Charlotte

[dscott12]

as long as i have a choice, I will not connect in charlotte, when the day comes that there is no choice I may be back

Is it really neccasary to quit flying the airline you enjoy just because you can't smoke in there hub?? Look at Las Vegas, who would ever think they would of banned smoking there? Does that mean you stop flying to Las vegas? Seems VERY silly. The bottom line is you can't smoke anywhere nowadays, period! Pretty soon, it will be illegal, or so expensive, know one will even bother. Better to quit the habit. Plus, hotels are getting harder and harder to find smoking rooms. It will be a thing of the past evetually.

 

[CactusFlyr]

That Sux! but Thanks for the Info Jim, having to go outside and then go thru security again is a terrible inconvenince!!

Las Vegas removed their smoking room as well. Had a woman last week that threw a fit but did not get off, or get thrown off the plane. Her husband went out to smoke on a through flight and did not make it back in time and we were the last flight out. Maybe this was by design as she was a piece of work. What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.

 

[isthisok]

Unfrigginbelievable dicussion! :blink:

 

[ussnark]

I never said a thing about bars losing business, i am sure they will do just fine without smokers, however, they will loose my business since i won't be in Charlotte again, and how does a smoker bring down a plane when there isn't any smoking on them??
and by the way, I am not whining, i am simply stating my case, plain and simple!

I get the feeling you are not a smoker, so i am sure you would not understand :blink:

Um, the picture was who was more a hazard to the community, a smoker or a drinker. I made the comment that the only plane brought down by that particular set was brought down by a smoker, that we know of.

Smoking is an addiction that adds significantly the cost to our health care plan. It requires special efforts on the part of non-smokers so as to not be a hazard or irritant to others.

I am not certain why I have to go out of my way so that you can arrogantly enjoy your addiction with no restrictions.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

<<Smoking is an addiction that adds significantly the cost to our health care plan.>>

Lack of motorcycle helmet laws also adds to our health care costs. Lack of adequate dietary discipline adds to our health care costs. All of those weekend "Runs for cancer, breast cancer, AIDS, etc. " add to our health care costs because of all the eventually ruined knees and joints requiring orthopedic surgery. Every time I see someone running for excercise or for a cause I cringe because of the known severe effects to joints and the resulting health care costs!

Smoking may not be a healthful activity but it is an activity that our government supports and subsidizes on the one hand while trying to get people to stop on the other. Riding motorcycles is a hazardous activity as is allowing teenagers to drive. But we have to live conveniently, not responsibly.

I quit smoking and am glad I did. When I did smoke I loved smoking in non-smoking hotel rooms after being told that smoking rooms were not available. At bars and restaurants I loved having people move away from my table because it gave me more privacy! I vote against every smoking limitation on the ballot because as long as the government financially supports it then I find it hypocritical to try and abolish it at the same time. Let's go after them nasty farmers first! They needn't be raisin' their kids on tobaccy money.

There are things we do that cost a lot more to provide health care for people than just smoking. People aren't meant to live as long as we do. Its just biologically incongruent and that really costs us all a heaping load of money.

 

[Edward]

As this has progressed I feel it has served it's time in the US forum & is now time for "the cooler".
If one of the more experience moderators desire to move it back it's up to them.

 

[KCFlyer]

Smoking is an addiction that adds significantly the cost to our health care plan.

So does obesity. Why not write your congressman and ask him why a 50 cent pack of cigs costs four bucks...and where is all that tax money going? You'd think $3.50 per pack of cigs in tax would have at least some impact on our health care costs. You'd also think that a Big Mac and fries would add a lot to our health care costs (actually they do...obesity related illness is more of a burden on our health care system than smoking)...how come a Big Mac value meal only costs $3.99 instead of $13.99? Imagine all the good we could do with a similar tax on junk food.

LAst time I was in CLT, smoking was allowed in some bars. Not in any public areas...not in the main food court. I passed by such a bar, and didn't smell smoke...and didn't die because someone was puffing away on a cigarette inside that bar. I guess the folks who complained about the smoke felt that out of all the bars and restaurants in the Charlotte airport, they HAD to go in the one that allowed smoking. What else don't you all like...and when should we commence banning them? I'm all for taxing the heck out of junk food...not only would it reduce health care costs...it would help keep our roadsides from being littered with all the fast food wrappers that are tossed/blown out of cars and pickups.

Smoking may not be a healthful activity but it is an activity that our government supports and subsidizes on the one hand while trying to get people to stop on the other.

All the nonsmokers had better hope that the government fails in it's quest to get people to stop. The tax revenues that they get from tobacco would dry up...and those revenues would have to come from somewhere....are you willing to pay more for a "smoke free" country??

 

[KCFlyer]

Same spin when the city fathers decided to ban smoking in my city. Same whining and complaining. Yet, after the smoke cleared, the bar owners could not keep up with the massively increased business. They started to complain they had too much business. BTW, 8 million city.

Odd...California studies have shown that while smoking bans didn't result in a decrease in patronage, neither did they see the massive increases that were promised...care to name the city and cite the study in your area???

 

[JS]

Odd...California studies have shown that while smoking bans didn't result in a decrease in patronage, neither did they see the massive increases that were promised...care to name the city and cite the study in your area???

I think we can assume it's New York City (8 million people).

It's no surprise to hear that NYC bars are still crowded; everything there is crowded all the time no matter how many regulations the city passes.

 

[KCFlyer]

I think we can assume it's New York City (8 million people).

It's no surprise to hear that NYC bars are still crowded; everything there is crowded all the time no matter how many regulations the city passes.

Yes....but where is the study to show a massive increase in business after a ban. California studies showed no decrease, but no corresponding increase. The anti-smoking groups like to sell bans on the "fact" that business will pick up dramatically as all those home bound nonsmokers will now feel safe to go out in public where they won't die from the cancer of second hand smoke, but will most likely die just as soon from the vehicle exhaust emissions that are spewed from cars and busses as they walk down the street to the newly smoke free bar.

 

[ussnark]

Odd...California studies have shown that while smoking bans didn't result in a decrease in patronage, neither did they see the massive increases that were promised...care to name the city and cite the study in your area???

Yeah, dork. First off, no one "promised increases", well, perhaps a drunken smoker.

Every city in California experienced a (sometimes uncontrollable) increase in patronage.

Oh, gosh, it happened in NYC, also.

Have a good day, sir. and care to confront who is more dangerous, a drunk or a smoker?

 

[KCFlyer]

Yeah, dork. First off, no one "promised increases", well, perhaps a drunken smoker.

Every city in California experienced a (sometimes uncontrollable) increase in patronage.

Oh, gosh, it happened in NYC, also.

Have a good day, sir. and care to confront who is more dangerous, a drunk or a smoker?

Prove it....as you say, "dork". Look at facts. People who didn't patronize bars were not likely to do so after they banned smoking. The second word of your response says all I need to know about how you look at "facts". And the fact is, while patronage didn't decline, neither did it rise so dramatically that people felt a need to open even more bars to accomodate the new patrons.

Indeed...what kept folks from opening nonsmoking bars earlier, then spending just a tad on advertising, and reaping all those profits for themselves? Maybe it was because they knew that it wasn't enough of a draw to make it profitable. After all...the reason most nonsmokers wanted a ban was because all the good acts were at the smoking bars...you should have been a good entrepreneur and opened a nonsmoking club, paid enough to lure the good acts to play at your bar, and you'd have made a killing. No....it's better to let the government dictate what we can and can't do.

And by the way....here in Kansas and Missouri - the antismoking groups most certainly DID use the "business will boom" argument in their efforts to ban smoking in bars. As far as who is more dangerous...I'd say from a traffic safety standpoint more people have been killed by nonsmoking drunks than smoking sober people. I would even venture to guess that more people have been killed my nonsmoking drunks than by second hand smoke. For the record, yes, a smoker threw a butt in a wastebasket on an Air Canada flight. But I am aware of several nonsmokers who were responsible for the deaths of thousands with an aircraft....9/11 ring a bell?

 

[airportman]

Smoking is an addiction that adds significantly the cost to our health care plan.



WELL ONE IMPORTANT FACT TO THINK ABOUT, THE HEALTH PLANS AS WELL AS USAIR PREECH GOOD HEALTH BUT DONT SEEM TO WANT TO COVER TREATMENT. THERE ARE PROVEN RX DRUGS TO HELP QUIT BUT NEITHER OUR HEALTH PLANS/THE COMPANY WILL ASSIST IN PAYING FOR THEM.............SEEMS ODD


JUST MY OPINION

 

[LD3]

So does obesity. Why not write your congressman and ask him why a 50 cent pack of cigs costs four bucks...and where is all that tax money going? You'd think $3.50 per pack of cigs in tax would have at least some impact on our health care costs. You'd also think that a Big Mac and fries would add a lot to our health care costs (actually they do...obesity related illness is more of a burden on our health care system than smoking)...how come a Big Mac value meal only costs $3.99 instead of $13.99? Imagine all the good we could do with a similar tax on junk food.

LAst time I was in CLT, smoking was allowed in some bars. Not in any public areas...not in the main food court. I passed by such a bar, and didn't smell smoke...and didn't die because someone was puffing away on a cigarette inside that bar. I guess the folks who complained about the smoke felt that out of all the bars and restaurants in the Charlotte airport, they HAD to go in the one that allowed smoking. What else don't you all like...and when should we commence banning them? I'm all for taxing the heck out of junk food...not only would it reduce health care costs...it would help keep our roadsides from being littered with all the fast food wrappers that are tossed/blown out of cars and pickups.
All the nonsmokers had better hope that the government fails in it's quest to get people to stop. The tax revenues that they get from tobacco would dry up...and those revenues would have to come from somewhere....are you willing to pay more for a "smoke free" country??

It was not an airport decision, it was mandated by the City Manager because it is a city owned facility...