Recently, I have been ask to participate in several telephone surveys
regarding the banning of smoking in all casinos, hotels, dining
establishments, and bars in Las Vegas . Just wondering..... if this
is just talk or are there actual plans in process to try banning all
smoking in public places in LV?
Thanks,
Nita
There are a couple of proposals floating around that may be on the
November ballot here in Nevada. I do not have the details, but you
could likely find said details by searching the Review Journal website.
Recently, I have been ask to participate in several telephone
surveys
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "ab4nita" <ab4nita@...> wrote:
regarding the banning of smoking in all casinos, hotels, dining
establishments, and bars in Las Vegas . Just wondering..... if this
is just talk or are there actual plans in process to try banning all
smoking in public places in LV?Thanks,
Nita
There are two proposals that will likely make it onto the November ballot. One already has
enough signatures, the other is iffy. For the life of me, I can't recall which is which, but
the main difference is that one is more strict than the other. If both pass, the one that is
more strict will be the one that could become law.
The problem is that, while I support the measures, the one that is more strict is too strict,
in my opinion. But, I can't risk only voting for the less strict measure and having neither
pass. The biggest problem with the one that is more strict is that it would make casino
rooms smoke-free. All of them, and smokers would have to go to the casino floor to
smoke (entire casinos won't be smoke-free, just the restaurants in them and some other
areas).
I think that infringes upon the individual business's rights to designate their rooms as they
see fit. Since the floor is open to smoking and very few other places would be, I think the
amount of smoke while you're playing may very well INCREASE because they have nowhere
else to go.
You can find a lot more info doing a search of the LVRJ website, though they only go back
7 days now unless you pay for a story or online subscription.
Bettie
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "ab4nita" <ab4nita@...> wrote:
Recently, I have been ask to participate in several telephone surveys
regarding the banning of smoking in all casinos, hotels, dining
establishments, and bars in Las Vegas . Just wondering..... if this
is just talk or are there actual plans in process to try banning all
smoking in public places in LV?Thanks,
Nita
But you seem to be fine with infringing on the individual business's right
to decide whether ot not to allow smoking on their premisis.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
On 6/15/06, bettiepaige21 <bettie@rge21.com> wrote:
I think that infringes upon the individual business's rights to designate
their rooms as they
see fit.
Yep, I'm a bundle of hypocrisies! For example, I'm torn between thinking that laws
requiring seatbelts and motorcycle helmets go too far, because the only person being
endangered is the person not wearing the seatbelt or helmet, and knowing without a
doubt that this law saves lives. Then again, if the person is stupid enough to not wear the
seatbelt or helmet, all I can say is "More power to natural selection!"
My feeling about politics and politicians is that, no matter how you vote or for whom you
vote, you're going to have a foot up your ass. So, you vote for the guy/proposal/etc. you
think is wearing the smaller shoe. That is the extent of my view on politics, as I do
pretend to be a lady and don't wish to start any debates.
I do, however, sincerely appreciate your post King Fish, because it gives me something
more to consider when I go to the polls this fall. I missed that hypocrisy and will certainly
have to take it into consideration.
Bettie
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "King Fish" <vpkingfish@...> wrote:
> On 6/15/06, bettiepaige21 <bettie@...> wrote:
>
> I think that infringes upon the individual business's rights to designate
> their rooms as they
> see fit.But you seem to be fine with infringing on the individual business's right
to decide whether ot not to allow smoking on their premisis.
Bettie,
I used to think the same way. Then, I started thinking about how taxpayers wind up paying the bills to patch up uninsured, unhelmeted (or unseatbelted) drivers. That's not fair to us. Then, I also started thinking about the poor drivers who are involved in accidents that result in needless deaths and have to live with themselves. That's not fair to them.
Similarly, a story from this week's news clearly shows that more than the unhelmeted driver are harmed by the thoughless actions. I'm not sure if you read the sports news, but Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was driving his motorcycle without wearing a helmet (or holding a current license) and was in a serious accident. Fortunately, he'll recover, but his irresponsible action put the livelihoods of ALL his teammates and others on the line.
