Like McD's? The owners would choose NOT to allow smoking for this very reason--many children go there and business would suffer. It is up to you, as parents, to decide whether or not a resturant is safe enough for your children.
Like McD's? The owners would choose NOT to allow smoking for this very reason--many children go there and business would suffer. It is up to you, as parents, to decide whether or not a resturant is safe enough for your children.
Yea, that's the path NY lawmakers took, too. Of course, you can't ask whether or not a person smokes, at least in the government, during an interview, so it is really up to the potential employee to decide if they want to work there....and save the "some people really just need a job, so will accept the risk anyway" spiel...whole different debate, Retro
Galt:
I oppose smoking in all public places. Period. If smokers won't do it voluntarily, then I'm all in favor of the government forbidding them from smoking. If that's your idea of nanny government, too bad because that's the direction the country is heading.
Sorry, Red, but if I want to have a beer with some of my buddies which bar would we go to? They almost ALL allow smoking. I don't want to have smoke with my beer. Besides, that is one God-awful odor-beer mixed with cigarette smoke. It's enough to make a person puke. It's worse than the smell of Ann Coulter....
-Robert
I oppose smoking in all public places. Period. If smokers won't do it voluntarily, then I'm all in favor of the government forbidding them from smoking. If that's your idea of nanny government, too bad because that's the direction the country is heading.
Sorry, Red, but if I want to have a beer with some of my buddies which bar would we go to? They almost ALL allow smoking. I don't want to have smoke with my beer. Besides, that is one God-awful odor-beer mixed with cigarette smoke. It's enough to make a person puke. It's worse than the smell of Ann Coulter....
-Robert
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I doubt Robert cares about struggling business owners who lose their business, go bankrupt, and can't feed their families... all I saw was some whining about his precious whims to have a beer without cigarette smoke.
Which... would be easy to do if he wasn't a nanny-stater liberal who requires the government to everything for him. It has already been proven that non-smoking bars are a hot new market. All the corporate bars (Applebees, Fridays, Keg) have gone non-smoking, and Portland has had an immensely successful chain of bars expand in the last 10 or so years, partly on the basis of their no-smoking policy.
In other words, Robert is lying again. If he really wanted his beer without the cigarette smoke, it wouldn't be hard for him to do. And if he really felt this strongly on the subject, instead of whining about it, he'd get off his ass and open his own non-smoking bar.
Ah well, he won't be able to get that beer anyway after he gets all the bars shut down. Can't have your cake and eat it too
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Got issues Vic?Originally posted by: Vic
I doubt Robert cares about struggling business owners who lose their business, go bankrupt, and can't feed their families... all I saw was some whining about his precious whims to have a beer without cigarette smoke.
Which... would be easy to do if he wasn't a nanny-stater liberal who requires the government to everything for him. It has already been proven that non-smoking bars are a hot new market. All the corporate bars (Applebees, Fridays, Keg) have gone non-smoking, and Portland has had an immensely successful chain of bars expand in the last 10 or so years, partly on the basis of their no-smoking policy.
In other words, Robert is lying again. If he really wanted his beer without the cigarette smoke, it wouldn't be hard for him to do. And if he really felt this strongly on the subject, instead of whining about it, he'd get off his ass and open his own non-smoking bar.
Ah well, he won't be able to get that beer anyway after he gets all the bars shut down. Can't have your cake and eat it too
Besides your uncalled for personal attack on Robert I do agree with you. I think that local bars and even Nightclubs should be able to allow smoking at their descretion. Like you said there are plenty of other places that don't allow smoking that someone can patronize if the smoking bothers them.
On the other hand I haven't a problem with Restaurants being smoke fre. Most smokers I know don't smoke while they eat and would rather not have smoke blowing in their fac e when they are enjoying a meal.
Galt:
At least I don't support having the U.S. Army in every public place. <cough, cough>
Vic:
Yeah, I'm a nanny state liberal.
Whatever.
But, when you breathe in smoke and cough your lungs are giving you a clue. If you can't take the clue, are we supposed to pay for your health care when you are 40 and walking around obese, with 30% of your lung capacity, diabetes, cataracts, failing liver and kidneys?
