In partnership with CBSSports.com
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Yep, I could run over your little precious on the ski hill and kill or paralyze her. Then the courts which were put there to decide such things will sort out who is liable and try to make whole the injured party. Yet I knew the risks, you knew the risks for you and little precious of being on the hill. An unfortunate incident occurs and someone is even killed. Yet skiing goes on. It happens all the time. But if I simply blow smoke in your little precious direction you claim the risk is just too high (which is patently false) to allow and smoking needs to be banned in restaurants. I call bullshit. If it was truly a health/risk issue, skiing should be banned because there is far more chance of injury or death from simply being on the hill with other skiers than being in a bar with smokers. It wasn't a health issue....it was a I don't like smoke issue, but I don't want to be left out of a fun bar, or good meal issue. So the mob will take what they want with a ballot proposal, or get our state rep to push a bill through a lefty legislature, who never saw an authoritarian politically correct law they didn't like.
The one in New York City?! Let's just first point out that we're talking about a municipal government, one of thousands in the US, and not that of any state or the federal government. That said, I support New York's ability to pass such regulations if they see fit and it falls within the constitutional framework of the city, state, and US. I also think that the health impacts of unhealthy foods should be taxed according to the negative impacts they cause and how those costs are translated to all of us through public and private insurance. And while I think the intention of that ban is noble, it's a really poor place to start the battle, and as such, it's not one I would support for my city, state, or country.......
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." --Gandhi
Actually, I think it's be a bit more than liability and into criminal prosecution if you're acting recklessly, drunk, etc. The risks of skiing, or even walking out the door, are accepted. That you don't seem to care about how your behavior raises that risk for others is not accepted. Never has been.....
Smoking bans immediately drop rates of heart attacks/strokes.
Smoking bans improve health of smokers and non-smokers.
I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.
Yes, but this country LOVES to give into the minority group who raise the biggest stink. Peanut allergies, though not 100%, still have led to changes in our society.
If all the employees are already smoking, what difference does it make if they are inhaling their own second hand smoke or the second hand smoke of the customers they are serving?
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by J T 18 months ago
This is part of the problem in current politics.....nobody trusts intentions. The reality is that government cannot simply ban unpopular behaviors without being able to spell out exactly how that negatively impacts others. They can try, but we've seen time and time again such restrictions turned over by the courts. Smoking has indeed become a behavior that is not done by the majority of citizens in Michigan, and as such, it may be unpopular. OK. But the law could only pass, and stand up to court challenges, if there is a demonstrable public health concern. Currently, 40 states have some restrictions in place with 28 with laws similar to Michigan. People may like the ban for their own reasons, but that doesn't negate the public health reason why these bans have been proposed, passed, and upheld through various court challenges.......
Well that depends, are people using that asbestos like a cigarette? And if those employees who are using that asbestos like a cigarette are comfortable with it, then so am I.
Silly analogy, by the way. I've never heard of ANYONE inhaling asbestos for enjoyment like those who smoke cigarettes.
Smoking bans are also municipal.
But I find it interesting that you think unhealthful foods should be taxed according to its negative impacts. I guess you wouldn't mind laws that limited the amount of unhealthful foods that food stamps can be used to purchase since people using them don't pay taxes yet contribute to the negative impacts and how those costs are translated to all of us through public and private insurance. Am I correct?
Working in healthcare, I never really hear smokers talk about the "enjoyment" of smoking. The perspective is usually one of wishing they could quit, how they've tried and failed, etc. 99.99% of smokers know it's bad for their health, but like all addictions, the ability to overcome that habit, physically and psychologically, is a real challenge. I would like to see insurance, public and private, cover the costs involved for quitting and rewarding those, in some way, who are able to do so.....
You'd be correct. When it comes to the use of public funds to purchase foods, I think it'd be both fair and appropriate to ensure those funds are used for their intended purpose. The WIC program is a good example. Food stamps, or whatever the similar program, by and large, struggle in this regard......
Then have a license for a smoking bar and hire smokers only.
The state makes more money from the added licenses and everyone from the smoking customers to the smoking employees is happy.
I'm sure there are plenty of smokers out there would love to work in a bar where they can smoke while on the job.
Of COURSE you never really hear smokers say they enjoy it. Why would you? Then that wouldn't give you more to ramble on about. Anyhow, whether you hear smokers say they enjoy it or not is irrelevant. The asbestos analogy to smoking was still a bad one whether you believe people enjoy smoking or not.
This post was edited by J T 18 months ago
....so "smoking" would be a term of employment?! What happens when that person quits and is fired for no longer smoking?! Think this through for a minute in terms of what you're asking governments, legislatively and judicially, to support or even ignore. It sounds workable in a naive sense but ignores both reality and the desire goals of public health regulation.......
....I do ramble. Nothing like seeing vascular surgeries, COPD, bronchoscopies, lung cancer, lobectomies, etc. all directly attributed to smoking. You walk in the door of a hospital and you're going to hear about it because we're interested in you not needing us for completely avoidable reasons.........
Well, being female is a term of employment at a strip club, or Hooters, for that matter. What happens if a guy applies at either one of those places to be a stripper or a server?
Think this through for a minute...
To most lefties, the idea of accepting individual risk and responsibility is obviously foreign and novel. Choosing to engage in activities or go places that are not 100% sanitized for maximum safety and minimum liability is and should be a protected individual freedom. You can exercise YOUR responsibility by choosing NOT to take the risk, (in this case ski) and sacrifice the pleasure you would get from it. No need to pass a law against skiing, or to keep good skiers from going fast. Just accept the risk or not. Your choice, my choice. Going into a smokey bar may have risk. That risk (from the 2nd hand smoke alone) is statistically tiny and almost unprovable. Yet, non smokers, under the guise of risk and health got smoking banned. Tyranny of the majority under bullshit pretense. You could choose not to go there, or work there, thus avoiding whatever little risk there is.There are other choices as there were smoke free bars which were becoming more numerous even before the ban. But no, the mob just crammed it down everyone's throats and then pretend to feel good and justified and righteous because it wasn't about the smelly habit....it was "for health"...even "for the children." This is just one example of the shredding the concept of individual liberty and property rights in favor of collectivism. You are nothing without approval of the mob. It is just another tiny step to a world where you will have no say over anything in your life. You will do as you are told for the good of the collective. Your life belongs to the collective, not to yourself. How selfish of those who want individuality. They obviously need re education.
'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?'
'And if the party says that it is not four but five -- then how many?'
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by Adm Spinebender 18 months ago
Do you drink? Certainly smoking isn't the only thing that destroys the human body. Or were you just referring to those with the mentioned issues brought on by second hand smoke?
I do drink...in moderation. Moderate use of alcohol has not been shown to have negative health impacts. But those who come in for a surgery and find themselves on the CIWA protocol because they're going through DTs, they are offered help regarding their addiction. Even moderate smoking has been shown to have negative health impacts. You cannot say that about a glass of wine.........
Of COURSE you drink in moderation. But...others don't. Do you want to ban them from drinking more than you?
I support your idea of accepting both the risk and responsibility for my own behavior. 100%. I also have no expectation that any place could or should be 100% sanitized for safety. Certain risks are associated with activities and places and I'm actually right there with you in that regard. I'm outdoors a great deal and see this in action all the time. Where we differ is that I accept regulation that limits my behavior if is it demonstrated to have a negative impact on the health and well-being of others, who may not wish to engage in whatever it is I'm doing, whether that's skiing, smoking, etc. That's the only difference.....
Heathens, let me ask you this...why would YOU care one bit if a group of smokers want to get together in an establishment and enjoy smoking and drinking together? What difference does it make in your life if smokers choose to do that?
If someone wants to drink to excess, that's their choice. Do I think they should be allowed to get behind the wheel intoxicated and risk the lives of others....no. I support regulating that behavior. I also support taxes on alcohol to help defray the costs of alcohol-associated health issues. I also support laws regarding public intoxication and consumption (within reason). I support limits in terms of where it can be sold and consumed. I think the drinking age should be 18 with more focus on responsible consumption. What else do you want to know.......
This post was edited by Heathens 87 18 months ago
But what if EVERYONE is smoking?
Well, I see we agree on something.
I don't. They're welcome to do this is a private home or establishment right now...today. If they want to sell alcohol, prepare and sell food, or employ individuals, they are and should be subject to regulations in that regard, which now includes a ban on smoking in public establishments (the casino exemption was ridiculous in my opinion). So to your question, I don't truly care what individuals elect to do in their own private lives......
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports