Author Topic: soo... do you think we should bew able to smke in indian casinos.. (Read 1031 times)

Capt. Pork · « **Reply #15 on:** July 14, 2004, 09:23:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
what about slaves of the capitalist system who MUST work to make ends meet and are affected by this dispicable act of inhaling the result of burning organic matter.

On behalf of those slaves of the capitalist system that MUST work in factories to make ends meet, may I suggest a shift to stamping presses made entirely of styrofoam as well as a union-mandated curtailment of gravity in order to cut down on back strains.

Simaril · « **Reply #16 on:** July 14, 2004, 10:12:46 PM »

Nahh, just put on some animal tested deoderant, lunch on dolphins caught in tuna nets, put on your baby sealskin jacket and

NUKE THE WHALES

Dago · « **Reply #17 on:** July 15, 2004, 08:00:51 AM »

I think anyone on fire should be able to smoke in the idian casino. Other than that, smoking in the casino is forcing second hand smoke on the employees and is a nasty thing to do to them.

We anti-smokers won't rest until we make all you smelly smokers quit!! muhahahahahahahahahahaha

dago

lazs2 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 15, 2004, 08:21:55 AM »

So.. Do we all think that we should remove the right of indian casinos to allow smoking on their land because of the health risk and, as curly has pointed out, the enormous health care costs?

people are being expossed to second hand smoke in there and then.... like time bombs on the economy or the manchurian candidate....

they are released back into the world to wreak havoc on our economic system.

Workers are being forced to inhale deadly second hand smoke some no doubt dieing before the end of their shift to be replaced by other unfortunates.

lazs

Wanker · « **Reply #19 on:** July 15, 2004, 08:27:47 AM »

Ever notice how most of Lazs posts deal with race?

What's the matter lazs, your white pointy hood and robe being dry cleaned today?

As far as your question....if they are exempt from state laws, then I guess it's their right to allow whatever they want. Is it right for them to pollute the lungs of the employees with 2nd hand smoke? No, in my opinion it is not.

But then again, I live in a county in Minnesota that already has a smoking ban on any establishment that serves food. The only bars that can allow smoking in my community are those that do not offer food on their menu.

So, now I have a choice. If I want to go out for a drink without smelling like a chimney, I can go to tons of places. And on the occasional night when I feel like smoking an unfiltered cigarette or ten, I can go to the bars that don't serve food. Works wonderfully in my opinon. Never have to ask for the non-smoking section in the restaurants....all sections are non-smoking.

lazs2 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 15, 2004, 08:38:29 AM »

race? how so? it is about private owned bussines rights over governments.

How did I bring race into it? You are the only one who mentioned race. Do you believe that I have some kind of biggoted agenda in wanting everyone treated equally?

or is it... (to paraphrase a famouse line)...?

"First they came for the bussiness owners but I didn't say anthing because I was not a business owner... then they came for the jews but I didn't say antything because I wasn't a jew... then they came for the sportsmen but I wansn't a sportsman so who cares? Then they came for the indians but.... Whaaaa? the indians? this is an outrage... They can' tdo that the bastards! gotta draw the line somewhere!"

I am glad that you can now have a multitude of places to go eat that are smoke free... it cost nothing except the freedom of the person who owns the building... you simply have to throw private property rights out the window and it works out for you.

lazs

NoGirlfriend · « **Reply #21 on:** July 15, 2004, 08:44:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
what about slaves of the capitalist system who MUST work to make ends meet and are affected by this dispicable act of inhaling the result of burning organic matter.

Stay in school

Wanker · « **Reply #22 on:** July 15, 2004, 09:05:08 AM »

Quote

it cost nothing except the freedom of the person who owns the building... you simply have to throw private property rights out the window and it works out for you.

Ok, so if outlawing smoking in restaurants violates the owner's private property rights, then the strict health rules governing how the food is stored and prepared to prevent salmonella or other food-borne diseases, violates their property rights, too?

Why should smoking, which has been proven to be a killer, be allowed in restaurants when we don't allow restaurant owners to leave fresh meat out on the counter for days?

