know you're a rethug by your smug self righteous attitude. I hope sometime they ban something you like!
Quotes

Dexter, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Here in Ohio, we voted on the smoking ban, so you can't blame the government for that. And in Missouri, the Republican majority is working to preserve public smoking.
The real problem (from the smoker's point of view) is that there are fewer smokers than there were in the 1950s and 1960s (when the majority of men smoked.) Most nonsmokers do not enjoy cigarette smoke. Eventually, the majority will get their way, and public spaces will become smoke free.
No...the real problem is the government allows the selling of a deadly product in the first place all because of the tax money they receive. All the while subjecting its citizens to other ignorant laws that don't effect their pocket books.
As I said, the government is full of hypocrites!
The Opinionater

Kennett, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Personally I don't give a damn if people choose to smoke, its not my blackened lungs, nasty breath, yellow teeth and cancer. My only issues are the ones who are stupid and inconsiderate and blow smoke at us. And try using ashtrays and other proper receptacles instead throwing them on the damn ground you retarded ass litter bugs.
robin hood

Fort Huachuca, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

i would like to say that i'm a smoker and a rep. and i have no problem takeing my smoke outside, i understand what non-smokers are saying. but i'm againist the goverment tell store owners who they can server.

but look at new york,they started with a ban in stores, now you can't smoke on the street, parks and even in your own home, if you live in a highriase.

sorry for the missed spelled words
Maryland Too

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are the facts: in Ohio, only 20% of the population still smokes. And yet, it was just about impossible to find a non-smoking bar before the the smoking ban passed. About 65% of voters voted for the ban. Despite the claims of opponents, the bars are doing just fine, by catering to the majority of their clientele. Many smokers stayed away in the beginning, but most eventually returned and adapted to the new reality: you now have to go outside to smoke.
<quoted text>
You must be kidding. Are you suggesting that Obama is doing a good job and that the economy has recovered? With 8% unemployment, jobs are not so easy to find.
Same here in Maryland, the voters overwhelmingly voted to go 100% smoke free in all public businesses even in Private Clubs and Veteran Clubs. Everyone is on a level playing field.
It's been well over 5 years and business is doing just fine and employees, patrons, management and owners are very pleased. A whole new breed of people came out and Tips are higher for employees, profits are up for owners, it was just a win win for all. Sure Smokers put up a fuss at first but they are all back and just step outside smoke and step back in. It's real easy and works great.
Maryland Casinos

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

1

Don't forget the three Maryland Casinos which are also 100% smoke free and they are packed with people. Hard to find an open $25 blackjack table on the weekends. Businesses will survive smoke free as more and more people don't smoke. 20% of the U.S. smokes, that means 80% are non-smokers. Economics 101 will tell you which I'm going to cater too if I'm a business owner.
Another Study

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Another study out today along with the thousands of existing studies that already PROVE that second hand smoke is harmful.
Studies like this will only force the government to protect ALL employees and patrons or face lawsuits down the road because they and the business owners did nothing to protect the employees and patrons.

"Nearly 4,000 deaths have been prevented in Ireland as a result of the smoking ban introduced in 2004, according to new research.

Brunel University in London, say that the lower death rate from smoking related illnesses is primarily due to a reduction in passive smoking rather than a reduction in active smoking.

The study shows there has been a 26% reduction in deaths from heart disease, a one third drop in stroke deaths and a 38% reduction in chronic lung disease mortality.

The authors estimate 3,726 smoking-related deaths have been prevented by the ban."
what

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Another Study wrote:
Another study out today along with the thousands of existing studies that already PROVE that second hand smoke is harmful.
Studies like this will only force the government to protect ALL employees and patrons or face lawsuits down the road because they and the business owners did nothing to protect the employees and patrons.
"Nearly 4,000 deaths have been prevented in Ireland as a result of the smoking ban introduced in 2004, according to new research.
Brunel University in London, say that the lower death rate from smoking related illnesses is primarily due to a reduction in passive smoking rather than a reduction in active smoking.
The study shows there has been a 26% reduction in deaths from heart disease, a one third drop in stroke deaths and a 38% reduction in chronic lung disease mortality.
The authors estimate 3,726 smoking-related deaths have been prevented by the ban."
Then answer this before you debate any longer. Why then is it still legal?
Smoke Free Forever

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

what wrote:
<quoted text>
Then answer this before you debate any longer. Why then is it still legal?
Lots of products are potentially dangerous, that's why the local, state and federal government places restrictions, codes, laws and ordinances on them. It's called living in a Civilized Society. Protecting all citizens even those too ignorant or live in denial to see and believe the real dangers. People just can't go around harming others in a civilized society. When a product or it's by-products (second hand smoke) produce harmful health effects, then yes it is up to the government to protect us. That's why I vote and vote often.

Guns? Fireworks? Chemicals? Vehicle Speeds? Medical Drugs? and now long overdue Second Hand Smoke. All potentially dangerous products or by products have many need restrictions on them.

Just don't ban the product, try to make restrictions first and if that doesn't work then yes we do have to ban it. Sounds to me it is up to the smokers and their actions. Learn to smoke outside or face losing cigarettes forever. The butt is in your court!!!

Since: Jul 11

Dexter

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Maybe I can finally go to the bar without the fat barflys blowing smoke in my face.
Miss Duh

Vienna, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Smokers can smoke in hell. They won't even need a lighter.
what

Dexter, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Smoke Free Forever wrote:
<quoted text>
Lots of products are potentially dangerous, that's why the local, state and federal government places restrictions, codes, laws and ordinances on them. It's called living in a Civilized Society. Protecting all citizens even those too ignorant or live in denial to see and believe the real dangers. People just can't go around harming others in a civilized society. When a product or it's by-products (second hand smoke) produce harmful health effects, then yes it is up to the government to protect us. That's why I vote and vote often.
Guns? Fireworks? Chemicals? Vehicle Speeds? Medical Drugs? and now long overdue Second Hand Smoke. All potentially dangerous products or by products have many need restrictions on them.
Just don't ban the product, try to make restrictions first and if that doesn't work then yes we do have to ban it. Sounds to me it is up to the smokers and their actions. Learn to smoke outside or face losing cigarettes forever. The butt is in your court!!!
You would make an excellent politician, the way you danced around the actual point of the question was professional politics at its best.
what

Dexter, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Miss Duh wrote:
Smokers can smoke in hell. They won't even need a lighter.
There is no hell...but I hear Faurecia is getting pretty close.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Apr 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

what wrote:
<quoted text>
Then answer this before you debate any longer. Why then is it still legal?
There are lots of known dangerous activities that adults can choose to do: skydiving, motorcycle racing, unprotected sex, etc. We try to err on the side of more freedom, rather than less. So, right now, we still allow people to smoke cigarettes, even though the dangers are well known.

But you're not allowed to put others at risk to engage in your dangerous activities. So, you can go as fast as you want on a racetrack, but not on the highway. And you can smoke all you want, but you don't get to expose others to that smoke.

These rules are always arbitrary and changing. When I was a kid, you could still smoke anywhere(except church!)and people did (even in hospital rooms!) But that was a time when the majority of men smoked and cigarette companies were the biggest advertisers on television.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 21 - 40 of75
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

104 Users are viewing the Health Forum right now

Search the Health Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Obamacare: Californians will pay 10th highest r... (Sep '13) 12 min Jose 2,785
Should the US have universal healthcare? (Oct '07) 1 hr Redwolf101 94,660
Chiropractic Care And CVD Risk Factors 1 hr Wisdom 7
Can exercise improve back pain (Aug '13) 1 hr Wisdom 27
Dental amalgam: Anti-mercury movement pushes fo... (Apr '13) 2 hr DrsRossandGreer 3
Sandra Bullock's home on sale (May '10) 2 hr Tim 3
Lipitor? For Me? No Way (Oct '11) 3 hr be cautious 4
Pregnancy Symptoms - 12 Very Early Symptoms of ... (Jun '07) 5 hr Elise Gingrich 5,678
What does a low blood platelet count mean? (Jun '07) 18 hr Brenda 843
•••
•••
•••
•••