Hey! Sparkie finally found a home!!
| Northwest Indiana Discussion http://northwestindiana.com/discussionforum/ |
|
| Lowell passes smoking ban. http://northwestindiana.com/discussionforum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9567 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | sparks [ Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Lowell passes smoking ban. |
Lowell became the third city in NWI to ban smoking in public places. http://www.post-trib.com/news/lake/2751648,locouncil0928.article |
|
| Author: | -={ARCLIGHT}=- [ Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lowell passes smoking ban. |
Another good reason not to live there. |
|
| Author: | Mirage [ Tue Sep 28, 2010 6:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lowell passes smoking ban. |
Hey! Sparkie finally found a home!!
|
|
| Author: | newsflashkid [ Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lowell passes smoking ban. |
Hurray for Lowell. It's about time the entire state passes a law to ban smoking. In Illinois restaurant owners thought it would kill business. It turns out the business improved. Why should people be subjected to this second hand smoke, that experts claim is the most dangerous. |
|
| Author: | -={ARCLIGHT}=- [ Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lowell passes smoking ban. |
newsflashkid wrote: In Illinois restaurant owners thought it would kill business. It turns out the business improved. Link please. |
|
| Author: | Mirage [ Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lowell passes smoking ban. |
newsflashkid wrote: Hurray for Lowell. It's about time the entire state passes a law to ban smoking. In Illinois restaurant owners thought it would kill business. It turns out the business improved. Why should people be subjected to this second hand smoke, that experts claim is the most dangerous. Ah because it's America and if you only patronize non-smoking establishments voluntarily you wouldn't need to give government another excuse to steal your rights away.  The bigger issue is that the government is ordering a private business not to allow a perfectly legal product to be enjoyed on private property. Had enough people made the owners aware of their displeasure about dining around smokers you would have a free market solution, as it should be. If they refused, you could go somewhere else to dine. But no, government has drummed up yet another reason to add to the courts overburdened caseload. Take another example. Some courts around the country are ruling that women can breast feed any time, anywhere and need not take reasonable care to modesty. Yea, I really don't want to go out to eat to see a suckling wagging on some woman's boob. A little discretion if you please! |
|
| Author: | -={ARCLIGHT}=- [ Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lowell passes smoking ban. |
Mirage wrote: The bigger issue is that the government is ordering a private business not to allow a perfectly legal product to be enjoyed on private property. Had enough people made the owners aware of their displeasure about dining around smokers you would have a free market solution, as it should be. If they refused, you could go somewhere else to dine. But no, government has drummed up yet another reason to add to the courts overburdened caseload. Plus the fact, if they want to make a stand against smoking, why not go the extra step and ban the sales of tobacco products? How much tax revenue do you think they'd have to give up then? If they want to make the grand gesture, then let them put their money where their mouth is. |
|
| Author: | Mirage [ Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lowell passes smoking ban. |
I think they outta amend state law to say that where a smoking ban applies an alcohol ban automatically applies. It has been proven that alcohol use can lead to poor choices, rude behavior in front of children and others, and an increase in traffic accidents. Yea, I'm sure that would pass.