It's a public health issue. Fresh meat left to become infected with e-coli is a danger to the public, therefore there are strict rules that all restaurants must adhere to. Now, smoking is finally entering that same realm of being recognized as a danger to public health.

I'm sorry, but smokers have no legs to stand on in this argument. First hand smoke kills, and second hand smoke kills. Since second hand smoke affects the general public wherever smokers light up(inside, at least), it is a public health issue, and that's where the government does have the right to step in and protect its citizens.

Curval · « **Reply #23 on:** July 15, 2004, 09:08:04 AM »

lol banana...

He is just bitter that those mean old injuns are not paying state taxes. I don't think he could possibly give a hoot about second hand smoke given all the polutants his hobbies throw into the atmosphere.

lazs2 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 15, 2004, 09:09:59 AM »

smoking is out in the open.. it is an open threat and everyone is aware there is a risk. I woyuld go so far as to say the bussines would be required to post a large sign at every entrance that warned that smoking took place inside.

health issues with food preperation are hidden from the consumer.. they also pose a threat of large plagues. but... I would be for all health inspections to be voluntary with the same stippulation.. food servers who did not volunteer should have it posted that they did not comply with local and state and federal health rules.

any other questions?

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #25 on:** July 15, 2004, 09:11:46 AM »

actually ciurval... Arnie took my advice and is now taxing the indians in California...

lazs

Curval · « **Reply #26 on:** July 15, 2004, 09:18:44 AM »

ahhh good. So what is the problem?

Now you have issues because they are forcing smoke on employees and on gamblers? Yet you have no problem with cars screwing up the atmosphere causing EVERYONE to have to breathe in the second hand car fumes?

No contradiction there.

Wanker · « **Reply #27 on:** July 15, 2004, 09:29:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
ahhh good. So what is the problem?

Now you have issues because they are forcing smoke on employees and on gamblers? Yet you have no problem with cars screwing up the atmosphere causing EVERYONE to have to breathe in the second hand car fumes?

No contradiction there.

Curval, I think you've missed the sarcasm in lazs' text buffer today.

He couldn't care less about smoking, or anyone else's health. He is making the case that a property owner's rights(in this case, restaurant or casino owners) should be above any concern for the public's welfare or safety. Basically, he is for allowing those owners to do whatever they damn well please, with only the stipulation that they put signs up that will cover their bellybutton in case of litigation.

As for the Injuns....well, I'll let lazs hang himself with his racist rope. He doesn't need much help from me pointing out his obvious problem with "those uppity coloreds".

Dago · « **Reply #28 on:** July 15, 2004, 09:35:43 AM »

Well Lazs, if you took a pistol to a restaurant and said "I am gonna start firing this weapon haphazardly around", would that constitute fair warning and so it should be allowed? After all, you put it out in the open. Everyone can make a choice to leave. Just because it might kill someone shouldn't negate your right/choice to shoot, should it? Smoking might be viewed in the same matter, it kills, maybe not as suddenly, but over 400,000 people will die in this country from smoking related causes this year. More than will die from firearms. Why should this "right" to smoke and kill be more acceptable than firing a weapon randomly in public be more acceptable to you?

Smoking kills, smoking causes great suffering, the smell of cigarette smoke is noxious and horrible to most non-smokers.

Why should a smokers "rights" take precedence over others rights to clean air, to protect their health and their right not to be forced to smell that nasty odor and have to have it linger in their clothes?

Too many smokers fixate on their rights and ignore others.

dago

Curval · « **Reply #29 on:** July 15, 2004, 09:42:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by banana
Curval, I think you've missed the sarcasm in lazs' text buffer today.

He couldn't care less about smoking, or anyone else's health. He is making the case that a property owner's rights(in this case, restaurant or casino owners) should be above any concern for the public's welfare or safety. Basically, he is for allowing those owners to do whatever they damn well please, with only the stipulation that they put signs up that will cover their bellybutton in case of litigation.

As for the Injuns....well, I'll let lazs hang himself with his racist rope. He doesn't need much help from me pointing out his obvious problem with "those uppity coloreds".

ahhh...he was being "clever". I actually was having a hard time understanding what his bottom line point was as I am reading quickly at work. That you for getting to his point for him.