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.
What did we agree on?! That's worth celebrating......
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." --Gandhi
But what if all those employees are smoking right along with the customers? Who gets hurt then?
Everything in that one particular post.
Employees who cannot get hired for the simple reason that they don't smoke, or employees who wish to pursue a healthier choice but risk getting fired if they stop smoking.......
Why would a non-smoker want to get a job in an establishment that has been created and licensed for smokers?
RP: (Warrantless wire taps)
(Restricting gun rights)
(Killing American citizens without charge or trial)
(Its not the gov job to make lives better) "Its in the Constitution DAMNIT!!!!!!!!!1111eleven"
The indoctrinated will no longer be able to deny it, only defend it.
Do you buy into the excuse that it isn't really cost-effective to eat healthfully on a limited budget and/or with the prevalance of fast-food resturants/convenience stores in urban cities? If you do, and I personally believe it has merit, how would you go about changing it to make it more practical?
That's not really an issue for employment law. When Hooters can get sued for not hiring men, "heavier" women, or the flat-chested, you've got your answer......
In the spirit of this thread I'll offer a Joe Jackson break.
A few years back Joe Jackson wrote a nice and well referenced piece called "Smoke Lies, and the Nanny State" linked on the page I linked.
From the album, Night and Day (1982)
It's more than an excuse, it's a reality and I posted a dietary journal article a week or so back that demonstrated the connection. What's wrong is that we subsidize certain sectors, including those that manufacture high-fructose corn syrup as a cheap food source, while not supporting agricultural sectors that produce healthier foods. So you can get some 2000 calories from $5 at McDonald's while you'd struggle gain enough calories from healthier foods with the same money. It starts with agricultural policy at the federal level, it branches into immigration reform as its tied directly to the cost of food, and even requiring publicly funded food programs to be used for healthier foods (schools, food stamps, WIC, etc.). It also gets into offering lower insurance rates to those that can demonstrate good health (lab tests, body weight, etc.). The purpose of public health should be to encourage healthier choices and to discourage those that can cause harm. Past that, it's personal choice, but the cost of food in this country do not support the goals of public health....
If you want people to join into your threads, stop being such a conspiracy nut job.
Anyway, I'm right, so piss off.
This post was edited by RP McMurphy 18 months ago
I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.
No, a large part of the problem in politics is that people judge policies by their intend instead of their results.
"Sincerity is a much overrated virtue."
"The RCMB on 247 is one of the most awful, alarming, inappropriate, disgusting, and offensive msg boards in the history of the internet."
Why don't they get sued? And for that matter, why don't strip clubs get sued for not hiring male strippers? When is the last time a dude showed his junk on stage alongside the women at a Deja Vu?
That has nothing to do with banning smoking and whether it is constitutional.
What is that, a Titleist? A hole in one...
But it's for your own good Cosmo. We just want to help you. Besides, now that we have federalized the health care system, we have a fiduciary duty to prevent you from harming yourself and being a burden on the collective. By the way, we hope you don't like double cheese on your pizza because it's bad for your arteries....
The Nanny State.
PS. How many fingers am I holding up?
This post was edited by Adm Spinebender 18 months ago
I haven't been on since early this morning so this may have been answered to and responded to and then argued about, but either way here's my response...
Not the way I understand it. It's your choice to frequent that establishment and you have every right to take your business elsewhere. It's not up to everyone else to accommodate your wanting to exist in that particular bar.
The way I see it... it should be up to the bar owner (the one who pays the taxes, and has all the risk of ownership) whether or not he wants to allow smoking in his establishment.
We've been getting wiretapped for years and very few cared.
Very few want to deny you owning guns. Just certain kinds of guns, ammo and magazines.
We killed 1000's of Americans under the guise of "liberating" Iraq and you supported that.
It is government's job if you believe that pursuit of happiness stuff. That last line is laughable if you have a working spouse. You also sound like a slave state resident of 150 years ago.
I think that's the point.
Your comment assumes that all restaurant/bar owners opposed the smoking ban. Could you provide some eviden of this?
My guess is that, if a certain bar owner is smoker himself, he feels strong about letting people smoke. But if he's not a smoker himself, he'd probably prefer a smoking ban, but just hadn't taken the initiative because smoking was just considered "the thing to do" in a bar.
In any case, as the OP posted, I don't see a bunch of bars/restaurants closing down because of the smoking ban, so everybody wins (except those who prefer to pollute the air for others).
Everyone wins except personal property rights and personal liberty.
weren't the casinos exempt from the ban? are they still exempt? are the casino employees working in a hazardous polluted environment as we speak?
This. You beat me to it.
Who said it did? Someone asked if second hand smoke was actually bad for health.
And who is questioning whether a smoking ban is a constitutional issue?
As far as I know, you can still smoke as much as you want.
Not in my bar, that is mine, that I paid for, pay property taxes on, spend 80-100 hours a week in trying to turn a profit, and if I don't and fail, the government will not offer me a cent of support to keep me afloat. I won't even be eligible for unemployment benefits as a sole proprietor. But the government says I can't smoke in my own private property. I'm with Anthony Hopkins in Legends of the Fall...
**Clip taken from Legends of the Fall. no copyright infringement or claims of ownership blah blah blah.. For certain legal reasons I would like to point out that I don't actually support any action against the government, for now....**
Bill after bill of pure joy from Harper's majority.
SCREW THE GOVERNMENT!
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports