I'm going to say that the law itself is helpful to a great many people.
On a larger level, though, it is quite frightening. Government regulation of private business in social matters is nothing to laugh at.
This is bad, folks. I don't smoke, but I still vehemently oppose this program.
On a larger level, though, it is quite frightening. Government regulation of private business in social matters is nothing to laugh at.
This is bad, folks. I don't smoke, but I still vehemently oppose this program.
Believe what you want. You really think nobody ever goes into the bathroom at a restaurant or bar for a snort?
Kalmah
Diamond Member
- Oct 2, 2003
- 3,692
- 1
- 76
I wonder how they are going to handle the situation when restaurants commonly have 20 smokers huddled outside around the entrance.
I've allready had to do it a few times myself. Play some pool, drink a beer, walk outside, smoke a cigarette, repeat..
Would they call this loitering?
I've allready had to do it a few times myself. Play some pool, drink a beer, walk outside, smoke a cigarette, repeat..
Would they call this loitering?
I said "so much." You really think cocaine use is as widespread as cigarette use in restaurants?
Old news in NY State.
I enjoy the taste of my food Much better.
In fact i have gained 30 lbs since the smoking ban.You've answered your own question. The government still shouldn't be telling businesses what they can and can't allow in their restaurants. It should be client-driven. "Wheelchair-bound people can choose to go to places that accomodate wheelchairs versus those who don't just as smokers and non-smokers have a choice." That's the crux of my argument. It shouldn't be left up to the government.
If businesses want to support disabled customers by providing wheelchair ramps, they should reap the additional profit that comes from being able to service more clients. They shouldn't have the government waving a big stick in their face forcing them to oblige customers they don't want to serve. If you're in a wheelchair and somebody's serving you only because the government is making them, I don't think you're going to get quality service. On the other hand, if somebody sees a need and fills it, they should be able to reap the financial reward. This is the essence of business. Government meddling in these affairs is counter to these ideas.
Name a building and I'll be able to come up with a disability that these people aren't providing for. In short, no, I'm not a fan of government mandates for accessibility for the disabled, just as I wouldn't be a fan of a government mandate for me to install a wheelchair ramp at my house. None of us need a wheelchair yet. If and when the need arises, the wheelchair ramp will follow. Businesses operate under a "see the need, fill the need" principle. If they aren't providing for enough of their customers, they will fail. It's that simple.
Did it in Dallas restaurants. Thank god, I was sick of this smoking or non smoking sh!t. If you want to smoke, go pollute your fvcking lungs outside.
Take all of the restaurants in the United States as your sample. Assuming you could conduct an honest poll with the following two questions: "1) Have you smoked a cigarette, a cigar, or a pipe in this establishment? 2) Have you used cocaine in this establishment?" which do you honestly think the response will be?
I'm not for banning smoking. It's not like I think prohibiting something is going to stop its use, and even if I thought it would be effective, I still wouldn't support the motion. It was stupid to try with alcohol. It's stupid to try with smoking. I think it'll be funny when they try to ban alcohol in bars. For every prohibition you create an underground.
The "underground" is what I'm talking about in this point. If you pushed smoking underground, it wouldn't be widespread enough for the public to be complaining about it. The smoke wouldn't proliferate openly in the restaurants that nonsmokers frequent. Thus, banning smoking would solve the problem as stated in this thread. Would it stop smokers from smoking? No, but it would stop them from smoking as much publically, which is what this thread is all about. If a cop could just walk into a place, smell the cigarette smoke, and start busting people, there wouldn't be as much smoking going on... assuming the rule was enforced at all.
I think it's a stupid solution, but the thread isn't talking about a law that's trying to stop people from smoking altogether, just from offending non-smokers as much. Banning smoking altogether would do that. It may be a bad solution, but it would be generally effective.
Maybe. The guy I was addressing was serious, and he might have had the same thought you had, except with a serious tinting rather than a satyrical one.
I doubt it. Try opening a restaurant that only caters to white people and use race as the reason you turn everyone else away. I'm no lawyer but I'm guessing that's not legal.
Keep telling yourself that as well... Funny that the % of people who voted against the smoking ban is very close to the % of smokers.
That's nothing. Austin just banned smoking in BARS. Austin. The live music capital of the world. Not anymore, I guess.
Notice how I said for almost any reason. In a scenario where you don't want to serve or allow someone, you can make up almost any excuse not to as long as that customer doesn't have any proof to back it up.
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
I agree with the OP. This is a case of the government being misused to legislate what should be common sense and courtesy.
I hate smoking, but it's ultimately up to the property owner.
As far as being in public places, all we really need is a law that requires people be held accountable for their actions if those actions may affect others; this would cover a LOT more than just smoking...
As always, it is the person altering another's immediate environment that needs to exercise restraint. Just because I am in my own house that I paid for doesn?t mean I can crank my 4000+ watt DTS THX system as loud as I want any time I want because the effects of the sound travels well beyond my property line and can irritate others on THEIR own property!
The same goes for cigarette smoke and a multitude of other things that can be caused by one person and unintentionally effect others negatively in the surrounding area. People just need to be aware that certain actions extend beyond their own existance. That is just too much to ask of anyone isnt it...:roll:
I hate smoking, but it's ultimately up to the property owner.
As far as being in public places, all we really need is a law that requires people be held accountable for their actions if those actions may affect others; this would cover a LOT more than just smoking...
As always, it is the person altering another's immediate environment that needs to exercise restraint. Just because I am in my own house that I paid for doesn?t mean I can crank my 4000+ watt DTS THX system as loud as I want any time I want because the effects of the sound travels well beyond my property line and can irritate others on THEIR own property!
The same goes for cigarette smoke and a multitude of other things that can be caused by one person and unintentionally effect others negatively in the surrounding area. People just need to be aware that certain actions extend beyond their own existance. That is just too much to ask of anyone isnt it...:roll:
man im sorry to say this but u americans are a bunch whiney spoilt children, id move to europe if i where u guys.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter