PKI going smoke free

What I think is really funny is that I have known people that are non-smokers, and are always complaining about it. But, they are the smae people that will go to an indoor sporting event that involves motorcross, tractor pulls, and monster truck shows that produce heavy amounts of exaust!

When it comes to the outdoors, I do agree with the ban, since you have to sit in the vacinity for a long period of time.

I also agree that all restaurants should be smoke-free. For the simple fact that you should be able to go an hour or so without a cigarette.

Why shouldn't people who like to smoke have a restaurant they can smoke in? If you don't like smoke, then go to another restaurant. It isn't a right to go to any restaurant or any other privately owned establishment. Your right to fresh air is not applicable when you CHOOSE to go into a smoking friendly place.

Jeff, those non-refunded premiums are the insurance company's way of turning a profit. Do you think they're in the business of helping people get better health coverage? Certainly not. They are betting that you or someone else won't get sick. And when you don't they win.

gener said:

And when you don't they win.

Half the time when you do they fight like crazy to make sure they still win.

Why should I have to go to another restaurant because you want to smoke? And how is it not a right to go to a restaurant?

And why shouldent I have the right to fresh air when I go anywhere? Is it so tuff to go an hour or so without a cancer stick in your mouth?

When I go to a restaurant I CHOOSE to go there and eat a nice meal( isnt that the point of going to a restaurant?).....not for me and my kids to inhale toxic fumes and listen to smokers cough up there lungs.

And dont give me that b-s about insuance companies turning a profit by charging more for smokers. I have read all the facts. Non smokers have to foot a large chunk of it also...more than 55 million.

Again, the point is this......designated smoking areas are a win win for smokers and non smokers.
*** Edited 3/22/2005 11:50:41 PM UTC by crazy horse***

So if designated areas are a win win for smokers and non-smokers, why do you have such a problem with designated smoking areas in restaurants?

How IS it a right to go to a particular restaurant? If some owner were to ban you from their joint do you really think that any court of law would give you the time of day? "Yes your honor, i am sueing because my right to enter a private business is being infringed upon." Give me a break.

You fail to see a fundamental American value here, crazy horse. They are land owner rights. A PRIVATE establishment has the right to run their business how they choose to. Smoking or not. Having to wear a tie or not. You have to be able to afford the product. And if you don't like one or more of these factors you as a consumer have the right to choose not to go there. Simple as that. If you don't like to smoke and they let people smoke then go to another restaurant. There are plenty of great places all over the place that are completely smoke free.

An owner has his/her perogative to operate how they want to. Your only choice in the matter is where you go and who you give your hard earned dollar to. Once you walk through the door or the main gate or whatever you live by THEIR rules.

juggalotus,

Because you are in a building....smoke travels. The designated smoking areas I am speaking of are outside, away from the main path of people.

gener,

Wearing a tie does not give me cancer. Your straying from the subject. And buisness owners do have the right to ban people from there property, but if it came to smoking...they are not going to ban 75% of the world(non smokers) from there buisness.

And of course once I walk through the main gate of a park I have to live by there rules. Thats whats going to be great about going to kings island this year, except for the majority of smokers(not all) that refuse to follow the rules.

This is just silly. Banning smoking in lines, great idea. Banning smoking on the midways, not needed. I am willing to bet anything that NO ONE in this world developed lung cancer from getting exposed to second hand smoke in a place like CP or any other park. You can point out any study you want that says otherwise but common sense it telling me that it's just not feasable to develope smoking related diseases from brief low level "wiffs" of smoke. I think I'm a bit more worried about a park guest getting pickled and then driving home. Compared to drunk drivers, what kills more people? Do I smoke? I enjoy cigars a couple times a week. I don't bother trying to smoke one at CP because it's just not the place I like to have one. I do frequent a few places that allow cigar smoking. I go to these places because I know it's permitted. Why should every place in America half to ban smoking? I do think repeated, long term, high level exposure may cause illness. But if your around smoke that much and don't like it, then maybe you should think about avoiding those places. You wouldn't become a cop if you didn't want to deal with crackheads or a firefighter if you didn't want to deal with fires would you? I don't think anyone needs to stay away from CP because theres just too much second hand smoke.

As far as health care cost, I would tend to think smokers do cause increases in costs. However, if smoking was made illegal in this country as many would love, it would impact our economy more than 9/11 did. Anyone care to check how much drinking and illegal drug use effect costs??

I have friends and family who own businesses. I have talked to them about this very thing before. 1 doesn't allow smoking because it is a retail store. 2 others who own restaurants allow it and dislike the idea of anyone telling them they can't have a smoking area. None of their customers have complained to them about this either. If you don't want to be around smoke, stay away from these places. You have the right to clean air. But business owners have the right to run their places the way they want to. Your recourse is not to go there and spend money. I am so sick of hearing "I have the right". With all the rights people keep saying they have, the bill of rights must be 2500 amendments and not 10. Face it, Americans are really spoiled.
*** Edited 3/23/2005 9:12:54 AM UTC by Winston306***

gener said:
Jeff, those non-refunded premiums are the insurance company's way of turning a profit. Do you think they're in the business of helping people get better health coverage? Certainly not. They are betting that you or someone else won't get sick. And when you don't they win.

No, a component of all premiums are the profit. It's still about spreading the burden of pay-outs. Trust me, I worked for an insurance company, I know how rating and risk are calculated.

Winston...

Designated smoke areas will not only allow people to breath easy, but will also clean up the midway(no ciggerate butts all over the place)and familys with kids wouldent have to expose there kids to second hand smoke, or like I said in one of my other posts, getting your clothing burnt by a smoker walking by.....After all cedarpoint and preaty much all amusement parks are family places.

