Skip to comments.
Taverns brace for smoking ban in different ways
Kennebuc Journal ^
| 12-15-03
| CHUIN-WEI YAP
Posted on 12/16/2003 4:18:39 AM PST by SheLion
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-108 last
To: lewislynn
Oh Puleeze...............
Once every year, ABC issues new licenses in counties where the population has increased enough to allow more licenses.
Population increase is NOT a demand for smokefree venues. And your little chart only shows new applications - not how many old ones did not re-apply, nor how many of them were already license holders that changed names or locations, both reasons for "new" applications.
101
posted on
12/17/2003 5:18:06 AM PST
by
Gabz
(Smoke gnatzies - small minds buzzing in your business - swat'em!!!)
To: metesky; OPS4
"Geezum Crow. You put a couple of simple questions to a guy and he disappears."
Yep, the sound of crickets is deafening!
102
posted on
12/17/2003 5:33:48 AM PST
by
CSM
(Councilmember Carol Schwartz (R.-at large), my new hero! The Anti anti Smoke Gnatzie!)
To: Not_Who_U_Think
I like your analogies. However, when you said this:
"Since 65% of the population doesn't smoke, they have no vested interest in the matter other than some nebulous (to them) personal freedom argument."
The problem is that it is up to us to show them that the personal freedom argument/private property argument is not nebulous. When we no longer have private property rights, we no longer have liberty. I think we are already there!
103
posted on
12/17/2003 5:36:05 AM PST
by
CSM
(Councilmember Carol Schwartz (R.-at large), my new hero! The Anti anti Smoke Gnatzie!)
To: Cantiloper
Exactly! BTW, cool site!
104
posted on
12/17/2003 5:37:54 AM PST
by
CSM
(Councilmember Carol Schwartz (R.-at large), my new hero! The Anti anti Smoke Gnatzie!)
To: lewislynn
How about thinking of the reverse. What would be your stance if the government decided to force all restaurants and bars to allow smoking on their premises? I wouldn't support such legislation, would you?
Do you agree with the use of eminent domain to confiscate homes and build shopping malls?
105
posted on
12/17/2003 5:39:38 AM PST
by
CSM
(Councilmember Carol Schwartz (R.-at large), my new hero! The Anti anti Smoke Gnatzie!)
To: lewislynn
You're right, it is more noble to give in to paying high cigarette taxes and cower at home than it is to go out, enjoy yourself, and support your local small business owner...."Cower?"
What are you, insane?
Do you regularly go to restaurants that serve food you don't enjoy to support the local small business owner?
You don't?
You mean you cower at home instead?
What makes you think that patronizing an establishment that doesn't allow smoking would be conducive to smokers' enjoying themselves?
And increasing numbers of smokers (myself included) don't pay high cigarette taxes, by the expedient of rolling their own.
To: OPS4
"Allergy" to tobacco smoke is a fallacy, ask any doctor. The only allergy possible is to the RAW LEAF itself.
To: fpalazzi
bulloni, people with asthma are effected always.
Ops4 God BLess America!
108
posted on
12/24/2003 12:37:04 PM PST
by
OPS4
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-108 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson