Good luck John. Smoke'em if you got'em.

smokers are protected by the ADA. The bar owner is making reasonable accomodation.

after all we know about cancer anybody who smokes is dumber than a fence post...INCOMING! Here come the flames!

after all we know about cancer anybody who smokes is dumber than a fence post...INCOMING! Here come the flames!

Does that go for people that drive cars? Is smoking bad for you? Certainly. Is it worse for me than the emissions from your tailpipe? No, but no anti smoking hypocrite, "I don't like the smell" and "don't you know you are killing the people around you" statement spewing, rights confiscating, busy body with nothing better to do than tell other people how to live their lives is going to admit that. May the exhaust of a thousands cars idling in traffic find its way to your turned up nose. (Best Regards fellow freeper).

As Howie Carr likes to say, "My pack of Pall Malls has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car."

Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette.

Business owners have the right to decide what meals to serve, what tableware to use, what glasses to serve drinks in, what liquors to serve, the decor, the temperature of the rooms, the furniture etc. The owners can set the prices, the amounts served and they can't discriminate against anybody.

But politicians think they have the right to discriminate against businesses that choose to accomodate smokers. In effect, discrimination against the owners and the smokers. Aren't owners and smokers entitled to protection under the 14^th Amendment's Equal Protection clause? The establishment might be providing a meal, or something to drink - but it is also providing ambience and atmosphere. If you think otherwise, skip eating at that 4-star restaurant, and slip in to Dennys instead.

busy body with nothing better to do than tell other people how to live their lives

You mean like the busy bodies who chase pot smokers around?

Good Luck John.

Remember, this isn't about someone's 'right' not to be offended, this is about PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS!!!

You mean like the busy bodies who chase pot smokers around?

No, I was thinking more of my neighbor that is a rabid anti smoker. The same neighbor that burns his leaves every fall. Funny, huh? Big pile of buring leaves and he thinks nothing of it. But he sounds off at the community meeting when the smokers come in from outside with the smell of cigarettes (burning leaves wrapped in paper) on their clothes.

You know, idiots like that.

Business owners have the right to decide what meals to serve, what tableware to use, what glasses to serve drinks in, what liquors to serve, the decor, the temperature of the rooms, the furniture etc. The owners can set the prices, the amounts served and they can't discriminate against anybody.

But politicians think they have the right to discriminate against businesses that choose to accomodate smokers.

The difference here is that employers cannot force their workers to work in unsafe/hazardous conditions. If you believe that second hand smoke is harmful, you are in effect saying that it is alright if you are a business owner to provide a workplace that exposes their employees to deadly carcinogens.

Re, "unsafe/hazardous conditions..." The lefties will never give a clear leagal definition of what unsafe means. Since everything, every action, every chemical compound or combinations of compounds can be found to be "unsafe," then everything at all times is unsafe. Fine. Now define a reasonible and clear threshold. For instance so many deaths per millions per years of exposure. Second hand smoke wouldn't show up on the radar. You would have effectivly ban fireplaces, all auto emmissions, all residential and industrial furnace use, keeping pet birds indoors, pigons outdoors, ect. Fair is fair, honest is honest. But it won't happen. The anti-smokers are suckling from the devils breast, the government.

If you believe that second hand smoke is harmful, you are in effect saying that it is alright if you are a business owner to provide a workplace that exposes their employees to deadly carcinogens.

The smoking Taliban should be basing their Draconian anti-property rights regulations on science, not a belief system. Because they can't, a belief system is all they're left to work with.

And could you cite names, addresses and dates of anyone who was forced to work anywhere they didn't want to?

I'm afraid of height, so I'd never take a job where I was required to climb. So who's forcing someone who faints at the sight of cigarette smoke to take a job where smoking is allowed? "Public Service Advertisement" propaganda ads, by the way, do not qualify as real-life cases.

Incoming.

"The difference here is that employers cannot force their workers to work in unsafe/hazardous conditions. If you believe that second hand smoke is harmful, you are in effect saying that it is alright if you are a business owner to provide a workplace that exposes their employees to deadly carcinogens."

And the booze they serve isn't dangerous? Heck some of it is even flammable. Does the bar have an airlock to prevent emmissions from cars, factories, and other businesses from entering? What about the floor, if someone spills a drink, someone could slip and fall? If the bar owner, his employees and patrons are ok with the smoke, what right does the Government have to intervene? Or is this just another law for the nico-nazis, who might one day go into this bar, and want it smoke free just in case they want to pop in. Another case of some people being more equal than others.

Keep it up John! You're a true hero.

Go Viking, Go Viking, Go!

And could you cite names, addresses and dates of anyone who was forced to work anywhere they didn't want to?

It may just be that we have a different idea of what an employer is expected to provide to an employee. What you seem to be saying is that a toxic chemical plant owner, for instance, can just ignore any type of safety hazard to their employees, because it's not like those employees are forced to work there. If the employees don't want to be exposed to carcinogens, they should work somewhere else. That is certainly a valid opinion, but it's not the way our labor laws work here. One of the problems with that is that the poorest people in our society will often have to make the decision between providing for their families or not being exposed to carcinogens.

And the booze they serve isn't dangerous? Heck some of it is even flammable. Does the bar have an airlock to prevent emmissions from cars, factories, and other businesses from entering? What about the floor, if someone spills a drink, someone could slip and fall? If the bar owner, his employees and patrons are ok with the smoke, what right does the Government have to intervene? Or is this just another law for the nico-nazis, who might one day go into this bar, and want it smoke free just in case they want to pop in. Another case of some people being more equal than others.

Well, first off, the employees are not required to drink alchohol as a condition of employment. In theory, I agree that if the owner, employees, and patrons (actually, I don't even care about the patrons) all agreed that smoking was cool, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I say "in theory" because in practice, a bar owner can effectively force his employees to acquiese in order to keep their jobs, which is why I don't see this knid of thing working.

I believe this law was enacted for the employees of bars, not for their patrons.

The smoking Taliban should be basing their Draconian anti-property rights regulations on science, not a belief system. Because they can't, a belief system is all they're left to work with.

I have read at least a few studies that second hand smoke is indeed a carcinogen. I believe them. If you do not believe that second hand smoke is harmful, then I completely agree with you that the ban on smoking in bars is ludicrous.