The facts are this...smoking is becoming less and less embraced by the public. Remember years ago when just about everyone smoked? Now people are more health concius and its spreading like wildfire. Times change. Its going to get to the point that in the future, very few people will smoke....thus more places will go to a "no smoking at all" attitude. Right now you still have the right to smoke(in designated smoking area) and I have my fresh air. So whats your beef?

winston,

Like I said in my last post, buisness owners do have the right to not allow anyone in there place of buisness. But do you honestly think that they would ban a growing number of people(non smokers) and about 75% of the world from ther buisness just so a few people could light up? How long do you think they would stay in buisness if I and many others choose not to go there and spend our money?

And your sick of hearing about peoples rights? Thats a typical smoker attitude. Lets face it, smokers are a dying breed. The whole world and places like restaurants and amusement parks are adapting to that. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
*** Edited 3/23/2005 6:01:42 PM UTC by crazy horse***

crazy horse, PLEASE....

There (as in over there)
Their (as in belongs to them)
They're (they are)

Your continual use of "there' instead of "their" is driving at least one of us here crazy. I won't go into the rest of your grammar mistakes. If you wish to present valid arguments for your case, it would be so much better if your use of lgrammar and spelling were higher than that of a 12 year old.

As for the topic at hand, I've accepted that there are certain "freedoms" that we all once had that are no longer guaranteed. All it takes is a majority to to quash the rights of the minority. Yes, smoking IS a right. It may not be healthy, but it's still not totally illegal. Yet.

Society as a whole has changed dramatically. In a time when books like Harry Potter can be banned from school and library shelves because the local population feels they deal with "pagan" issues, or when the name of a roller coaster must be changed because it has "pagan" overtones. I believe religious freedom is one of our consitutional rights, is it not?

You have to wonder what happened to some of the freedoms this country was founded on. *** Edited 3/23/2005 7:25:54 PM UTC by OldCPer***

CPLady, you don't have to look any further than amendment #2 for an answer to your question.

That's my point. But how many people remember that? Certainly not those who wish to impose their beliefs and ideals on others.

Again, majority rules. There are some things the majority is against. And as it has been pointed out, the majority are non-smokers.

Therefore, the majority is going to restrict the rights of smokers to satisfy their personal rights, just like christians restrict paganism, or what they CONSIDER to be paganism.

I don't think the point of the argument is to say that anyone is going to develop cancer from a whiff of smoke on the midway. Granted, it can happen over a very long term exposure to second hand smoke, but the whiff you get at CP will not even matter in the grand scheme of things. The point is that to many non-smokers, the smell is just plain annoying and disgusting. It can and does trigger coughing, sneezing, runny eyes, etc. to people who are sensitive to it. To me, that is really the issue at hand here.

When you or anyone else smokes around me it imposes my rights more than yours.

And I think it is sad how religion is being brought into a subject about smoking in amusement parks. I cant believe that you would even compare the two.

Nobody is taking your freedom to smoke away from you. You just have to smoke in designated areas now.

Its more than just "my personal rights", its my health.

I've seen less BS on a cattle ranch.

Ralph, I understand your argument. It does smell nasty. In fact, as I stated before, I don't like smelling someone else's second hand smoke. But to think that the half-whisp of smoke that you inhale on a midway as you walk past a smoker will in any way affect your health (long term or otherwise) is just asinine.

It's all about rights, IMO. Rights which are given and taken away on the basis of majority rules.

And yes, smoking is slowly being outlawed, or don't you pay attention to the news? What about the company in Michigan that fired (yes FIRED) workers who smoke. They can't even smoke at HOME for crying out loud.

What about all the laws being passed in cities banning smoking everywhere except in people's homes or cars only? Yes, there is at least one city in CA that has a complete ban on smoking.

How many people here have already said they wish to have restaurants, bars and other facilities totally smoke free?

If you don't believe all this uproar of the majority is simply to limit smoking, you are as oblivious as most of America is.

Smoking and religion have nothing to do with each other, but it is the principal and motive behind each movement that is important to remember.

This country is going down a very bad road in many areas. From the communistic "Patriot Act" right on down to this misplaced political correctness. It's not just the majority restricting rights, many times it is the minority special interests that push policy and legislation that strips various rights.

The Harry Potter issue that OldCPer mentioned should have Americans shaking in their boots and clenching their fists in anger, but that is not the case. It seems like most people are content to let our rights be stripped away slowly as long as it doesn't affect their own lives too much, YET.

Being a non-smoker, banning smoking in queue lines and in enclosed public spaces seems reasonable, as smoke does bother non-smokers and they can't go somewhere else if they want to ride.

But, I think banning smoking throughout the park is unjustified. It is very easy to avoid smoke while walking around outside, I don't mind going out of my way a few steps if outside smoke is really that bothersome. Why impose harsh restrictions when it really harms no one? A smoker should be able to smoke outdoors, I feel it is their right to do so.

This anti-smoking outdoors crusade is reminiscent of the anti-alcohol movement led by neo-prohibitionistic groups like MADD. Slowly but surely people's rights are being removed, hidden under the guise of it being for the general welfare of the population.

Here! Here!

Anarchy in the U.S.A.!

Yes, that would be sarcasm, before some uptight posters rain down on me.
*** Edited 3/24/2005 3:51:26 PM UTC by tambo***

OldCPer said:

Therefore, the majority is going to restrict the rights of smokers to satisfy their personal rights, just like christians restrict paganism, or what they CONSIDER to be paganism.

This Pagan smoker is with ya OldCPer! . I don't have a problem with designated smoking areas. I DO have problems with Christianity, however. ;)