|
|
#32
09-22-2005, 03:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Muckleshoot may go smokeless
[ QUOTE ]
Because the cloud of poisonous gas respects position. [/ QUOTE ] heh, yeah I found the 1,9 nosmoke rule pretty laughable myself [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]Dave 
|
|
#33
09-22-2005, 04:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Muckleshoot may go smokeless
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] btw - I-901 is the "make Washington smokeless" initiative. Please register to vote and vote YES! [/ QUOTE ] Unless you support freedom and free markets that is. [/ QUOTE ] Oh please. This isn't a matter of free markets, it's a matter of public health. Cigarettes should be outlawed altogether for the same reason builders can't use asbestos anymore - while we didn't know at first, we've discovered over the years that they're much too toxic.
|
|
#34
09-22-2005, 04:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Muckleshoot may go smokeless
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] btw - I-901 is the "make Washington smokeless" initiative. Please register to vote and vote YES! [/ QUOTE ] Unless you support freedom and free markets that is. [/ QUOTE ] Oh please. This isn't a matter of free markets, it's a matter of public health. Cigarettes should be outlawed altogether for the same reason builders can't use asbestos anymore - while we didn't know at first, we've discovered over the years that they're much too toxic. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, because watching someone barf up a lung on their first drag wasn't indication enough that cigs were bad for health. This isn't some new discovery. b
|
|
#35
09-22-2005, 06:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Muckleshoot may go smokeless
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] btw - I-901 is the "make Washington smokeless" initiative. Please register to vote and vote YES! [/ QUOTE ] Unless you support freedom and free markets that is. If all the players who don't enjoy a smoking environment started going to this other casino its business would increase dramatically and maybe other casinos would go non-smoking to try to get in on this action. The fact (based on other posts in this thread) that there is only one non-smoking casino and it has poor game selection is a clear indicator a law would be detrimental to the majority. It's not like the casinos support smoking, they are reacting to what their customers want. If enough customers want no smoking, believe me, they'll stop allowing it. Sorry I'm butting into this thread I guess, but legislation just leads to more legislation and the line just moves closer and closer until before you know it we're telling people what they can wear, what they can write and what they can say - hell, we already are in some places. It's easy to say, hey, let's ban smoking, it's a filthy habit. Well guess what? Some people think *gambling* is a filthy habit. If you vote no smoking then I have no sympathy whatsoever for you if your state goes no gambling (and no poker). Please use your power to choose, not to remove choice from others. [/ QUOTE ] It is not like I-901 is saying that you cannot smoke, rather it is limiting the places where smoking takes place to protect people who would otherwise be subjected to it. Just like it is OK to drink alcohol, but illegal to drive while you are under the influence. The safety of the many outweighs the choice of the few.
|
|
#36
09-22-2005, 10:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Muckleshoot may go smokeless
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] btw - I-901 is the "make Washington smokeless" initiative. Please register to vote and vote YES! [/ QUOTE ] Unless you support freedom and free markets that is. If all the players who don't enjoy a smoking environment started going to this other casino its business would increase dramatically and maybe other casinos would go non-smoking to try to get in on this action. The fact (based on other posts in this thread) that there is only one non-smoking casino and it has poor game selection is a clear indicator a law would be detrimental to the majority. It's not like the casinos support smoking, they are reacting to what their customers want. If enough customers want no smoking, believe me, they'll stop allowing it. Sorry I'm butting into this thread I guess, but legislation just leads to more legislation and the line just moves closer and closer until before you know it we're telling people what they can wear, what they can write and what they can say - hell, we already are in some places. It's easy to say, hey, let's ban smoking, it's a filthy habit. Well guess what? Some people think *gambling* is a filthy habit. If you vote no smoking then I have no sympathy whatsoever for you if your state goes no gambling (and no poker). Please use your power to choose, not to remove choice from others. [/ QUOTE ] It is not like I-901 is saying that you cannot smoke, rather it is limiting the places where smoking takes place to protect people who would otherwise be subjected to it. Just like it is OK to drink alcohol, but illegal to drive while you are under the influence. The safety of the many outweighs the choice of the few. [/ QUOTE ] I'd even go one step further, and limit the places people can light up to private property. No smoking on public streets, in front of office buildings, parking garages, or anywhere else that you don't own. I don't have any problem with people wanting to exercise their freedoms, but when they impact me negatively it's not just their freedoms that are in question here. I have the right to breathe non-toxic air, they shouldn't have the right to pollute that air just because it's public property. The analogy to dui is spot on. Use the gum, patch or go to smokeless (chewing) style if you can't kick the habit. Just don't spit on me. Drink More, Red_Rum
|
|
#37
09-22-2005, 12:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Muckleshoot may go smokeless
[ QUOTE ]
It is not like I-901 is saying that you cannot smoke, rather it is limiting the places where smoking takes place to protect people who would otherwise be subjected to it. Just like it is OK to drink alcohol, but illegal to drive while you are under the influence. [/ QUOTE ] Actually it's limiting a private businesses right to decide whether it allows smoking. If the ban were on smoking in public parks or sidewalks I would be okay with it. But by saying the casino, a private business, cannot allow smoking, it is essentially the same as saying you cannot smoke in your own home. That will presumably be the next step.
|
|
#39
09-22-2005, 03:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Muckleshoot may go smokeless
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Dealing at the Muck is apparently the pinnacle of poker dealing, to which all dealers must aspire. Nevermind. [/ QUOTE ] Lils and the muck are by far the best run rooms in washington. [/ QUOTE ] Easily. They are both better than a couple of places I played in Vegas too, at least as far as dealers go.
|
|
#40
10-13-2005, 04:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Muckleshoot may go smokeless
[ QUOTE ]
The fact (based on other posts in this thread) that there is only one non-smoking casino and it has poor game selection is a clear indicator a law would be detrimental to the majority. [/ QUOTE ] Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc. Its more a matter of who lives on the north end versus the south end, not how smoking factors in.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
