Posted on 01/10/2003 7:41:00 PM PST by Max McGarrity
So what business is it of yours what he does in the privacy of someone else's property, assuming the other person consents?
Have at it, Mango.
You say "Amen to that!" then proceed to use your OWN "anecdotal evidence" to try to prove a point. Why is YOUR anecdotal evidence any more real and true than Ditka's or mine or many millions of others? It isn't.
But even if the cancer doesn't get you, smoking anything usually results in some form of COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). If you like inhalers four times a day and oxygen at night and the inability to walk up a slight grade without huffing, just keep smoking -- first or secondhand./p>
I'm sorry about your personal problem, but your sweeping conclusions are just flat-out wrong, as sweeping conclusions usually are. Twice as many lifelong smokers never fall ill from one of the "smoking-related" illnesses, including COPD, as do. And as for "secondhand smoke," that's hysteria. But, even if everything they say about environmental tobacco smoke were true, it would still be a CHOICE to be exposed to it. Or don't you belive in private property rights, either?
WRONG !
He runs a private place and if you don't want to eat there you don't have to. You have your rights and we have ours ! I'm not a smoker but if a restaurant lets smokers smoke then it's their business not the Gov't. If the employees don't want to work there then they can work someplace else.
Let's see what the judge says. My question:
If there's no smoking anywhere, how's it going to hurt business? Has it been shown that people will stay home to eat and drink?
What about smoking sections for restaurants and bars with their own ventilation? That seems to work. Can't we all just get along?
I'm not certain that science backs that statement up.
Then don't go in it. Its his public place, not yours.
Here's a little more info on how the leftist control nazis try to twist statistics to meet their goals. You're right that billions of dollars in tax money were gained, but there were also many, many millions in lawyers' fees. The tort lottery continues, this time with government help.
Yes, it has been so shown. Not everyone, of course, but enough that small businesses are hurt or destroyed. Sixty percent of bars in Northern California are "noncompliant" and the percentage is probably about the same here in SoCal. Business owners are willing to risk the fines because otherwise, they'll be out of business.
What about smoking sections for restaurants and bars with their own ventilation? That seems to work. Can't we all just get along?
What about permitting the free market to work? How about letting the business owner decide who HIS market is and how best to cater to them? I'd love to "get along," but anti smokers want it all, 100% zero tolerance, and absolutely NO accommodation for smokers, no matter who it hurts. It's ridiculous.
I will damn sure never go to a non-smoking bar. None of my smoking friends will either.
What about smoking sections for restaurants and bars with their own ventilation?
Better yet, a bar that forces candy-ass whiney crybaby pidgeon pukes to smoke if they want to come in and stay?
I would love a place that would not admit crybabies who want the nanny-state to ban legal products.
Stay safe; stay armed.
Eaker
Yes it certainly has, in my town business is down appr 25%, ban took effect a year and a half ago.
You could well be right.
On the other hand, what do we call the "products of combustion" in other circumstances? A: Air pollution. Science backs up the fact that sludge in the air irritates our lungs.
I'm not sure how I got into this :-). I certainly have no interest in regulating other people's smoking!
Max, by all means find a nice dark corner of Mike Ditka's Restaurant and smoke, drink, and play doctor with WHOMEVER in total privacy.
I could care less if Ditka turned his restaurant into a San Francisco bathhouse -- in that case hopefully, he would make ashtrays available.
Many smokers find it hard to enjoy themselves if they go for an hour or two without smoking. That's not to say they can't go without smoking, but they don't enjoy themselves.
People who go to bars and fancy restaurants generally do so for the purpose of enjoying themselves. Few people will go to a restaurant to spend $30 or more on a meal they know they're not going to enjoy.
I've noticed that many fast food places around me are completely non-smoking, and suspect there are four reasons: (1) smokers can generally be in and out quickly enough that not smoking for the brief time in-between isn't a problem; (2) smokers who don't want to stop smoking long enough to eat can get food to-go; (3) smokers who don't want to stop smoking, even for a moment, can use the drive-through; (4) many people who go to fast-food restaurants aren't particularly concerned about enjoyment.
If bars were allowed to let people have beverages to-go, they might not be hurt too seriously by a smoking ban. Unless a bar has an attached beer garden which allows smoking, however, they generally can't.
I knew I was forgetting one; that one fits liberals pretty self-explanitorially.
Good Lord, what set you off? I believe everyone has a right to smoke if he/she chooses to do so. (I have no idea what that has to do with property rights, though.)
Feel free to smoke your brains out. Maybe you'll be one of the fortunate ones. Then again....
Carolyn
Mango?
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.