515 Crew

Thoughts?

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/p ... /804090381

We should ban obesity next. man, i hate the morbidly obese.

Hank Fist wrote:We should ban obesity next. man, i hate the morbidly obese.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised, if this passes and all, if fast food were next.

Hank Fist wrote:We should ban obesity next. man, i hate the morbidly obese.

i thought we were friends

Would this mean no more smokin' in the alley of Mews/ Mile?

it shouldnt. says immediate outside of bars would be exempt or something close to that.

I was in Davenport for the first time a coupla weeks ago. All the bars and restaurants along the river on the Iowa side had those signs with movable letters where you would expect to see the specials of the day or Happy Birthday Ted or whatever; but they all said "WELCOME, SMOKING ALLOWED" on them, because Illinois has a smoking ban and you can't smoke in bars in Rock Island.

I know a couple of bar owners here in Ames who would love to end smoking in their joints because they think that people who don't like smoky bars would come back out. But they don't, because all their regulars would leave for the bar next door where smoking is still allowed and they would have to pull up stakes; all the bars and restaurants have to prohibit smoking at once for it to work. The only people who really get screwed on this are bar owners in Council Bluffs and Sioux City, because people can always go across the state lines to go to bars where they can smoke in Omaha or North Sioux City. But then, they have to live in Council Bluffs or Sioux City so they're screwed anyway. So I guess I'm okay with this bill after all.

Hank Fist wrote:We should ban obesity next. man, i hate the morbidly obese.

New York City has bans on trans fat, that's a step towards getting rid of all these fat fucks.

Although they also have a ban on crossing the streets with headphones on.......

Wheatstache wrote:

Hank Fist wrote:We should ban obesity next. man, i hate the morbidly obese.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised, if this passes and all, if fast food were next.

explain...I've heard this argument of if this ban passes, and how this is a 'slippery slope'... then whats next? cell phone ban?fast food ban???? its kinda absurd and ridiculous. Fast food does not effect the health of the person sitting in the same room as you, or next to you. Second hand smoke does. I don't think that can be argued. Now does that mean your going to die soon if you inhale second hand smoke for a while? no, but still...the argument is annoying...anyways, i smoke...alot...i could care less that this passed, i'd rather everyone and myself smoke outside anyways, smoke filled rooms are disgusting...though i do not agree with this being in the states hands to decide, it should be up the owner of the establishment in my opinion..

I guess we know who really has the ear of those at the State Capitol, the big business Casinos. It should have been all or nothing.

"EXCEPTIONS: Iowans would still be able to smoke in the gambling area of casinos; outdoor areas of bars; outdoor areas of county fairs and the Iowa State Fair, except the grandstands; limousines; retail tobacco stores; designated areas of correctional facilities; designated areas of the state veterans home in Marshalltown; and designated of Iowa National Guard facilities"


"BANNED AREAS: Iowans would be banned from smoking in most workplaces; restaurants’ outdoor seating areas; the grounds of public buildings; bowling alleys; most areas of hotels and motels, except designated smoking rooms; private clubs when the public is admitted; outdoor sports stadiums; boxing arenas; common areas of apartment buildings; public transit platforms; and school grounds."

So it's OK for Bar's to have outside smoking areas but Restaurants can not have outside smoking areas? So since Royal Mile serves food in the Alley between them and VM, No more smoking. I wonder how this will effect any bar that serves food. Really the only businesses that will be effected by this are Bars and Restaurants most of the other places banned have been no smoking for years.

I'm guessing they didn't ban smoking at the fair for fear of loss of the mighty tourist dollars for the fair and the Pork expo.

Oh and so much for doing as you wish private property and running your business as you wish.

I think next is a new age of Probition on Cigarettes and Tobacco. It's funny but the government has been spending billions each year to reduce the number of smokers, yet they are in fact on the increase. Money will spent. This will have no effect except to reduce the earnings of a number of small businesses in the state of Iowa.

Good Job Guys, I'm sure when election time comes you have some nice checks from the gambling companies.

Wheatstache wrote: Actually, I wouldn't be surprised, if this passes and all, if fast food were next.

nah. well... even if it were to happen, it hasn't happened in any of the major cities with smoking bans yet, so you know Des Moines is at -least- 10 years out from adopting any potential fast food ban.

i don't think there will ever be a BAN on fast food. But I do think that in the future the government will make more strict regulations regarding how this food is prepared and the nutritional value of this food.

I don't think anything will be as extreme as the smoking ban though. I don't ever see them really outlawing anything, prohibition simply doesn't work.

I think these are all just steps to a actually implementing a universal healthcare plan. I don't see that happening anytime soon though.

TooManyHumyns wrote: explain...I've heard this argument of if this ban passes, and how this is a 'slippery slope'...

ive always held the slippery slopes to marijuana being a gateway drug...

TooManyHumyns wrote:

Wheatstache wrote:

Hank Fist wrote:We should ban obesity next. man, i hate the morbidly obese.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised, if this passes and all, if fast food were next.

explain...I've heard this argument of if this ban passes, and how this is a 'slippery slope'... then whats next? cell phone ban?fast food ban???? its kinda absurd and ridiculous. Fast food does not effect the health of the person sitting in the same room as you, or next to you.

It just seems to me that this is a situation where a few party have "rights". One has the right to breathe smoke-free air. One to smoke. Another to decide what is and is not allowed in one's own private establishment- which I think is the most important one here, and as far as I've heard, no one wants to address this part of it. So the answer to this conundrum was to remove or limit the rights of two of the three parties here. It just seems that limiting "rights" was not the answer here and in turn opens the door a little wider for government to get into places they don't belong and shows more potential for limiting more "rights".
The number of smoke-free establishments is growing. Instead of putting stumbling blocks in the path of places that already exist and allow smoking, give tax breaks or some other kind of government benefit to the ones that are turning up and opening smoke-free or want to convert. Let the businesses work it out.
On a little bit of a tangent, another major problem I have with all of this is that it's not an outright ban on smoking in establishments because the government apparently considers everyone's health to be worth something, except for those unfortunate enough to work at a casino, 'cause smoking is still allowed there. I wonder why... Perhaps because an enormous amount of money comes to the government through places like Prairie Meadows. That's complete bullshit and it really lets the air out of the tires of the government's "I really care about you and your health" bus.
I don't mind taking steps to make Iowa a healthier place, but this was done the wrong way in my opinion and makes a more open way for things we may not want in the future.

TooManyHumyns wrote:
explain...I've heard this argument of if this ban passes, and how this is a 'slippery slope'... then whats next? cell phone ban?fast food ban???? its kinda absurd and ridiculous. Fast food does not effect the health of the person sitting in the same room as you, or next to you. Second hand smoke does. I don't think that can be argued.

True, but obesity does raise or taxes and health insurance premiums which is a huge part of why smoking has been banned in a lot of places. These people in favor of the smoking ban are wanting to have their cake and eat it too... There are plenty of places they can go to not fall victim to second hand smoke.

And some states are already trying to allow an establishment the right to refuse service based on obesity... Mississippi is one of them.

TooManyHumyns wrote:it should be up the owner of the establishment in my opinion..

Agreed...





This has nothing to do with smoking or obese people. It has to do with the government getting all up in our shit. This is a "slippery slop" whether anyone wants to admit it or not... We are turning to the government to solve social problems and that is not what the government is there for.



I give Carl's Place 1 year before it closes...

clint wrote:This has nothing to do with smoking or obese people. It has to do with the government getting all up in our shit. This is a "slippery slop" whether anyone wants to admit it or not... We are turning to the government to solve social problems and that is not what the government is there for.

first, i'll say that i'm not for the govn't making any decisions for me or anyone else. im curious though, you say we're turning to the govn't to solve social problems when it's not there for that. . .what, in your opinion, is it there for?

also, as far as private businesses being able to do what they want.....it's important to recognize that, aside from local businesses perhaps, businesses and corporations already can do whatever they want(you'll remember the supreme court ruling a few years back that gives corporations the same rights as a human being). in fact, there are probably a few dozen corporations responsible for some of the most awful environmental and human rights abuses the world has ever seen, and it is because no one, the people or the govnt, does anything to stop it.

so while i agree with this particular argument about smoking, the "slippery slope" is more of a double-edged sword: you can't let businesses and corporations do what they want and you certainly can't have govn't controlling everything if we want our world to last another 100 years.

the solution? do it ourselves, of course.

@nonymous wrote:
first, i'll say that i'm not for the govn't making any decisions for me or anyone else. im curious though, you say we're turning to the govn't to solve social problems when it's not there for that. . .what, in your opinion, is it there for?

@nonymous wrote: so while i agree with this particular argument about smoking, the "slippery slope" is more of a double-edged sword: you can't let businesses and corporations do what they want and you certainly can't have govn't controlling everything if we want our world to last another 100 years.

the solution? do it ourselves, of course.

The government is there to protect us... it is (almost) as simple as that.


It is obvious (not just through this example) that we have become so fucking lazy that we just wait for the government to step in. Hell, that is a whole lot easier then what JEL is doing... We always just want someone else to solve the problem.



Also... spot on with your statement in the second quote.

@nonymous wrote:

clint wrote: first, i'll say that i'm not for the govn't making any decisions for me or anyone else. im curious though, you say we're turning to the govn't to solve social problems when it's not there for that. . .what, in your opinion, is it there for?

i know you werent asking me but can i ask you what your opinion is on what the govt is for?

joseph wrote:i know you werent asking me but can i ask you what your opinion is on what the govt is for?

well, like clint stated, i think govn't is intended to protect it's people. instead, it extracts taxes from them and thrives idly off of their sweat and toil--all the while implementing destructive foreign policies that create resentment and hatred towards us, thus making us less safe.

i generally think the inequities of capitalism come from a desire to be peaceful(not always of course), but unfortunately the structure doesn't work.

@nonymous wrote:well, like clint stated, i think govn't is intended to protect it's people.

i was really expecting a longer answer. im pleasantly suprised.

joseph wrote:

@nonymous wrote:well, like clint stated, i think govn't is intended to protect it's people. instead, it extracts taxes from them and thrives idly off of their sweat and toil--all the while implementing destructive foreign policies that create resentment and hatred towards us, thus making us less safe.

i generally think the inequities of capitalism come from a desire to be peaceful(not always of course), but unfortunately the structure doesn't work.

I completely agree with this statement and will now devote all of my time to insurrectionary politics. no war but the class war!

well put.

@nonymous wrote:

joseph wrote:

@nonymous wrote:well, like clint stated, i think govn't is intended to protect it's people. instead, it extracts taxes from them and thrives idly off of their sweat and toil--all the while implementing destructive policies making us less safe.

I completely agree with this statement and will always devote all of my time to the revolution. the class war!

capitalism is the best medicine.

thanks.

@nonymous wrote:

joseph wrote:

@nonymous wrote:well, like clint stated, i think govn't is intended to protect it's people. instead, it extracts taxes from them and thrives idly off of their sweat and toil--all the while implementing destructive policies making us less safe.

I completely agree with this statement and will always devote all of my time to the revolution. the class war!

capitalism is the best medicine if you like fatal side effects.

joseph wrote:spot on!

This is similar to the same bullshit law they passed in Nebraska last year. Ban smoking everywhere except for gambling establishments. It's a big fuckin' reacharound to the gambling industry. It's all bout money. If theres a ban it should be across the board. Giving breaks to big business is fucking bullshit. What happened to Liberals looking out for the little guy?

gc wrote:What happened to Liberals looking out for the little guy?

Ahhh.... hahahahahahaha... Thats a good one!!!

My feeble attempt at humor. My view of politics has always been this:
Under republican rule man exploits man, under democrats it's exactly the opposite.

gc wrote:My feeble attempt at humor. My view of politics has always been this:
Under republican rule man exploits man, under democrats it's exactly the opposite.

man exploits woman?

Hank Fist wrote:

gc wrote:My feeble attempt at humor. My view of politics has always been this:
Under republican rule man exploits man, under democrats it's exactly the opposite.

man exploits woman?

Woman exploits woman.

gc wrote:My feeble attempt at humor. My view of politics has always been this:
Under republican rule man exploits man, under democrats it's exactly the opposite.

I wish it were that simple...