Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on July 14, 2004, 03:21:38 PM
-
just wondering... the casinos around here are exempt from Califiornia laws on smoking in public places... probly cause they offer free ciggs so that no one gets second hand smoke and only the safe first hand stuff maybe?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
just wondering... the casinos around here are exempt from Califiornia laws on smoking in public places... probly cause they offer free ciggs so that no one gets second hand smoke and only the safe first hand stuff maybe?
lazs
If the Indians say its ok... sure why not? It's their land
-
If BIG CHIEF "SMOKEMLOTS" says so i agree!
-
Are there wooden tobaco Indians there too?
-
As long as I can smoke a cigar, okay.
-
It should be up to whoever owns the business. People who don't like smoke are free to patronize other businesses.
-
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.
-
This u smoke ur criminal is right now flown over to europe.
:(
we should all stop and than what??
-
Originally posted by Sandman
As long as I can smoke a cigar, okay.
Why stop there?
-Sik
-
but what about the poor employees that are forced to work there and who's very lives are in danger from the rumored worse than nerve gas "second hand smoke"?
And... aren't they a "public place'?
If it is their land... then why can't they have opium dens and human sacrafices?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If it is their land... then why can't they have opium dens and human sacrafices?
WOOT! Now you're talking!!!! :aok
"A day without a human sacrifice in an opium den is like a day without sunshine" ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
but what about the poor employees that are forced to work there and who's very lives are in danger from the rumored worse than nerve gas "second hand smoke"?
And... aren't they a "public place'?
If it is their land... then why can't they have opium dens and human sacrafices?
lazs
Well... replace opium with payote and as for the human sacrifices... haven't you ever seen "A man called Horse"?
-
See this thread and draw your own conclusions.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=123708
-
Originally posted by lazs2
but what about the poor employees that are forced to work there and who's very lives are in danger from the rumored worse than nerve gas "second hand smoke"?
And... aren't they a "public place'?
If it is their land... then why can't they have opium dens and human sacrafices?
lazs
You’re sounding like a tribal lawyer now.
Step away from the peace pipe and log back in tomorrow.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Why stop there?
-Sik
Absolutely... in addition, I'd like to **** the cocktail waitress on top of the roulette table. ;)
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
:p
-
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
-
actually ciurval... Arnie took my advice and is now taxing the indians in California...
lazs
-
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.
-
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".
-
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
-
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.
-
curval... everyone is participating in creating smog... everyone follows the same laws (except that federal government is exempt)... Indians or white girls with green eyes are not exempt nor are former armenians.
If cars are so evil then we simply need to ban them.
If smoking is so evil then the same applies.
Dago...If you enter a shooting range you know it is a shooting range and you take your chances. If you are allready in a bar and the owner or anyone suddenly declares he will start shooting then that would not be constituted fair warning...
if, the bar were to be a combination bar and shooting range and advertised as such.. you would have no beef if you saw or heard guns or breathed lead dust.... If the owner had a negligent dangerous range/bar combo... you could sue for negligence.
but... I still have no idea how any of this has to do with race. banana, what is your defenition of an "uppity colored"? or is it that you just like to have an excuse to write "uppity colored"?
lazs
-
probably has something to do with the INDIAN casinos...thats specifically excluding non indian casinos...thus creating a weak phantom race issue...
as far as im concerned casino's are in the same boat as bars...so smoking may as well be allowed in there...
-
Casinos are for gambling,
Bars are for drinking,
Restaraunts are for eating
All are licensed for those purposes.
None are licensed for smoking.
Maybe there should be "Smoking Establishments"? Somewhere licensed to let people smoke? Just as lethal, or more so than the others.
-
no smoking = good
Smoking does nothing but bad generally.
Makes person smell, his clothes smells, his house (if smokes inside) smells, his car smells...
god.. how can someone live in such nasty smelling environment
-
Ok dago... fair enough... so you think that the inconvienence or danger to you means that smoking needs to be licenced and private property rights circumvented because of the high risk and/or inconvienence to you personally?
It would also appear that you feel everyone should be treated equally in the matter... including indian casinos or any other "public place". Is that a fair assesment?
