- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mandeville to consider banning smoking in bars
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:28 pm to OweO
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:28 pm to OweO
It's about government intrusion into the free market. Why not just ban cigarettes period? Because that would cost the government a ton in taxes. So they will go for the small win of forcing businesses to comply with over regulation. They should ban smoking on the streets and not in private businesses. Just more nanny state crap.
1
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:29 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
Ok, what about liquor/beer licenses and the regulations that come with them such as closing times, prohibitions against flaming drinks, dram shot laws, etc.
They suck.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:29 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
it's safe to assume you think private business owners should not be subject to any government regulation whatsoever?
Why do you (and others) need to jump to extremes to make your point? Theres a difference between not wanting regulation and wanting OVERregulation
It would be just as ridiculous for me to assume that because you are for this regulation that you are also for North Korea level regulation as well.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:30 pm to Honky Lips
I love the smell of freedom, the freedom to go where I want and not to breathe smoke.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:31 pm to LSUSUPERSTAR
quote:
It's about government intrusion into the free market.
Apparently, it's an extremist question to ask if you think that private businesses should not be subject to any regulation, so let me just ask this. At what point does a government regulation go from ok to not ok, assuming you think that some government regulation is good.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:32 pm to wildtigercat93
quote:
Why do you (and others) need to jump to extremes to make your point? Theres a difference between not wanting regulation and wanting OVERregulation
Ok, so when does a government regulation go from ok to not ok, or from legitimate regulation to over-regulation?
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:33 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
Hell, I'd imagine that most do at home too,
And why don't they smoke inside their house....cause they know it will make their home reek and possibly damage their furniture.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:35 pm to lsunurse
quote:
And why don't they smoke inside their house....cause they know it will make their home reek and possibly damage their furniture.
Or perhaps they have children they don't want exposed to the second hand smoke (but the smokers on here assure me that second hand smoke is no danger).
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:36 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
ETA: and smoking in bars has zero impact on healthcare costs.
So if a person who smokes eventually has health problems due to smoking, the time they smoked in bars didn't contribute to them having to use insurance to pay for the health care they need?
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:39 pm to TigernMS12
quote:it's certainly not "proven" like so many like to claim, but if you can't see the difference between exposing kids to second hand smoke in their own home vs adults who voluntarily go to a bar where they know smoking is allowed, you can't be helped,
Or perhaps they have children they don't want exposed to the second hand smoke (but the smokers on here assure me that second hand smoke is no danger).
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:39 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
so when does a government regulation go from ok to not ok, or from legitimate regulation to over-regulation?
Really? So you have no opinion on this? Everyone has their own line.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:40 pm to TigernMS12
They aren't forcing people to smoke in their establishment, they are allowing it.
Should the government tell people that they can't smoke in their house?
Since the outside areas and roads are mostly controlled by governments, they should outlaw smoking there.
Should the government tell people that they can't smoke in their house?
Since the outside areas and roads are mostly controlled by governments, they should outlaw smoking there.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:40 pm to OweO
quote:not likely. thats not how cancer works.
So if a person who smokes eventually has health problems due to smoking, the time they smoked in bars didn't contribute to them having to use insurance to pay for the health care they need?
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:41 pm to LSUSUPERSTAR
quote:
They aren't forcing people to smoke in their establishment, they are allowing it.
Should the government tell people that they can't smoke in their house?
Since the outside areas and roads are mostly controlled by governments, they should outlaw smoking there.
He just doesn't get it.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:41 pm to lsunurse
quote:
And why don't they smoke inside their house....cause they know it will make their home reek and possibly damage their furniture.
Which is why they go to other places and pay them to smoke in their buildings. Duh?
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:44 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
it's certainly not "proven" like so many like to claim, but if you can't see the difference between exposing kids to second hand smoke in their own home vs adults who voluntarily go to a bar where they know smoking is allowed, you can't be helped,
I understand the difference. The point is for those that claim second hand smoke is no danger, but then turn around and shield this children from it. If it's no danger, then what's the big deal?
And I'd challenge you to find any doctor that would state second hand smoke is not detrimental to one's health. My grandmother died of small cell lung cancer and COPD having never smoked a cig in her life. My grandfather on the other hand used to smoke like a fricking chimney in the recliner right next to her. I'll let you guess as to what every doctor she saw said the major contributing cause was.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:48 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Really? So you have no opinion on this? Everyone has their own line.
I think my opinion is pretty clear. I think that the ordinance is perfectly acceptable. You, among others, are the ones claiming that it's an over regulation, but when I ask whether you believe in regulation it's an extremist question, which I'll grant you that it is an extremist position (which isn't to uncommon on this board).
By stating that the posed question of whether you believe in regulation at all is extremist you imply that you do believe in regulation to some degree.
My question is simple: If this is over-regulation, at what point, in your opinion, are regulations justified?
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:50 pm to TigernMS12
quote:literally no one is saying it's no danger. what's your point?
I understand the difference. The point is for those that claim second hand smoke is no danger, but then turn around and shield this children from it. If it's no danger, then what's the big deal?
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:50 pm to LSUSUPERSTAR
quote:
Should the government tell people that they can't smoke in their house?
If you can't see the difference in your own private dwelling and and business open to the general public then I can't help you.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 2:50 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
I think my opinion is pretty clear. I think that the ordinance is perfectly acceptable. You, among others, are the ones claiming that it's an over regulation, but when I ask whether you believe in regulation it's an extremist question
Oh dear god... the use of extremist...
Yes, it's perfectly understandable why some people think it's overregulation
Page 14 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News