What's The Diff?

The things Quicken Loans team members care about and want to share with the world

Angry Ed Supports Smoke-Free Bars and Freedom

Angry Ed Support Smoke Free BarsBy Angry Ed

Editor’s note:
The following represents only the opinion of Angry Ed, and does not in any way reflect Quicken Loans company policy or collective employee beliefs surrounding the issue discussed.  In other words, please feel free to tell Ed how much you hate him if you disagree with him.  Or if you agree, leave him some kind words. 

Weekend warriors be warned! One by one, from coast to coast, states are conforming to pass a long-overdue ban on your weapons: NO SMOKING IN BARS OR RESTAURANTS!

First, it was California in 1998. Soon to follow were; Delaware, New York, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Montana, South Dakota, Ohio, Nevada, Illinois, Arizona, Texas, and thanks to a new bill with strong republican support for the first time, soon Michigan could join the list of the lands of the smoke-free public dining rooms and watering holes.

Until the bill becomes a law, we that prefer clean air while drinking and dining can visit a select few locations that in my opinion represent "THE DIFF" between conservative establishments run by executives that make business decisions based on short-term financial effects, and progressive organizations with leaders who recognize the long-term benefits of enacting a good idea because it will positively affect the health and comfort of their patrons. A complete list of these clean-air (and clean clothing, clean hair and health conscious) bars and restaurants can be found here: http://www.smokefreemichigan.org/restaurants.htm.

I suggest you show your support by frequenting them in your bread-breaking and beer-pounding endeavors. At very least, their risk deserves to be rewarded with your patronage, for in a state where 23.4% of the adult population can be classified as smokers, a self-imposed ban on lighting up could certainly have a negative effect on business.

A Few Minutes with Angry Ed
The smoking ban is an interesting thing. I’m not a smoker, but the idea of banning something that isn’t illegal could be considered unconstitutional. If I own a bar, smoking is legal, and I smoke, I should not be restricted from smoking or allowing others to smoke in my privately owned establishment. Should I? Why should the government have a say? I can understand it being necessary to post notice of the toxic fumes so that potential patrons don’t get duped into inhaling unwanted CO, but what actually goes on in my privately owned domain, as long as it doesn’t break any laws, should not be governed by the powers that be.

Questioning the constitutionality of the issue, to me presents a logical and reasonable argument. But I challenge that logic with another question: Have you ever met a smoker who didn’t want to quit -– someone who completely disregarded the known health risks, and offensive nature of the habit, so much that he or she is able to confidently say, "I’m glad I smoke?" If you answered, "yes," your friend is most likely a teenager, or simply an idiot, who should probably be encouraged to smoke as much as possible, as he or she is polluting the gene pool.

But seriously, shouldn’t the simple fact that 99.9% of intelligent people actually dislike smoking, be enough to warrant the passing of this law, and other laws in pursuit of eradicating this publicly agreed to be disgusting and unnecessary evil? Say nothing of it’s negative health effect – were we to consider that aspect in our law making, 9 out of 10 human indulgences would be illegal, but to put it as simply as possible – if no one likes it, what’s the problem? Let’s get rid of it!

See ya at the Red Robin!

Post Metadata

Social Bookmarking

AddThis Button

Comments

  1. I actually am 100% with Angry Ed on this one. The other kicker, outside of bars are all the breaks smokers take during the day. Sure wish I had a nasty habit that lalowed me to go outside and toss around a football 5 times a day. Must be tough.

    Posted by: Has it Frozen Over??? | July 10, 2007
  2. I’m completely AGAINST the government “getting in the hands” of small businesses. If a business wants to be “smoke free” or “smoking allowed”, that is there decision. A “smoke free” or “smoking allowed” might be a marketing pitch or a way to separate themselves from the government. However, they can no longer do this with a ban.
    To counter your point with people wanting to quit, have you EVER met someone that really wanted to work, not just for the money (i.e. someone who wants to work for free)? Most people would choose to just quit, hang out, and not worry about money. However, they are “addicted” to the money and financial burdens of life, much like the ingredients to tobacco. So let’s have a ban on working.
    I’m not really a regular smoker, but I do smoke a cigar once or twice a month.

    Posted by: DR | July 10, 2007
  3. Another point would be instead of complaining about the “smokers” and the environment of the bar, restaurant, etc, seize the opportunity to create your own smoke-free establishment. Why does the government need to get involved and why do people “complain” (I’m not talking about you Ed) and then not see a business opportunity?????

    Posted by: DR | July 10, 2007
  4. “To counter your point with people wanting to quit, have you EVER met someone that really wanted to work, not just for the money (i.e. someone who wants to work for free)? Most people would choose to just quit, hang out, and not worry about money. However, they are “addicted” to the money and financial burdens of life, much like the ingredients to tobacco. So let’s have a ban on working.”
    Just to argue this point. Work is a function of survival. The system we have now is just an elaborate replacement to trading fish for buffalo skins (or whale blubber….your insulation of choice). People have to work to survive, that’s not really addiction. It’s necessity. There is no chemical being sent to my brain telling me I need to work. A ban on working would cause society to collapse. A ban on smoking in bars would increase the health of the population. That’s a pretty big “diff.”

    Posted by: Mark | July 10, 2007
  5. Right on Angry Ed, I totally agree with you.

    Posted by: UDMAN | July 10, 2007
  6. “Just to argue this point. Work is a function of survival. The system we have now is just an elaborate replacement to trading fish for buffalo skins (or whale blubber….your insulation of choice). People have to work to survive, that’s not really addiction. It’s necessity. There is no chemical being sent to my brain telling me I need to work. A ban on working would cause society to collapse. A ban on smoking in bars would increase the health of the population. That’s a pretty big “diff.””
    How many people would be out of a job if the tobacco companies were to collapse? What about all the supporting services related to the tobacco industry, such as trucking (transporting tobacco), lighters, toothpaste, bubble gum and breathe mints, stores that sell tobacco, and the general government. “We” make a lot of money from tobacco that goes to pay for a lot of things, including (possibly) child healthcare.

    Posted by: DR | July 10, 2007
  7. In response to DR
    You’re right. Plus we would need so many more jobs with all the extra living people that would be standing around.

    Posted by: Mark | July 10, 2007
  8. Ah, to see the smoking industry go the way of automotive manufacturing…
    The entire economy will not collapse if everyone quit smoking.
    Heck, the automotive industry *is* collapsing, even though people still drive cars every day.
    Economic ruin is not a reason to keep an industry going. Change is good.

    Posted by: Christy | July 10, 2007
  9. Change is USUALLY good.

    Posted by: DR | July 10, 2007
  10. Love no smoking in bars and restaurants! It’s horrible! In Austin, Texas (where I used to live), you voted on it. When the vote came around, smoking was banned. All my friends complained because it was infringing on their rights, but none of them went to vote. valuable lesson – don’t complain about a loss of rights when you aren’t taking one of the most important ones seriously.

    Posted by: Jacque | July 11, 2007
  11. Ed, what the heck is the point of your blog entry? Are you for smoking or against it? Damn sonny, why do you make me have to think so hard. I guess I need to go have a smoke now to ponder your writing.

    Posted by: Smokey Joe | July 13, 2007
  12. HA! Great Quicken trying to give personal advice. That will work!

    Posted by: Yourmother | July 24, 2008

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

* Name:
* Email Address:
URL:
Comments:


Secondary Navigation:


Promotional Information:


Partner Links:
Site Feeds:
Copyright:
Today's Date:
Saturday, June 24, 2017