If we are going to make a law based on public safety then ... all bussiness should be treated equally... you can eat and drink in casinos.. they are as much food servers as any resteraunt and as much a bar as the local "dew drop in"
but banana... should indian casino resteraunts be exempt from food and server health laws?
lazs
-
fishu... I hate the smell. I don't allow people to smoke in my house or car but reserve the right to change my mind or make exceptions.
I think the second hand smoke thing is either a myth or simply weeding out the terminally wussy who probly should not have lived thois long in any case tho..
lazs
-
but banana... should indian casino resteraunts be exempt from food and server health laws?
Nyet.
-
The thing that kills me about second hand smoke is that you will get a couple of years worth of it over a bbq pit or campfire in one afternoon. Are those next?
-
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.
They can please refrain from breathing while I smoke. It`s their choice.
-
liz... we don't know. It is quite possible... vegetarians might sieze on this idea and...
based on current law... they have a very good case for banning BBQ first, out in the open in public owned places like parks and then in private bussines like bars or resteraunts and then in your backyard because the smoke would drift over to other houses.
banana... so... biggotry asside... you believe that laws should be enforced equally on all public places? That being indian land does not exempt them from the round eyes laws of serving health and smoking?
lazs
-
banana... so... biggotry asside... you believe that laws should be enforced equally on all public places? That being indian land does not exempt them from the round eyes laws of serving health and smoking?
You're opening up a whole can of worms talking about Indian land. That's for another thread. Suffice it to say that I think public safety laws should apply in any establishment where the public is allowed, no matter whose land its on.
I'm always amused by you libertarians and the way you think. You instantly think that by banning cigarette smoking in public places, that they'll go for the BBQ grills next.
-
so... we agree that laws should be enforced equally? I would never have guessed you to think that way.
Now... bout them BBQ's... are you saying that setting precedents has no meaning? or.... are you saying that public health is not important if BBQ is involved? BBQ should be exempt for what reason in your opinion?
Or... if the second hand smoke is just as dangerous (more so) from BBQ and at least as sickening (to some groups) maybe more so... what would be your thinking on why smoking should be banned but not BBQ?
Why should BBQ be exempted in your opinion?
lazs
-
If the US was determined to be "equal" to the native indians then about 80% of the white population should be "culled" before the horribly inequity of the smoking laws are addressed.
-
laz, you're thinking in absolutist terms. There is no such thing as a "safe" activity, just ones with more or less risk. Attempts to remove all risk of injury from life are A) doomed to ludicrous failure and B) likely to seriously infringe on other important priorities. For example, driving results in milions of deaths annually, but the benefits (like earning a living) are clear. We balance the risk and benefit, and make an intelligent choice.
The role of government is balancing competing important priorites. The challenge is not how to avoid the obviously bad, IT'S HOW TO CHOOSE AMONG THE MANY "GOOD" PRIORITIES.
It is good that nonsmokers be allowed to not be around smoke. It is good that smokers have freedom to travel. It is good that people be allowed to get good jobs. Balancing this isn't as obvious and easy as you seem to think. For example, the Tribal Authority decides whether to make the casino smoking or nonsmoking, and they beleive the good of their people is best served by maximizing attendance and profits.
And your comment about "slaves of the capitalist system" is both uninformed and a bit racist --
A) would you prefer the alternative system, like the freedom loving workers of North Korea?;
B) why does it seem that only stereotypically oppressed minorities are trapped against their will? Stereotypically achieving minorities come with the same financial limitations, but seem able to overcome their challenges; and
C) why do the Indians need you to tell their leadership what's best for them? Are they not wise enough to make choices without the guidance of their betters, like you?
-
curval... what law allows us to "cull" 80% of the indian population? If you are talking about the indian wars.... it was a war... they lost.
simaril... you are all over map here I think...
Non smokers have the right to not be round smoke... they decided that in public owned buildings that they do not want smoke to be allowed.. this is perfectly fine with me.
The people should not be allowed to decide if smoking is allowed in private bussines if they are not forced to be there and smoking is allowed in society...
conversely... if smoking is so harmful that citizens have to be protected from it even in private bussines then ... no one should be exempted.