|
|
| Author: | sparks [ Sat Oct 02, 2010 12:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lowell passes smoking ban. |
-={ARCLIGHT}=- wrote: Mirage wrote: The bigger issue is that the government is ordering a private business not to allow a perfectly legal product to be enjoyed on private property. Had enough people made the owners aware of their displeasure about dining around smokers you would have a free market solution, as it should be. If they refused, you could go somewhere else to dine. But no, government has drummed up yet another reason to add to the courts overburdened caseload. Plus the fact, if they want to make a stand against smoking, why not go the extra step and ban the sales of tobacco products? How much tax revenue do you think they'd have to give up then? If they want to make the grand gesture, then let them put their money where their mouth is. Ban the sale of tobacco products? It never fails to amaze me how stupid you righties really are. You're whining about smokers losing their right to pollute the air in public places so your solution is to make it illegal for them to smoke at all? That didn't work out so well during prohibition,did it? |
|
| Author: | Mirage [ Sat Oct 02, 2010 12:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lowell passes smoking ban. |
sparks wrote: -={ARCLIGHT}=- wrote: Mirage wrote: The bigger issue is that the government is ordering a private business not to allow a perfectly legal product to be enjoyed on private property. Had enough people made the owners aware of their displeasure about dining around smokers you would have a free market solution, as it should be. If they refused, you could go somewhere else to dine. But no, government has drummed up yet another reason to add to the courts overburdened caseload. Plus the fact, if they want to make a stand against smoking, why not go the extra step and ban the sales of tobacco products? How much tax revenue do you think they'd have to give up then? If they want to make the grand gesture, then let them put their money where their mouth is. Ban the sale of tobacco products? It never fails to amaze me how stupid you righties really are. You're whining about smokers losing their right to pollute the air in public places so your solution is to make it illegal for them to smoke at all? That didn't work out so well during prohibition,did it? What a terribly inconsistent opinion you have. |
|
| Author: | happy jack [ Sat Oct 02, 2010 12:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lowell passes smoking ban. |
sparks wrote: -={ARCLIGHT}=- wrote: Mirage wrote: The bigger issue is that the government is ordering a private business not to allow a perfectly legal product to be enjoyed on private property. Had enough people made the owners aware of their displeasure about dining around smokers you would have a free market solution, as it should be. If they refused, you could go somewhere else to dine. But no, government has drummed up yet another reason to add to the courts overburdened caseload. Plus the fact, if they want to make a stand against smoking, why not go the extra step and ban the sales of tobacco products? How much tax revenue do you think they'd have to give up then? If they want to make the grand gesture, then let them put their money where their mouth is. Ban the sale of tobacco products? It never fails to amaze me how stupid you righties really are. You're whining about smokers losing their right to pollute the air in public places so your solution is to make it illegal for them to smoke at all? That didn't work out so well during prohibition,did it? If the ultimate goal of the government is to save people from the evils of tobacco, then banning it outright, and strictly enforcing the ban, would accomplish that goal. But if the motive of the government is to continue to collect taxes on tobacco sales, and to hypocritically continue to collect punitive fines from those who allow the use of something that even the government concedes is a perfectly legal product, within the confines of a private establishment, then smoking bans are the way to go. I'm not really too surprised that you are so enamored of this plan, sparkles. The more you can use the government to bully someone into seeing things your way, the happier you (and Barry) are. |
|
| Author: | newsflashkid [ Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lowell passes smoking ban. |
One poster wanted the link about business improved when smoking ban was enforced. You can find many sources. Dunkin Donuts was the first for all stores and then came Mc Donalds. Numerous stories are avaiable about Illinois establishments plus I have a direct contact with this issue. Don't take my word. Check the issue out yourself. Better yet, go over to Calumet City and talk to restaurant owners. Like Aunt Sallies, Ted's or Tom's. It's so nice to be able to sit down and enjoy the flavor of a meal and not have it destroyed by some jerk blowing smoke over it. This alone is a good reason to ban smoking plus the health issue. I'm not here to argue, just to state the facts. |
|
| Author: | -={ARCLIGHT}=- [ Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lowell passes smoking ban. |
newsflashkid wrote: Don't take my word. I didn't, that is why I asked for a link. When YOU make a claim, YOU have to be able to prove when asked for proof. |
|
| Author: | Mirage [ Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lowell passes smoking ban. |
One poster wanted the link about business improved when smoking ban was enforced. You can find many sources. Dunkin Donuts was the first for all stores and then came Mc Donalds Both of which have drive thru and both of which make it policy nationally due to public comments made to corporate. So like I said, no government regulation required. |
|
| Author: | chuckmo48 [ Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Lowell passes smoking ban. |
-={ARCLIGHT}=- wrote: newsflashkid wrote: Don't take my word. I didn't, that is why I asked for a link. When YOU make a claim, YOU have to be able to prove when asked for proof. Quote: This study estimates the value added to a restaurant by a smoke-free policy using regression analysis of the purchase price of restaurants as a function of the presence of a smoke-free law and other control variables. There was a median increase of 16% (interquartile range 11% to 25%) in the sale price of a restaurant in a jurisdiction with a smoke-free law compared to a comparable restaurant in a community without such a law. This result indicates that contrary to claims made by opponents of smoke-free laws, these laws are associated with an increase in restaurant profitability. (JEL "I120", "H000", "D780") Copyright 2004 Western Economic Association International. http://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/coecpo/v22y2004i4p520-525.html |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|