Smoking is an addiction that causes extremely serious health consequences contrary to you apologists for the lying bastages who run the tobacco industry. Smoking has broad social implications, unlike motorcycle helmet laws which really only protect one rider at a time and comparatively few of them are killed vs. smokers who are dying like flies. I belong to the secondwind list. You should read the stories of the people who once smoked and are 35-50 years of age and have 15% lung capacity and pray every day for a new set of lungs. Many of them die waiting. A friend of mine, a physician who smoked and otherwise didn't take care of himself, was on the 9th tee at a local country club and keeled over dead of a massive heart attack at the age of 52. My sister-in-law died from lung cancer at 41. She was hooked on cigarettes at age 13. After war and illegal drugs (like politics ), smoking is one of the worst scourges of mankind.
I wouldn't make smoking illegal, but I'd outlaw smoking indoors in public places. If you want to smoke in a restaurant YOU open a smokers only restaurant or bar. If it's a public place I'm entitled to be in it without fear of the negative health consequences, just as I should be free from the risk of fire. Yes, I've walked out of many restaurants, but it's a pain in the rear if you're in a hurry or with a group of business people.
Anyway, the nanny staters will make smoking ILLEGAL, not me. Go chew your rag bone at their front door.
This discussion amply demonstrates why Libertarians will never get any political power. They are ruled by ideology, not common sense.
-Robert
At least I don't support having the U.S. Army in every public place.
<cough, cough>Vic:
Yeah, I'm a nanny state liberal.
Whatever.
But, when you breathe in smoke and cough your lungs are giving you a clue. If you can't take the clue, are we supposed to pay for your health care when you are 40 and walking around obese, with 30% of your lung capacity, diabetes, cataracts, failing liver and kidneys?
Smoking is an addiction that causes extremely serious health consequences contrary to you apologists for the lying bastages who run the tobacco industry. Smoking has broad social implications, unlike motorcycle helmet laws which really only protect one rider at a time and comparatively few of them are killed vs. smokers who are dying like flies. I belong to the secondwind list. You should read the stories of the people who once smoked and are 35-50 years of age and have 15% lung capacity and pray every day for a new set of lungs. Many of them die waiting. A friend of mine, a physician who smoked and otherwise didn't take care of himself, was on the 9th tee at a local country club and keeled over dead of a massive heart attack at the age of 52. My sister-in-law died from lung cancer at 41. She was hooked on cigarettes at age 13. After war and illegal drugs (like politics
), smoking is one of the worst scourges of mankind. I wouldn't make smoking illegal, but I'd outlaw smoking indoors in public places. If you want to smoke in a restaurant YOU open a smokers only restaurant or bar. If it's a public place I'm entitled to be in it without fear of the negative health consequences, just as I should be free from the risk of fire. Yes, I've walked out of many restaurants, but it's a pain in the rear if you're in a hurry or with a group of business people.
Anyway, the nanny staters will make smoking ILLEGAL, not me. Go chew your rag bone at their front door.
This discussion amply demonstrates why Libertarians will never get any political power. They are ruled by ideology, not common sense.
-Robert
Originally posted by: chess9
Galt:
At least I don't support having the U.S. Army in every public place.
That's the next step in your path to Proletarian bliss. You'll be there soon enough, sir. "Put out that cigarette, Komrade; you know proletariats should not smoke and waste precious resources of the state."
That would make too much sense, ElFenix. Read what Bob is arguing:
If you want to smoke in a restaurant YOU open a smokers only restaurant or bar
It appears, therefore, that Bob is presupposing that there are inherent rights associated with property ownership; you have the right, according to Bob's assertion above, to open a restaurant that excludes a certain segment of society. However, those same inherent rights associated with property ownership do not allow you to open a restaurant that allows everyone to enter, whether they smoke or not. In short, it's okay to open a restaurant for smokers only, so long as you don't let non-smokers in. You have the right to exclude, just don't try to include everyone...or you are crossing the line. This guy is too funny.
Galt:
You give dense a new, er, depth.
A smokers only, or a non-smokers only restaurant would not have to be public. Anyone may open up a private eating establishment or bar.
Furthermore, every property owner has rights that are reasonably limited by the government. One of the permissable government limits is to restrict unsafe, noxious, or deleterious substances from public places. You obviously don't get the difference between absolute and limited property rights. No one has absolute property rights, especially restaurant owners. Just opening a restaurant requires, typically, at least 2-10, or so, different permits from city and/or county and/or state officials. In some cases a permit from a federal agency is required. I suspect smoking is one of the lesser worries of restaurant owners, yet you guys have made it into some sort of rallying cry of the Libertarian Party's Mascot, the Ostrich. (too bad the DODO BIRD is extinct)
Bwuahahahaha!!
-Robert
You give dense a new, er, depth.
A smokers only, or a non-smokers only restaurant would not have to be public. Anyone may open up a private eating establishment or bar.
Furthermore, every property owner has rights that are reasonably limited by the government. One of the permissable government limits is to restrict unsafe, noxious, or deleterious substances from public places. You obviously don't get the difference between absolute and limited property rights. No one has absolute property rights, especially restaurant owners. Just opening a restaurant requires, typically, at least 2-10, or so, different permits from city and/or county and/or state officials. In some cases a permit from a federal agency is required. I suspect smoking is one of the lesser worries of restaurant owners, yet you guys have made it into some sort of rallying cry of the Libertarian Party's Mascot, the Ostrich. (too bad the DODO BIRD is extinct)
Bwuahahahaha!!
-Robert
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,402
- 8,574
- 126
Originally posted by: chess9
El Fenix:
You obviusly didn't read all the thread.
-Robert
that they wouldn't want to lose any customers? thats fine, open a place with separate vent systems for the non-smoking side and the smoking side.
maybe it's that the attitude is wrong. if there are really all these people that will come to your bar knowing that its not full of smoke, then you should be able to make up for any loses due to smokers leaving (and really, if your drink specials are good enough, they'll come too and just not smoke while there)
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Yes, Robert, I agree. The owner makes the business decisions and the customer decides upon where to eat.. This is how it should be and we don't need Uncle telling us how to do that...
One will opt to lose the least amount of customers, if any and legislating, as here in CA., takes the decision out of the hands of the people cuz I guess we're just too stupid to make good choices..
Originally posted by: chess9
Aside from that issue and some clumsy syntax, it's a start.
-Robert
Which clumsy syntax?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Start with the first sentence and completely re-write it. Or, in the words of Lee Trevino to an amateur golfer who had just asked him to comment on his putting: "Take two weeks off, then quit."
j/k
But it does need a serious re-write. Ask Witling because his editing and writing skills are far superior to mine. I bow to his wisdom.
But, uh, shouldn't this be YOUR effort, college boy?
-Robert
j/k
But it does need a serious re-write. Ask Witling because his editing and writing skills are far superior to mine. I bow to his wisdom.
But, uh, shouldn't this be YOUR effort, college boy?
-Robert
Originally posted by: chess9
Start with the first sentence and completely re-write it. Or, in the words of Lee Trevino to an amateur golfer who had just asked him to comment on his putting: "Take two weeks off, then quit."
j/k
But it does need a serious re-write. Ask Witling because his editing and writing skills are far superior to mine. I bow to his wisdom.
But, uh, shouldn't this be YOUR effort, college boy?
-Robert
Of course it's my effort, I'm just looking for input. I'm not looking for other people to write it for me, just critiques.
Well, good luck.
I don't like the title either.
Also, I'm not sure there is any proof that not allowing smoking harms any restaurant owner. Down here it just hasn't happened. I went out several nights ago and the smokers were all in the parking lot getting a quick drag or seven before they went in. We had to wait 20 minutes for a table. But then, they didn't know who I was. j/k
It is now illegal to smoke in most restaurants in Florida, by the way.
I don't like the title either.
Also, I'm not sure there is any proof that not allowing smoking harms any restaurant owner. Down here it just hasn't happened. I went out several nights ago and the smokers were all in the parking lot getting a quick drag or seven before they went in.
We had to wait 20 minutes for a table. But then, they didn't know who I was. j/kIt is now illegal to smoke in most restaurants in Florida, by the way.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 397
Facebook
Twitter