[chance33_98]

Puff and Ping

[txhurl]

unintended consequences strike again

[Lexington Green]

Better Free than Smoke-Free

[LiberalBuster]

Of course, this will only come as a shock to clueless liberals who (for some reason) are incapable of anticipating the obvious consequences of their misguided do-goodism.

[SheLion]

Another one biting the dust.

Smoking Bans Bad For Business

[The Great RJ]

Hate to quote Lenin--but..."people vote with their feet"-- if they don't like what you are doing they go elsewhere. Clearly the smokers are in significant numbers staying home.

Our Legislature recently passed a smoking ban on businesses that affects restaurants that do not serve liquor or beer or have casino permits. Those restaurants who chose not to get alcohol permits are also seeing business drop.

[KS Flyover]

Cities try for united ban on smoking (So as to not lose money to competition)

Mayors and officials of nine Valley cities and towns on Thursday agreed that a regional or statewide smoking ban is needed to prevent some cities from losing money to competitors.

Council members for Peoria and Glendale, which are exploring a possible ban, called the meeting because businesses in cities that have adopted tough bans, such as Tempe, complain that patrons take their business to bordering cities.

[Still Thinking]

And now the Tempe city government is demanding that the city governments in all the surrounding towns pass equally draconian laws so they won't be harmed by their own stupidity. This, to me, represents the height of arrogance. When they do something with bad results, they seem incapable of questioning the wisdom of THEIR decision, but instead berate everyone else for the crime of not making that decision and not suffering the consequences! "I wanna be a tyrant, I wanna, I WANNA!!! How dare you other cities undermine our efforts to force people to do what WE think is good for them!! It's not faiiiiiir!!"

[giznort]

Let each business decide whether or not to allow smoking. The local goverment should stick to governmental-type issues. Those bars/restaurants that want smokers should have them. Those that don't want them can ban them. Simple. Everyone's happy? (why don't I run for office - - - I make such GOOD sense!!!!!)

[logic101.net]

Gee, imagine that. Maybe the fact that most bar patrons also smoke might have something to do with this? Yet, the anti-smokers who might want to go to a bar once a year insist that they get to choose from every bar in town and that smokers have to stay home.

It's well past time for some backlash against the anti smoking tyrants!

MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/

[realwoman]

The thing that gets me the most is how these people refer to restaurants and bars as "public" places. They are not! They are private places and the owners are inviting you in. No different than me inviting you to my house for dinner.