If it is so dangerous to employees then no employer should be able to decide whether to allow smoking or not or.... they all should be.
lazs
-
Not all over the map -- making a non-simplistic point.
Risk management is balancing -- it is not a matter of "too dangerous/not too dangerous." This simplistic thinking has led to enormous anxiety and confusion in modern culture, and you're being led astray by assuming absolutes exist.
The science of epidemiology assesses risk by studying large numbers of people and watching outcomes -- and results are measured by attributable risk differentials. some things are major, clear risks with no benefit -- like heroin use as a pain reliever. Smoking isnt that clear cut, which is why its still legal. There are lots of people exposed to smoke, for example, who never get cancer -- I see them at my office every day. That doesnt mean smoking is safe, because we know the risk is real.
Banning smoking is a POLITICAL decision based on medical information. Some communities have decided the risk and annoyance to nonsmokers outweighs the freedom of smokers. Some communities have decided the opposite. It's their decision, adn there is no absolute black and white about it -- even if you wish there was.
If I dont want to be around smoke, I go to places that strictly limit their smoking sections. Its that simple.
And I stand by my statement about the Indian governing body -- they have every right to balance the statistical risk to their workers against the clear cut financial benefit, adn they dont want their gambling victiims to leave teh slots for a smoke. The workers have freedom to chose where they work, and I'll bet severe asthmatics find other places to make a living.
You have no business assuming that your assessment of risk/benefit should carry any more weight than the people with the actual responsibility. Is this liberal paternalism in full force?
-
sim... all law must be based on reason and equality. It is that simple It is black and white and rights are absolute. If an activity is so dangerous that it is percieved to be a threat to human life that is so great that it trancends the very real property rights then...
That activity should be illegal. everywhere. Reason dictates that you not apply the law unequally. You may, while staying whithin the confines of reason and equyality, ban smoking from places that the citizens own.
If you ban it from private places then you must prove that the risk is so great (heroin, absynthe ecstasy etc..) that it can't be allowed at all.
further... you can't stay within the confines of equal treatment under the law if you allow it in some private places and not others.
The arguement about cost is spurious. the cost of smoking stays constant no matter what private place the smoking happens... be it your car or an indian casino... those "infected" come back to die a lingering and expensive death on our dime supposedly... If it is that bad it needs to be banned.
Any law that fails a reason test and an equality test is a bad law... that way leads to things like "hate crimes" where some are treated differently for the exact same crimes as others.
Also... indian casinos are not exempt from their states (the state they are in) health and saftey laws and building codes and a myriad of other laws that would negate any claim of autonomy by their multitude of precidents... again... the reason thing.
It is a slippery slope when you allow an elite to decide what is good or bad based on.... "Nothing is black and white... there are grey areas that are too difficult for the peasants to understand".
lazs
-
It was a slaughter...and they were on the losing end of it.
-
they have every right to balance the statistical risk to their workers against the clear cut financial benefit
Amazing. Amazingly ridiculous. Why would the casino have a right to risk their workers health and lives for profit? They don't! They do have the responsibility to protect their workers health and well being.
dago
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think the second hand smoke thing is either a myth or simply weeding out the terminally wussy who probly should not have lived thois long in any case tho..
Generally inhaling smoke is never good..
that includes inhaling smoke from fire place etc.
but I don't think it does that much bad on an occasion, otherwise campers would be more sick than they are.
However constantly inhaling smoke at your work can't be for good. (unless theres a very good air conditioning)
-
dago... they do not have the right to risk their employees health with a known risk that is illegal. They do have the right to allow a legal activity if it is disclosed to the workers beforehand.. In other words... if you take a job in a smoking club then you obviously need to take personal responsibilty for the risk
I would even go so far as to say that there should be a disclosure for people raised in the basements of their home who do not realize that there is a slight health risk associated with smoking... the risk varies from nonexistent to intense. some people are so sensitive that they probly shouldn't have survived this long while others are allmost imune.
A bee keeper should not have to remove bees from his bussines because of the risk to alergic employees.
