Should casinos be exempt from smoking restrictions?
Quote: mcallister3200ok fine. I believe that businesses should be held to a higher standard in regards to safety of employees and customers than a private residence should be for their guests, I think it's reasonable to require more regulation for the business.
What if you didn't sell anything to your customers at your place of business? Maybe you're some kind of philanthropist. What if you sold something to the guests in your home? What if you didn't have any employees in your place of business? What if you hired someone to sell stuff to your guests out of your residence?
What I'm getting at is there's no difference between the two. If it's your property it should be your choice on what is allowed or not allowed there. You dont force others to work for you. You dont force others to do business with you. You shouldn't be forced to cater to their whims.
Quote:As a(n) non-smoker American, I'm disgusted with the fraud the government perpetrates
Fixed.
There's a branch of the gov. assisting the food industry. You may notice that all these "low fat" and "non fat" foods are jammed with sugar. See, because fat tastes good, and non fat tastes like #$%^. So you jam it with sugar so it's palatable. The gov has injected millions of pounds of sugar into our diets this way. They are very pleased with the surge of agriculture that has resulted. They did their job - they helped the farmer.
This same branch of gov. is the very branch that's tackling our obesity issue.
Conflict of interest. Sound familiar?
Quote: IbeatyouracesThe only reason tobacco is still legal in the first place is the billions of dollars your politicians are being bribed with from the tobacco companies. As a non-smoker, I'm disgusted with the fraud the government perpetrates that they what people to quit when in reality they want you to keep smoking.
I agree completely with this post.
And I further believe the .gov is intentionally shortening peoples lives as a means to not bankrupt the healthcare system. Around 65 or so, smokers go ahead and die like they are supposed to...no more medicare for them.
It's the healthy non smokers that live into their ninety's sucking up every last medicare dollar with 3 hip replacements, diabetic care, for decades, old folks homes, scrips and on and on.
Go back to advertising cigarettes on tv, get kids hooked young and let them die early, while they can still be productive instead of setting new octogenarian records year after year. Those are the ones bankrupting health care. Hell, some smokers die off in their 40's and 50's.
Quote: petroglyphI agree completely with this post.
And I further believe the .gov is intentionally shortening peoples lives as a means to not bankrupt the healthcare system. Around 65 or so, smokers go ahead and die like they are supposed to...no more medicare for them.
It's the healthy non smokers that live into their ninety's sucking up every last medicare dollar with 3 hip replacements, diabetic care, for decades, old folks homes, scrips and on and on.
Go back to advertising cigarettes on tv, get kids hooked young and let them die early, while they can still be productive instead of setting new octogenarian records year after year. Those are the ones bankrupting health care. Hell, some smokers die off in their 40's and 50's.
I actually read a researich paper some years back by Altria (Phillip Morris) that they did for the Brazilian goverment showing them that they should be allowed to encourage (advertise) their cigarettes by showing them even with the increase in lung cancer and other issues they save vast amounts of money because it will lower the number of years of old age pensions and state funded health care. And, Brazil was impressed.
Quote: petroglyphAnd if a non smoker puts up the same sign, should you be able to go in, tip their head back and pour asbestos down their throat? What about my property rights? Matter of fact, my only property [my body] and I don't really own that either, but for sake of argument lets say I do. Where is my compensation for smokers trespass of my lungs?
Do I have to allow your dog to come into my yard and kill my chickens? Or your smoke to poison my kids? I say no. Your smoke invading my lungs is assault and I should have the right to defend myself, by force if necessary.
Your weapon of choice in this conflict is poisonous gas [smoke], I need to bring a bigger weapon. Non smokers should be allowed to shoot up to 3 smokers per day. And no limit on cigar smokers.
So should I be allowed to shoot people with exhaust heavy cars? Or people who pollute my drinking water. That's an absurd argument.
I am not an ancap. But neither are you if you don't respect an owners right to smoke in their private property. You don't have a right to go to a private building and demand a change in the air quality, especially not as am ancap.
Quote: rudeboyoiIf it's your property it should be your choice on what is allowed or not allowed there. You dont force others to work for you. You dont force others to do business with you. You shouldn't be forced to cater to their whims.
I'm guessing you disagree with the vast majority of OSHA regulations.
The problem is that many of these dangers that you think property owners should be allowed subject their employees and customers to are hidden until it is too late. If I go to work for a company, how am I supposed to know that they don't have asbestos in the walls of the building?
If I go to a grocery store, I do not want to buy produce to give to my asthmatic child that has been exposed to cigarette smoke. But if the store owner allowed people to smoke while handling the fruit how could I ever know that if there were no regulations against it?
Quote: GandlerQuote: petroglyphAnd if a non smoker puts up the same sign, should you be able to go in, tip their head back and pour asbestos down their throat? What about my property rights? Matter of fact, my only property [my body] and I don't really own that either, but for sake of argument lets say I do. Where is my compensation for smokers trespass of my lungs?
Do I have to allow your dog to come into my yard and kill my chickens? Or your smoke to poison my kids? I say no. Your smoke invading my lungs is assault and I should have the right to defend myself, by force if necessary.
Your weapon of choice in this conflict is poisonous gas [smoke], I need to bring a bigger weapon. Non smokers should be allowed to shoot up to 3 smokers per day. And no limit on cigar smokers.
So should I be allowed to shoot people with exhaust heavy cars? Or people who pollute my drinking water. That's an absurd argument.
I am not an ancap. But neither are you if you don't respect an owners right to smoke in their private property. You don't have a right to go to a private building and demand a change in the air quality, especially not as am ancap.
Oh shit, I forgot the sarc tag, sorry. I don't approve of killing anyone unless it is in self defense or they molest children.
Quote: GandlerQuote: petroglyphAnd if a non smoker puts up the same sign, should you be able to go in, tip their head back and pour asbestos down their throat? What about my property rights? Matter of fact, my only property [my body] and I don't really own that either, but for sake of argument lets say I do. Where is my compensation for smokers trespass of my lungs?
Do I have to allow your dog to come into my yard and kill my chickens? Or your smoke to poison my kids? I say no. Your smoke invading my lungs is assault and I should have the right to defend myself, by force if necessary.
Your weapon of choice in this conflict is poisonous gas [smoke], I need to bring a bigger weapon. Non smokers should be allowed to shoot up to 3 smokers per day. And no limit on cigar smokers.
So should I be allowed to shoot people with exhaust heavy cars? Or people who pollute my drinking water. That's an absurd argument.
I am not an ancap. But neither are you if you don't respect an owners right to smoke in their private property. You don't have a right to go to a private building and demand a change in the air quality, especially not as am ancap.
I hate to be a hypocrite so I try not to make a scene. I am 17 months free of tobacco after smoking like a lab rat for over 4 decades. I am guilty of any cigarette crime you can think of. I smoked in the house while raising my kids [as did my parents], in the car, everywhere I went. I even smoked in hospitals, stores, college [I was a janitor] etc.
On a side note. This may not be true, but I went with it. Smokers should be allowed somewhere to smoke on the tarmac side of security in all tax subsidized airports. I hate airports, the stress etc. What I was told was the fine for lighting up on a plane would cost me around 2k and the airline around 2k, but the penalty for smoking in the airport itself [like a concourse] is the same as smoking anywhere else. Fifty bucks. I have gotten off flights that were rough and stressful and shared a cig with another smoker and we agreed to split the fine. My belief that the fine was only fifty bucks, I would smoke in the bathrooms in airports before boarding just like in high school. I got some dirty looks, but I too was sick of smoke nazi's. It has been worth 50 bucks many times to get some nicotine in my bloodstream. Now, as I admitted earlier I am the worst kind, a reformer. I just can't stand the smell of it, but I don't wave a hand in front of my face like other whiners, I do try not to breathe it the best I can and won't play a crap table where the smoke is thick as butter. just sayin, smoke 'em if you got em.
I also don't believe it is the tobacco itself that is the worst health hazard, I think it is the additives, last I saw there were over 600 ingredients added to cigs. Interestingly enough, I have had IV Glutathione treatments. When big tobacco was forced to list the ingredients in cigs, Glutathione was listed as the 499th ingredient, so they aren't "all bad".
Quote: petroglyph
I hate to be a hypocrite so I try not to make a scene. I am 17 months free of tobacco after smoking like a lab rat for over 4 decades. I am guilty of any cigarette crime you can think of. I smoked in the house while raising my kids [as did my parents], in the car, everywhere I went. I even smoked in hospitals, stores, college [I was a janitor] etc.
On a side note. This may not be true, but I went with it. Smokers should be allowed somewhere to smoke on the tarmac side of security in all tax subsidized airports. I hate airports, the stress etc. What I was told was the fine for lighting up on a plane would cost me around 2k and the airline around 2k, but the penalty for smoking in the airport itself [like a concourse] is the same as smoking anywhere else. Fifty bucks. I have gotten off flights that were rough and stressful and shared a cig with another smoker and we agreed to split the fine. My belief that the fine was only fifty bucks, I would smoke in the bathrooms in airports before boarding just like in high school. I got some dirty looks, but I too was sick of smoke nazi's. It has been worth 50 bucks many times to get some nicotine in my bloodstream. Now, as I admitted earlier I am the worst kind, a reformer. I just can't stand the smell of it, but I don't wave a hand in front of my face like other whiners, I do try not to breathe it the best I can and won't play a crap table where the smoke is thick as butter. just sayin, smoke 'em if you got em.
I also don't believe it is the tobacco itself that is the worst health hazard, I think it is the additives, last I saw there were over 600 ingredients added to cigs. Interestingly enough, I have had IV Glutathione treatments. When big tobacco was forced to list the ingredients in cigs, Glutathione was listed as the 499th ingredient, so they aren't "all bad".
Well in many parts of the world most airports accommodate smokers (and in some parts of the world some planes accommodate smoking.)
As for the additives. I was actually just arguing with my boss about this. There is little evidence that tobacco with additives is any worst than tobacco naturally. Smoke is smoke after all, and most of the damage from smoking comes from inhaling carbon monoxide filled smoke into your lungs, as well as the tar (which is a by product of burning tobacco.
Most "Additive Free" cigarettes (Winstons and American spirits heavily advertise this) have been tested quite a bit and the smoke is not found to be any less damaging to your lungs and oral region.
Smoke is smoke. If you are worried about smoking switch to smokeless tobacco or quit altogether.
That is, chewing tobacco.
Nasty as spittoons are, you don't exhale smoke into the air, just liquefied flying brown slime that at most is disgusting.
Unless you pick up a beer bottle like a friend did , who didn't notice it wasn't his and had been used as a wad of chew disposal.
Quote: IbeatyouracesThe only reason tobacco is still legal in the first place is the billions of dollars your politicians are being bribed with from the tobacco companies. As a non-smoker, I'm disgusted with the fraud the government perpetrates that they what people to quit when in reality they want you to keep smoking.
There are many reasons tobacco is still legal.
For one a prohibition on tobacco would be unenforceable as it is so proliferated throughout the world. There is only one country that has attempted to outlaw tobacco and it has been a massive failure and created a huge underground market.
But, even more important, the state governments would go broke. So many states depend on huge tobacco taxes and fees for a huge portion of their income. And, of course the Federal Government makes quite a bit as well. Actually governments make more revenue than tobacco companies in many cases between taxes, fees, fines, and lawsuits. Tobacco is hugely profitable to the government.
In Japan for example, one of the largest tobacco companies is half owned by the Treasury, which is why it is such a smoker friendly country. Governments generally have vast interest in tobacco because it is profitable and they know nobody will oppose large taxes on it. And, if they own portions of companies, even better.
Quote: rxwineTobacco can be allowed in all casinos.
That is, chewing tobacco.
Nasty as spittoons are, you don't exhale smoke into the air, just liquefied flying brown slime that at most is disgusting.
Unless you pick up a beer bottle like a friend did , who didn't notice it wasn't his and had been used as a wad of chew disposal.
or you can use snus. Spit free and far safer. Very popular in Sweden.
Quote: petroglyph
And I further believe the .gov is intentionally shortening peoples lives as a means to not bankrupt the healthcare system. Around 65 or so, smokers go ahead and die like they are supposed to...no more medicare for them.
It's the healthy non smokers that live into their ninety's sucking up every last medicare dollar with 3 hip replacements, diabetic care, for decades, old folks homes, scrips and on and on.
Not only do we use less resources, but we fund a s#$%ton of your life through taxes that we alone pay. A pack costs ~$2. We toss another $8 on top of it by way of taxation here in NY.
I won't be draining from your SS Ponzi scheme. I won't be using up all the meds in the old folks home. I won't be driving a 22' long Cadillac at 35mph in the slow lane going the wrong way. I won't be blocking the aisles with my wheelchair or delaying your iced cap by 6 seconds 'cause I'm walking slowly. I'll be one less Q-tip lamenting anyone born after 1992, and proselytizing my world view on a generation of misinformed and hopeless youngers.
I generously and graciously donate my money and my very life to the masses. And y'all pink lunged ingrates have the nerve to mock and ridicule.
Y'all should be erecting statues in my honor. I prefer bare copper, as the patina has the dirty and weathered look fitting a man of my nature.
Quote: Face
I generously and graciously donate my money and my very life to the masses. And y'all pink lunged ingrates have the nerve to mock and ridicule.
Y'all should be erecting statues in my honor. I prefer bare copper, as the patina has the dirty and weathered look fitting a man of my nature.
LOL
Quote: RogerKintLOL
Who says you need emoticons to ensure people get the jokes? =)
Quote: FaceNot only do we use less resources, but we fund a s#$%ton of your life through taxes that we alone pay. A pack costs ~$2. We toss another $8 on top of it by way of taxation here in NY.
I won't be draining from your SS Ponzi scheme. I won't be using up all the meds in the old folks home. I won't be driving a 22' long Cadillac at 35mph in the slow lane going the wrong way. I won't be blocking the aisles with my wheelchair or delaying your iced cap by 6 seconds 'cause I'm walking slowly. I'll be one less Q-tip lamenting anyone born after 1992, and proselytizing my world view on a generation of misinformed and hopeless youngers.
I generously and graciously donate my money and my very life to the masses. And y'all pink lunged ingrates have the nerve to mock and ridicule.
Y'all should be erecting statues in my honor. I prefer bare copper, as the patina has the dirty and weathered look fitting a man of my nature.
Can you imagine the panic on .gov's face if everybody quit smoking? Laughable. Then they would have to start taxing the non smoking church goers. Bwahaha.
Revolution, it's what's for breakfast. Don't we have an anarchist around here somewhere?
Ok, ok, I got a complaint. I don't want to suck in second hand tobacco smoke, but also hair spray or petuli [sp?] oil chokes me. I react the same way, I try not to suck it in. I like the smell of wd-40 or two-cycle outboard exhaust. Can I take my Yamaha into a casino and fire it up?
There are parts of Cal. where you cannot smoke on the beach, on the friggin beach. And somehow the taxes are collected to pay the security to patrol the beach and enforce the law's. Whew
But to be fair, Face. These geriatric caddy cruisers aren't doing 170 between cars, some would consider that a public health hazard, go figure.
Oh the days of the Caddy and the Lincoln, nostalgia "hot rod lincoln" by Johnny Bond https://youtu.be/eZu5TwRbYiA
Quote: GWAEThat is about 70% IMO. I experience a lot of people who are just a holes and couldn't care less if they blew smoke in your face. Sometimes you are just down wind of smoke. If I were smoking and noticed smoke going towards someone I would make every effort to keep it from doing so. Unfortunately, most smokers don't think there is anything wrong with the smoke so it doesn't even phase them that it is happening.
Yeah, some of them don't care. At that point I have a choice. But I'm the non-smoker in the smoking section.
Most of us are tired of smelling like dog piss and rotting teeth because of the nasty smokers. I hate sitting in their ash and waste. Furthermore, I wish they'd have the dignity to clean up after themselves.
Quote: FaceNot only do we use less resources, but we fund a s#$%ton of your life through taxes that we alone pay. A pack costs ~$2. We toss another $8 on top of it by way of taxation here in NY.
I won't be draining from your SS Ponzi scheme. I won't be using up all the meds in the old folks home. I won't be driving a 22' long Cadillac at 35mph in the slow lane going the wrong way. I won't be blocking the aisles with my wheelchair or delaying your iced cap by 6 seconds 'cause I'm walking slowly. I'll be one less Q-tip lamenting anyone born after 1992, and proselytizing my world view on a generation of misinformed and hopeless youngers.
I generously and graciously donate my money and my very life to the masses. And y'all pink lunged ingrates have the nerve to mock and ridicule.
Y'all should be erecting statues in my honor. I prefer bare copper, as the patina has the dirty and weathered look fitting a man of my nature.
I would "like" this post if this forum was like facebook. Also you forgot not being able to yell at kids on your lawn and their hippity hoppity music, or whatever is going to annoy the hell out of us when we get old lol.
Quote: Keyser... Most of us are tired of smelling like dog piss and rotting teeth because of the nasty smokers.
I doubt that any of this has to do with the addiction of smoking per se.
Also the more smokers there are will make social security last longer.Since alot of them will die early.Quote: IbeatyouracesThe only reason tobacco is still legal in the first place is the billions of dollars your politicians are being bribed with from the tobacco companies. As a non-smoker, I'm disgusted with the fraud the government perpetrates that they what people to quit when in reality they want you to keep smoking.
Quote: KerkebetI doubt that any of this has to do with the addiction of smoking per se.
hahahahahaha. hahahahahaha. I'm fast becoming a Kerkebet fan. hahahahahahaha.
Patchouli (is how you spell it, FWIW). I actually fainted in the US House of Representatives when I got trapped in a cloud of it up in the gallery (you can only come and go as the guards allow; they had to drag me out unconscious). I'm heavily allergic. Also to several synthetic fabrics and the gases that come off of them when they're new in the store. I can only be in a store selling clothes, where it's concentrated, for about 10 minutes before I'm overcome. And only wear cotton and a few of the synthetics, like rayon.
Nobody offers any legislation about chemical emissions from synthetics or suggests perfume-free zones. Which makes a lot of the complaints and actions more about power, politics, and imposing your preferences on other people than they are about smoke.
FWIW, my manners when smoking are similar to Face's. At a casino, I keep it off the table, usually won't smoke at a full table, and put it out or move something, including changing seats, to keep it out of the dealer's face, since they're the only one who HAS to be there. I generally go outside whether in a smoking venue or not, with the exception of a well-ventilated casino. Seems to me if everybody was considerate about it (both smokers and non-smokers), it wouldn't be such a huge issue. But as in many things, perception is much stronger than reality on this issue.
Quote: petroglyph
But to be fair, Face. These geriatric caddy cruisers aren't doing 170 between cars, some would consider that a public health hazard, go figure.
Perhaps. I'm just so dedicated to not being a taker that I started as early as possible. You're all very welcome, it was my pleasure, don't mention it. Now, about that statue... please also soak it thrice daily in starter fluid and, every third Saturday from May to September, douse it in Sunoco 260 GT Plus and set it alight. Now that is aromatic pleasure, and should make up for the miasma of my smoking habit.
Quote: djatcI would "like" this post if this forum was like facebook. Also you forgot not being able to yell at kids on your lawn and their hippity hoppity music, or whatever is going to annoy the hell out of us when we get old lol.
Thanks, but I'm way ahead of you. Between the Taylor Swifts and the Deadmowfives, the Foodstagrams, and the mindless trend following, I'm having a hard time producing enough words to sling in hate as it is. As soon as I'm gainfully employed again, I'll consider hiring an assistant. An apprentice agitator, if you will =)
Quote: beachbumbabs
Nobody offers any legislation about chemical emissions from synthetics or suggests perfume-free zones. Which makes a lot of the complaints and actions more about power, politics, and imposing your preferences on other people than they are about smoke.
Eggxactamundo. I am similar, though mine is "fake" smells and not processing chemicals. Perfumes, fragrances, air fresheners... even the smells which I find pleasant can send me into migraines severe enough I need to be hospitalized and put under. And some of you people... I s#$% you not, I have smelled women's perfume by driving past them in my truck as they were walking down the sidewalk. And I'm a long time smoker with a severely retarded sense of smell.
I sure hate it. I'll sometimes get uppity about it. I have never confronted someone about it, and I could not imagine the gall of legislating against it. I'm an able bodied free American, and I can get off my keister and move.
Smokers, the poor, fat people, and poor spellers. The last of the unprotected classes*.
*Y U so serious? Check the sig =p
Quote: TomGI'm guessing you disagree with the vast majority of OSHA regulations.
The problem is that many of these dangers that you think property owners should be allowed subject their employees and customers to are hidden until it is too late. If I go to work for a company, how am I supposed to know that they don't have asbestos in the walls of the building?
If I go to a grocery store, I do not want to buy produce to give to my asthmatic child that has been exposed to cigarette smoke. But if the store owner allowed people to smoke while handling the fruit how could I ever know that if there were no regulations against it?
You dont. Only work for the companies that have certified that they don't have asbestos in the wall. If you choose to work for a company that hasn't certified that they don't have asbestos in the wall it's a risk you chose to incur by deciding to work there. In an anarchist society nobody would be forced to have their walls inspected but if they want to build good employer/employee relations they may choose to have their walls inspected by an outside agency that can certify they indeed do not have asbestos in the walls.
That's the risk you incur by purchasing that produce. Be a good parent. Wash your damn produce. That shits already got pesticides and who knows what sprayed all over it. If it was indeed that big a concern for you, grow your own damn produce.
Quote: Dalex64Who certifies that the outside agency is qualified to inspect a wall for asbestos?
You earn your reputation as it should be. Those agencies that dont perform well will fail. Why would you ever trust a monopoly to do an inspection which is what the government is? They have no competition. If they don't perform well they still remain.
Quote: FaceNot only do we use less resources, but we fund a s#$%ton of your life through taxes that we alone pay. A pack costs ~$2. We toss another $8 on top of it by way of taxation here in NY.
I won't be draining from your SS Ponzi scheme. I won't be using up all the meds in the old folks home. I won't be driving a 22' long Cadillac at 35mph in the slow lane going the wrong way. I won't be blocking the aisles with my wheelchair or delaying your iced cap by 6 seconds 'cause I'm walking slowly. I'll be one less Q-tip lamenting anyone born after 1992, and proselytizing my world view on a generation of misinformed and hopeless youngers.
"And for that, we thank you".
Quote: beachbumbabsNobody offers any legislation about chemical emissions from synthetics or suggests perfume-free zones. Which makes a lot of the complaints and actions more about power, politics, and imposing your preferences on other people than they are about smoke.
I'd be willing to bet almost no one who has made up their mind not to desire to sit around smokers is going to change their mind just because someone one else has to endure something.
If someone tells me they have to sniff butt all day, I'm not going to feel like I want to do it because they have to.
I'll just feel sorry for them. But I'm not taking it up.
Quote: rudeboyoiIn an anarchist society nobody would be forced to have their walls inspected but if they want to build good employer/employee relations they may choose to have their walls inspected by an outside agency that can certify they indeed do not have asbestos in the walls.
Do you have a single example of such a society having any success?
Quote: TomGDo you have a single example of such a society having any success?
Nope. But I have countless examples of societies with a government failing. Seems kind of pointless trying the same thing over and over again for thousands of years if it keeps failing.
Quote: rudeboyoiNope. But I have countless examples of societies with a government failing. Seems kind of pointless trying the same thing over and over again for thousands of years if it keeps failing.
We are a social animal, whether it be strictly codified laws or a non-codified social contract, there would still be some form of governance. The only question is whether it is direct or de facto. I tend to prefer direct, because I at least have a specific understanding of most of the rules that I need to follow.
Casinos are no different to any other social environment and there is no good reason why casinos deserve special treatment.
Quote: rudeboyoiNope. But I have countless examples of societies with a government failing. Seems kind of pointless trying the same thing over and over again for thousands of years if it keeps failing.
It's actually working splendidly for those that control it.
Face you need to buy your smokes from the Seneca's I think you can get them for 25 a carton :)Quote: FaceNot only do we use less resources, but we fund a s#$%ton of your life through taxes that we alone pay. A pack costs ~$2. We toss another $8 on top of it by way of taxation here in NY.
I won't be draining from your SS Ponzi scheme. I won't be using up all the meds in the old folks home. I won't be driving a 22' long Cadillac at 35mph in the slow lane going the wrong way. I won't be blocking the aisles with my wheelchair or delaying your iced cap by 6 seconds 'cause I'm walking slowly. I'll be one less Q-tip lamenting anyone born after 1992, and proselytizing my world view on a generation of misinformed and hopeless youngers.
I generously and graciously donate my money and my very life to the masses. And y'all pink lunged ingrates have the nerve to mock and ridicule.
Y'all should be erecting statues in my honor. I prefer bare copper, as the patina has the dirty and weathered look fitting a man of my nature.
It had the opposite effect.
Turns out, lots of people were staying away or keeping their visits short due to the smoke.
Today, business is thriving and there are 6,000 more bars and restaurants in NYC than there were before the smoking ban.
Resorts World in Queens is totally smoke free and does $700 million in annual gross gambling revenues with ten million visitors annually.
If you want to smoke, you have to take the escalators to the front exit.
Almost no one does this. Their urge to gamble exceeds their urge to smoke.
Empire city in the Bronx does about $500 million with the same no smoking policy.
I avoid Foxwoods and PARX due to their poor air quality.
Which is too bad for me, becausee PARX is the closest casino to my home.
PARX is an ashtray.
Quote: rudeboyoiNope. But I have countless examples of societies with a government failing. Seems kind of pointless trying the same thing over and over again for thousands of years if it keeps failing.
Fortunately most people believe that along with examples of failure in societies that have a government, there are also examples of major successes. Things like running water, electricity, communications, transportation, houses to live in, beds to sleep on, clothes to wear, being able to buy food instead of growing and catching everything for yourself, etc., and even casinos and cigarettes, all came about because we had rules and regulations governing how our communities were to run
Quote: rudeboyoiNope. But I have countless examples of societies with a government failing. Seems kind of pointless trying the same thing over and over again for thousands of years if it keeps failing.
And, there are countless examples of success.
It depends on what form of government.
Secular Constitutional Republics like America have changed the world vastly for the better.
Quote: TomGFortunately most people believe that along with examples of failure in societies that have a government, there are also examples of major successes. Things like running water, electricity, communications, transportation, houses to live in, beds to sleep on, clothes to wear, being able to buy food instead of growing and catching everything for yourself, etc., and even casinos and cigarettes, all came about because we had rules and regulations governing how our communities were to run
You can't make a claim that these things happened because of government without being able to compare it to a society without government. If anything government hinders progress. Maybe we would have had moved way past gasoline fueled cars by now if it wasn't for the regulations government put in place to make it difficult for competitors to enter the auto industry. Biofuel can be made from hemp but government made it illegal to grow. Instead were kept in perpetual war with the middle east over oil reserves. Hell we might even have flying cars by now if it wasn't for government interfering with the market place. Corporatism is not capatilism.
Quote: rudeboyoiYou can't make a claim that these things happened because of government without being able to compare it to a society without government. If anything government hinders progress. Maybe we would have had moved way past gasoline fueled cars by now if it wasn't for the regulations government put in place to make it difficult for competitors to enter the auto industry. Biofuel can be made from hemp but government made it illegal to grow. Instead were kept in perpetual war with the middle east over oil reserves. Hell we might even have flying cars by now if it wasn't for government interfering with the market place. Corporatism is not capatilism.
Currently we have Somolia and Sudan that have virtually zero government intervention in anything. A few years ago Zimbabwe was equally severe in seeing no government action at all. Those places were never able to achieve anything near what you suggest. The best governments do not interfere with the market, they are needed to protect it
(only some governments have made hemp illegal to grow. The ones that didn't have yet to see flying cars. Further the places where there is both quality transportation and the least dependence on middle eastern oil were able to reach that because regulations allowed alternative energy to do so well)
Quote: TomGCurrently we have Somolia and Sudan that have virtually zero government intervention in anything. A few years ago Zimbabwe was equally severe in seeing no government action at all. Those places were never able to achieve anything near what you suggest. The best governments do not interfere with the market, they are needed to protect it
(only some governments have made hemp illegal to grow. The ones that didn't have yet to see flying cars. Further the places where there is both quality transportation and the least dependence on middle eastern oil were able to reach that because regulations allowed alternative energy to do so well)
Different governments have been vying for power since the 90s when civil war broke out. It is not an example of a society with no government.
Just because you can grow hemp doesn't mean you can build flying cars. I just used hemp as an example of how government holds back technological process. Who knows what restrictions are put in place to prevent this progress. I'm sure the FAA and similar agencies in other countries with their regulations have killed the desire to pursue flying cars. What good is building a flying car if the government is going to prevent you from flying it? Why pursue it in the first place? Research and development is driven by an incentive to make profit. If there's no ability to profit off of it there's going to be no incentive to develop it.
This is at least the second thread within a week that you've taken off the rails with your promotion of Voluntarism. We need to reign that in.
Not only have I allowed this off-topic debate, I even encouraged it and dedicated an entire thread to it. I, personally, am interested in the topic, and it seems others are as well, even if only to take the other side.
You may get on your soap box and proselytize to your heart's content, but please do it in the thread designated for it. To be clear, you may comment on any thread and any topic at any time, and have your Voluntarism beliefs guide your words and come out in your communication. But if, as a result, a debate starts to unfurl about Voluntarism specifically and away from the topic of the thread, please announce or otherwise guide the side bar to that Voluntarism thread, and allow the OP to carry on undisturbed.
I don't want to get all uppity or threaten sanctions, but it's become disruptive so I'm asking you to help me clear it up. Sound fair?
Quote: FaceIf I may interrupt for a moment and address you, rudeboyoi...
This is at least the second thread within a week that you've taken off the rails with your promotion of Voluntarism. We need to reign that in.
Not only have I allowed this off-topic debate, I even encouraged it and dedicated an entire thread to it. I, personally, am interested in the topic, and it seems others are as well, even if only to take the other side.
You may get on your soap box and proselytize to your heart's content, but please do it in the thread designated for it. To be clear, you may comment on any thread and any topic at any time, and have your Voluntarism beliefs guide your words and come out in your communication. But if, as a result, a debate starts to unfurl about Voluntarism specifically and away from the topic of the thread, please announce or otherwise guide the side bar to that Voluntarism thread, and allow the OP to carry on undisturbed.
I don't want to get all uppity or threaten sanctions, but it's become disruptive so I'm asking you to help me clear it up. Sound fair?
Gotcha. If it gets too off-tangenty I'll try to redirect the conversation to the voluntaryism containment thread. Like in this thread if it gets too far away from talking about whether or not there should be smoking in casinos.
Quote: rudeboyoiGotcha. If it gets too off-tangenty I'll try to redirect the conversation to the voluntaryism containment thread. Like in this thread if it gets too far away from talking about whether or not there should be smoking in casinos.
"If" it gets too far away?
I don't want to go from mod to censor, so maybe I need a re-read. I was with you up until asbestos and produce. Once you went all hemp and Mid East oil and Corporatism good - Capitalism bad, you lost me as it pertains to smoking.
Carry on with this one. Maybe it's just me who needs to catch up. But after "Election 2016", I thought it worth bringing up. I'm sure we'll get on the same page soon enough, and thanks for agreeing to help.
Quote: Face"If" it gets too far away?
I don't want to go from mod to censor, so maybe I need a re-read. I was with you up until asbestos and produce. Once you went all hemp and Mid East oil and Corporatism good - Capitalism bad, you lost me as it pertains to smoking.
Carry on with this one. Maybe it's just me who needs to catch up. But after "Election 2016", I thought it worth bringing up. I'm sure we'll get on the same page soon enough, and thanks for agreeing to help.
No problem. Maybe I just need a good sig line. Something along the lines "assume anything I say has nothing to do with the law but morality instead. Refer to the voluntaryism thread if you're wondering Wtf I'm talking about." Any suggestions on a concise way of wording that?
Quote: rudeboyoiNo problem. Maybe I just need a good sig line. Something along the lines "assume anything I say has nothing to do with the law but morality instead. Refer to the voluntaryism thread if you're wondering Wtf I'm talking about." Any suggestions on a concise way of wording that?
On the sig, I haven't much advice. I have a disclaimer sig as well, but I'm not sure anybody reads it, and I know not everybody reads it. But I do think this can be easily handled.
I can see now the progression having reread it. The talk about the asbestos and the produce, that's all analogous to the OP situation. You're using it as an example to support your opinion on the topic, that the public and not the gov should decide. It is based in Voluntarism, it contains Voluntarism, but it's not yet "about Voluntarism", if you catch my meaning. About the time you and TomG began debating and talking about failures of governments and biofuel, etc, that's where I feel we veered off. I do see how you're defending your post debating the OP, but the OP, it feels to me, has dropped out of the convo. So it's connected, but it's not. Do you sort of see what I mean? And from there we go to flying cars and Somalia... it's defending a post which defended a post about your opinion on the OP, and the OP gets lost in the mess.
What I would do, and the way I personally handle it, is just to recognize when I stop talking about the OP. I do it often, just about anytime guns come up. The recent shooting in LV is a perfect example. The LV shooting was the topic. Of course, being it's a gun issue, we are going to get off of LV and on to 2nd amendment BS, which isn't the topic. So when it goes there, and I feel it go there, I copy whatever response is taking me there and respond to it in the gun thread. Anyone passionate enough to make a post is going to follow me, and if I want to ensure they do and YOU want to ensure they do, I have no problem with you posting in the OP and saying "Hey, I want to debate this but it's off topic. Follow me so we don't muck up the thread".
I don't want to shut you up both out of respect and because the topic is interesting, but I also don't want a thread to get shredded like Election 2016 did. Hopefully by doing it this way, everyone can have everything and all can be happy.
Thanks for being cooperative and not telling me to go fly a kite. It is appreciated =)
Quote: FaceI do see how you're defending your post debating the OP, but the OP, it feels to me, has dropped out of the convo
As the OP, I'd like to explain why I haven't been part of the continuing conversation. I'm more interested in seeing what other people have to say, instead of arguing here for the non-smoking rule. I view my role in this thread as more a listener and reporter than a commenter/debater. I've been following the thread faithfully and plan to use several of the comments, as well as comments from other sources, in a follow-up column. I'll post a link when it appears.
For what it's worth, I agree with Face that the thread has veered into another topic, and I appreciate the effort to steer it back to the original question without silencing anyone. I also appreciate the thought and reasoning people have put into their comments.
In Florida, an amendment to the state constitution was passed by popular vote to outlaw smoking in most places of business (including restaurants, but excluding bars). I was unhappy with this decision because I feel that an owner's property rights should not be curtailed in such a way. However, I do enjoy not being subject to smoke when I go out to eat. Personally, I felt that eventually, market forces would have decided that there would be some places that allowed smoking and some where the owners would ban it.
This is currently the case for casinos in Biloxi, MS. Last weekend, I made a trip there and visited two casinos. One was the Palace, which has been smoke-free for, I think, 3-4 years, and is the only such casino in Biloxi. This was their choice as there are no laws (that I know of) that prohibit smoking in casinos in MS. It seems that the market has decided that there is a need for at least one smoke-free casino there.