The natural selection idea only really can apply when there truly are no costs to society. As best I can determine, this would only happen when there's a single vehicle accident that causes no other significant property damage, there's enough insurance to fully pay for the damage and the clean-up, there are enough personal assets to pay for the burial and the liquidation of the estate AND when there's no family or friends who care or are dependent on that person's income.
Lainie
bettiepaige21 <bettie@rge21.com> wrote:
I'm torn between thinking that laws requiring seatbelts and motorcycle helmets go too far, because the only person being endangered is the person not wearing the seatbelt or helmet, and knowing without a doubt that this law saves lives. Then again, if the person is stupid enough to not wear the seatbelt or helmet, all I can say is "More power to natural selection!"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tangential to your conversation but the reason I won't ever
ride a motorcycle.
In college my roommate layed down his bike and skinned up
his hands and sprained his ankle. I took him to the ER to
get patched up. While we waited 6 different doctors came
to see him and all left without speaking a work. They were
all looking for donor parts for transplant. When the word
goes out in a university hospital that a young healthy
has had a motorcycle accident they draw one conclusion.
Unfortunately they're usually right. Screw helmet laws.
Anyone with something to live for should avoid cycles
altogether.
To balance the societial costs of those who are unhelmeted,
uninsured et al, they do appear to be a ready source of
spare parts.
Bettie,
I used to think the same way. Then, I started thinking about
how taxpayers wind up paying the bills to patch up uninsured,
unhelmeted (or unseatbelted) drivers. That's not fair to us. Then,
I also started thinking about the poor drivers who are involved in
accidents that result in needless deaths and have to live with
themselves. That's not fair to them.
Similarly, a story from this week's news clearly shows that more
than the unhelmeted driver are harmed by the thoughless actions.
I'm not sure if you read the sports news, but Pittsburgh Steelers
quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was driving his motorcycle without
wearing a helmet (or holding a current license) and was in a serious
accident. Fortunately, he'll recover, but his irresponsible action
put the livelihoods of ALL his teammates and others on the line.
The natural selection idea only really can apply when there
truly are no costs to society. As best I can determine, this would
only happen when there's a single vehicle accident that causes no
other significant property damage, there's enough insurance to fully
pay for the damage and the clean-up, there are enough personal
assets to pay for the burial and the liquidation of the estate AND
when there's no family or friends who care or are dependent on that
person's income.
Lainie
bettiepaige21 <bettie@...> wrote:
I'm torn between thinking that laws requiring seatbelts and
motorcycle helmets go too far, because the only person being
endangered is the person not wearing the seatbelt or helmet, and
knowing without a doubt that this law saves lives. Then again, if
the person is stupid enough to not wear the seatbelt or helmet, all
I can say is "More power to natural selection!"
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Lainie Wolf <lainiewolf702@...> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Good point. I guess we just have to hope that more people sign up to be organ donors -- and that these folks take the lead.
Tangential to your conversation but the reason I won't ever
ride a motorcycle.
In college my roommate layed down his bike and skinned up
his hands and sprained his ankle. I took him to the ER to
get patched up. While we waited 6 different doctors came
to see him and all left without speaking a work. They were
all looking for donor parts for transplant. When the word
goes out in a university hospital that a young healthy
has had a motorcycle accident they draw one conclusion.
Unfortunately they're usually right. Screw helmet laws.
Anyone with something to live for should avoid cycles
altogether.
To balance the societial costs of those who are unhelmeted,
uninsured et al, they do appear to be a ready source of
spare parts.
Bettie,
I used to think the same way. Then, I started thinking about
how taxpayers wind up paying the bills to patch up uninsured,
unhelmeted (or unseatbelted) drivers. That's not fair to us. Then,
I also started thinking about the poor drivers who are involved in
accidents that result in needless deaths and have to live with
themselves. That's not fair to them.
Similarly, a story from this week's news clearly shows that more
than the unhelmeted driver are harmed by the thoughless actions.
I'm not sure if you read the sports news, but Pittsburgh Steelers
quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was driving his motorcycle without
wearing a helmet (or holding a current license) and was in a serious
accident. Fortunately, he'll recover, but his irresponsible action
put the livelihoods of ALL his teammates and others on the line.
The natural selection idea only really can apply when there
truly are no costs to society. As best I can determine, this would
only happen when there's a single vehicle accident that causes no
other significant property damage, there's enough insurance to fully
pay for the damage and the clean-up, there are enough personal
assets to pay for the burial and the liquidation of the estate AND
when there's no family or friends who care or are dependent on that
person's income.
Lainie
bettiepaige21 <bettie@...> wrote:
I'm torn between thinking that laws requiring seatbelts and
motorcycle helmets go too far, because the only person being
endangered is the person not wearing the seatbelt or helmet, and
knowing without a doubt that this law saves lives. Then again, if
the person is stupid enough to not wear the seatbelt or helmet, all
I can say is "More power to natural selection!"
On a quasi-related note, when the time is right (and hopefully it won't be right for many, many years), I'm going to be an organ donor. For those of you who live in (or move to) NV, the DMV lets you specify that you want to be an organ donor when you first get your license, get it renewed or when you change your address. Here's a link to their site for more info -- http://www.dmvnv.com/dlorgan.htm worldbefree22001 <krajewski.sa@pg.com> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Lainie Wolf <lainiewolf702@...> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------
Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bettie,
I used to think the same way. Then, I started thinking about
how taxpayers wind up paying the bills to patch up uninsured,
unhelmeted (or unseatbelted) drivers. That's not fair to us. Then,
I also started thinking about the poor drivers who are involved in
accidents that result in needless deaths and have to live with
themselves. That's not fair to them.
Similarly, a story from this week's news clearly shows that more
than the unhelmeted driver are harmed by the thoughless actions.
I'm not sure if you read the sports news, but Pittsburgh Steelers
quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was driving his motorcycle without
wearing a helmet (or holding a current license) and was in a serious
accident. Fortunately, he'll recover, but his irresponsible action
put the livelihoods of ALL his teammates and others on the line.
The natural selection idea only really can apply when there
truly are no costs to society. As best I can determine, this would
only happen when there's a single vehicle accident that causes no
other significant property damage, there's enough insurance to fully
pay for the damage and the clean-up, there are enough personal
assets to pay for the burial and the liquidation of the estate AND
when there's no family or friends who care or are dependent on that
person's income.
Lainie
I was formulating a response, but after reading your response,
nothing more needs saying.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Lainie Wolf <lainiewolf702@...> wrote:
Thanks. That's really nice of you. Lainie
Bettie,
I used to think the same way. Then, I started thinking about
how taxpayers wind up paying the bills to patch up uninsured,
unhelmeted (or unseatbelted) drivers. That's not fair to us. Then,
I also started thinking about the poor drivers who are involved in
accidents that result in needless deaths and have to live with
themselves. That's not fair to them.
Similarly, a story from this week's news clearly shows that more
than the unhelmeted driver are harmed by the thoughless actions.
I'm not sure if you read the sports news, but Pittsburgh Steelers
quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was driving his motorcycle without
wearing a helmet (or holding a current license) and was in a serious
accident. Fortunately, he'll recover, but his irresponsible action
put the livelihoods of ALL his teammates and others on the line.
The natural selection idea only really can apply when there
truly are no costs to society. As best I can determine, this would
only happen when there's a single vehicle accident that causes no
other significant property damage, there's enough insurance to fully
pay for the damage and the clean-up, there are enough personal
assets to pay for the burial and the liquidation of the estate AND
when there's no family or friends who care or are dependent on that
person's income.
Lainie
I was formulating a response, but after reading your response,
nothing more needs saying.
deuceswild1000 <deuceswild1000@yahoo.com> wrote: --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Lainie Wolf <lainiewolf702@...> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Any guesses as to how most of the locals feel about the smoking ban ? Does casino managenent or employees seemed concerned ?
One of the questions asked was..........If there was a smoking ban in LV, where would you go to gamble on future trips to casinos?
I asked the person doing the survey if the overall response to the survey had been a positive one or a negative one. She indicated that the responses that she had been getting were much more negative toward the ban than positive.
King Fish <vpkingfish@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/15/06, bettiepaige21 <bettie@rge21.com> wrote:
I think that infringes upon the individual business's rights to designate
their rooms as they
see fit.
But you seem to be fine with infringing on the individual business's right
to decide whether ot not to allow smoking on their premisis.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with any intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways -- Chardonnay in one hand -- chocolate in the other -- body thoroughly used up , totally worn out and screaming " WOO HOO, WHAT A RIDE"
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Well, if the person doing the survey is asking the above question ("where would you go"), they
are very likely misleading the public. Neither smoking ban proposed would affect public
areas of casinos at all, except to potentially make them more smokey if customers have to
leave restaurants or their hotel rooms to light up.
Bettie
www.AdvantagePlayer.com
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, anita walker <ab4nita@...> wrote:
Any guesses as to how most of the locals feel about the smoking ban ? Does casino
managenent or employees seemed concerned ?
One of the questions asked was..........If there was a smoking ban in LV, where would you
go to gamble on future trips to casinos?
I asked the person doing the survey if the overall response to the survey had been a
positive one or a negative one. She indicated that the responses that she had been getting
were much more negative toward the ban than positive.
The questions in the survey were geared more toward out-of-town guest than locals.
Some of the questions did relate to restricting smoking on the main casino floors though. Not totally banning it but designating smoking areas.
Any guesses as to how most of the locals feel about the smoking ban ? Does casino
managenent or employees seemed concerned ?One of the questions asked was..........If there was a smoking ban in LV, where would you
go to gamble on future trips to casinos?I asked the person doing the survey if the overall response to the survey had been a
positive one or a negative one. She indicated that the responses that she had been getting
were much more negative toward the ban than positive.
Well, if the person doing the survey is asking the above question ("where would you go"), they
are very likely misleading the public. Neither smoking ban proposed would affect public
areas of casinos at all, except to potentially make them more smokey if customers have to
leave restaurants or their hotel rooms to light up.
Bettie
www.AdvantagePlayer.com
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with any intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways -- Chardonnay in one hand -- chocolate in the other -- body thoroughly used up , totally worn out and screaming " WOO HOO, WHAT A RIDE"
bettiepaige21 <bettie@rge21.com> wrote:
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, anita walker <ab4nita@...> wrote:
---------------------------------
Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Lainie Wolf <lainiewolf702@> wrote:
I'm not sure if you read the sports news, but Pittsburgh Steelers
quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was driving his motorcycle without
wearing a helmet (or holding a current license) and was in a
serious accident. Fortunately, he'll recover, but his
irresponsible action put the livelihoods of ALL his teammates
and others on the line.
Of course, this applies to EVERYONE, not just quarterbacks. Every one
of us works at some type of job where the livelihoods of many others
depend on us. If we get in an accident, it can certainly have a
negative financial affect on all the people we work with.
Not only that! It could happen that you read a book that gets you
interested in art. That passion could lead you to quit your job to
pursue painting or whatever, and everyone who depends on you at the
office would suffer. So surely you ought to get permission from all
of them before you can buy anything at amazon.com.
And religion. My God, do you have any idea how many people have been
influenced by religion to turn away from productive jobs, in favor of
prayer and meditation and what have you? We can hardly calculate all
the harm that that has done to their workmates. We certainly can't
let people just follow whatever religion they want, without getting
permission from government authorities.
And sex, don't get me started. Every day people have sex, which can
lead to falling in love, which can have a huge affect on your focus
at work, which can have a negative affect on all the people who work
with you or are in any way affected by your professional life. So
surely, surely, we can't let you go around having sex with whoever
you feel like.
Does that about cover it?
Stuart (RandomStu)
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/mypage.htm
Stuart wrote:
Of course, this applies to EVERYONE, not just quarterbacks ...
Does that about cover it?
Yeah, Lainie got a little carried away (and I think even she likely
got your point within a couple of sentences).
Civil law is merited where the government (and the public) has a
vested interest. Any law whose sole intent is to "protect one from
one's self" is misguided.
"Law and order" statutes serve the basic need of the public for an
environment in which it will prosper. Safely laws are largely
mandated by the costs to society when appropriate precautions aren't
taken. All laws balance the public good against the restrictions
imposed on the individual.
- H.
That's a wonderful ideal (especially if you consider, as I do, personal
freedom as part of "the public good").
Unfortunately we see less and less of that balance lately.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
On 6/19/06, Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote:
All laws balance the public good against the restrictions
imposed on the individual.
Of course, this applies to EVERYONE, not just quarterbacks. Every
one
of us works at some type of job where the livelihoods of many
others
depend on us. If we get in an accident, it can certainly have a
negative financial affect on all the people we work with.Not only that! It could happen that you read a book that gets you
interested in art. That passion could lead you to quit your job to
pursue painting or whatever, and everyone who depends on you at
the
office would suffer. So surely you ought to get permission from
all
of them before you can buy anything at amazon.com.
And religion. My God, do you have any idea how many people have
been
influenced by religion to turn away from productive jobs, in favor
of
prayer and meditation and what have you? We can hardly calculate
all
the harm that that has done to their workmates. We certainly can't
let people just follow whatever religion they want, without
getting
permission from government authorities.
And sex, don't get me started. Every day people have sex, which
can
lead to falling in love, which can have a huge affect on your
focus
at work, which can have a negative affect on all the people who
work
with you or are in any way affected by your professional life. So
surely, surely, we can't let you go around having sex with whoever
you feel like.Does that about cover it?
Right... So self abuse and TV is OK?
Chandler
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Stuart" <sresnick2@...> wrote:
"Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
Yeah, Lainie got a little carried away (and I think even she likely
got your point within a couple of sentences).
If she got my point within a couple of sentences, then I'm sure she's
capable of skipping or ignoring the rest of it, so minimal harm done.
"Law and order" statutes serve the basic need of the public for an
environment in which it will prosper. Safely laws are largely
mandated by the costs to society when appropriate precautions aren't
taken. All laws balance the public good against the restrictions
imposed on the individual.
Everyone has a different idea of what "the public good" is. In the
world today, there's endless conflict that arises from people
mistaking their own ideas of what's "good" with an absolute good
(which they are justified, if not required, to impose on others). As
for me: I think the public good is very well served when we remind
each other that our opinions about what's good and bad are just that.
Stuart (RandomStu)
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/mypage.htm
OF COURSE, all of us have clauses in our contracts at work that state
if we do something stupid to ourselves, that we have to pay back our
signing bonus.
WAIT!!! I don't have a contract or a signing bonus.
dipy911
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Stuart" <sresnick2@...> wrote:
Of course, this applies to EVERYONE, not just quarterbacks. Every one
of us works at some type of job where the livelihoods of many others
depend on us. If we get in an accident, it can certainly have a
negative financial affect on all the people we work with.
I would vote "yes." I just got back from Vegas and can barely talk. For
some reason, the smoke affects my throat a lot and makes it very sore. I
don't think it will ever happen, but it would be nice!
Jamie
Trip report coming soon.
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf Of
ab4nita
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 5:22 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] XVP…Smoking Ban Surveys
Recently, I have been ask to participate in several telephone surveys
regarding the banning of smoking in all casinos, hotels, dining
establishments, and bars in Las Vegas . Just wondering..... if this
is just talk or are there actual plans in process to try banning all
smoking in public places in LV?
Thanks,
Nita
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]