Shell fish and other foods can kill some people but...It is up to the sensitive person to be aware of their sensitivity and to avoid the shellfish..
The example of the BBQ is germain... it is an exact paralell... it is a dangerous activity that is a luxury and has a potential to kill simply by being around its smoke.
and curval.... what difference does it make about how lopsided a batttle/war was?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dago
Amazing. Amazingly ridiculous. Why would the casino have a right to risk their workers health and lives for profit? They don't! They do have the responsibility to protect their workers health and well being.
dago
I must not have been clear. The decision in balancing the cost and benefit was made NOT by the profit taking casino owner, but by the governing body that had jurisdiction. Significantly, in this case that body has financial interest in the ruling -- but also significantly, the indian workers in the casino are share holders. As members of the tribe they get direct or indirect income from the casino's profits. How do we define that responsibility tree?
Also, what most americans miss is that from epidemiologic standpoint EVERYTHING has risk. Driving your car risks your life; by your argument, or by laz's, it should be banned. Eating industrially grown food has risk, living in Colorado has risk (Granite naturally has low level radiation, so living in Colorado has radiation risk equal to, say, 3-5 Chest Xrays every year).
Should Colorado be depopulated because it isn't "safe"? That's the logical consequence of "zero risk" thinking. And since just being alive carries smal but defined risks, where do we draw the lines for "safety"?
This line of thinking is exactly why people get frustrated with the media. They hear reports that too many carbs are bad, then they hear that fat is bad for your heart, then they hear that too much protein can damage your kidneys. So are people supposed to stop eating? All those facts are true -- but without understanding of risk and benefit, individual facts are uninterpretable, and intelligent decisions can't be made.
Understand that I am not a relativist. Philosophically I beleive in the existance of absolute truth, not subject to private iunterpretation. But many decisions in life also take in to account personal values. Should a relative be taken off life support? Well, what are the relative's feelings about technology and quality of life? If they believe that even an impaired life has great value, and they'd love ot see their grandkids graduate -- even if from a wheelchair -- then maybe they should continue treatment. If they repeatedly said they dont want to be kept alive artificially if there's only a small chance they'll make it home, then that needs to be respected.
These complex decisions aren't as clean as you'd apparently like, but complex decisions are reality -- simplistic ones make good sound bites but often bad policy.
-
The difference is that some concessions should be afforded to the Native Indians. I think allowing them casinos in which people are allowed to smoke is reasonable based upon the wholesale slaughter that they were put through.
What is your big beef with Indians anyway? It appears that you are bitter about something.
-
sim... I agree with you. Risk should be decided by the people who take it and the governing body. To tell people they can't smoke or worse, to not allow people to smoke in private bussines is abhorent. It is no differnent than the other risks you mention. it is simply part of the demonizeing of something... law by media.
We pay the health costs associated with people living in colorado and overeating.... and BBQ etc. We accept these risks.... for now. the trend of protecting people from themselves is odious.
curval... Are you saying that it is allright to treat indians differenrtly than everyone else?
I have no problem with the indians. They are simply an obvious hypocracy of the left and those who would protect us from ourselves... Those who would point their PC finger at us to shame us into acting as they feel is correct.
The hypocracy is that smoking has been demonized to the point that we have destroyed private property rights to eradicate it (while leaving it legal to collect taxes)
Points have been mad about how deadly it is... To deadly to allow in any place the public may be... They will bring back the seed of cancer or worse with them in the form of second hand smoke for all of us to pay for in the years to come. The poor workers.... what about them? They are forced to work for the white debil in an atmospher that is too dangerous to continue to allow....
but then... we have the indians... all of a sudden the same jerkoffs who want to ban smoking from every public place... well... damn it! these are INDIANS (so what if most of em are named guido)...
All of a sudden the do gooders get perspective... Smoking is not all that bad... who cares about the workers they knew there was smoking when they signed on to workat the casino... Why is everyone making such a big deal of it?
Course... the next lawsuit against the tobacco industry will have them singing the same ol tune again.
sim and curval... Law must have reason and equality. There is no reason involved in banning a legal activity at a private bussines and there is no equality in allowing one race to be treated worse than another.
It really is that simple.
lazs