Eateries resist telling smokers to snuff it - owners say they aren't obliged to enforce ban

The Dallas Morning News ^ | March 2, 2003 | By DAVE LEVINTHAL / The Dallas Morning News

[MeekOneGOP]

.

[RWG]

Group sex in a public place? You are really a democRAT lurker right? At least your posts suggest such with the absurd twists and turns your logic and mind take things. As a smokenazi you realize your position for the tyranny that it is and so turn to the only area in which you feel comfortable: pornography. In times of panic we turn to what we know best. You whine like a liberal when others exercise legal rights but then you try and make the concept of personal liberty and freedom dirty by associating it with pornography. Are you a school teacher from maine? How much have you contributed to sharpton's campaign?

[Leisler]

Illbay, our own little turnip, doesn't even have a command of vocabulary, let alone law or science. For instance, his unquestioned, "clean air." EST aside, you can find present in all air, even at the earth's poles, every element and compound. To be accurate there isn't any "Clean Air." Even if man didn't exist, the air wouldn't be clean. For instance, again, any pine forest would be replete with hydrocarbons that would make a Louisianan refinery blush. Since air is not and has never been clean, then we are talking about concentrations and exposure. And, as you well know, there is no, none, zero, nada scientific study, published in a accepted peer reviewed magazine which has found any effect at commonly acceptable standards of epidemiology. Naturally, this sort of reality is too much for the little lady.

[Wrigley]

Let's look back upon what I posted.

Hey guys, make sure you remind me NOT to vote for Illbay if he ever runs for national office.

And, if he happens to run for a local office, I need to find out who he's running against. I'll send some money to that person.

I'll spell out what I'm saying. I don't like your thought process here. I don't like that you support these bans on a restuarant owners rights to operate a business as he chooses. Therefore, since you support these laws, I wouldn't vote for you. Doesn't matter if its a local or national issue. Its all about you, but you knew that already.

[Wrigley]

You are right.

[Illbay]

...the smoking policies of private businesses...

The moment you also insist that any business can allow group-sex, or contaminated food, or any other such "regulated" activities or items, then I'll know that you are an altruist.

As it is, I suspect you're just so self-centered with regard to your addiction that you want to turn it into a high virtue.

That's simply ridiculous.

[Illbay]

If an establishment I enter permits smoking then I am granted a privilege by the owner

The privilege to engage in group-sex, too, right?

[Wrigley]

It must be a girl thing, like having a zillion candles.

Yeah, what's up with that?

[Illbay]

Why is this fellow so adamantly attempting to restrict the rights of others?

Do you have a driver's license? If so, you are submitting to having your "rights" limited.

[THEUPMAN]

No. It is "I don't like to be forced to smoke just because YOU like to smoke. Therefore, WE THE PEOPLE are going to take measures to make sure that you don't force ME to smoke."
So you really think my right to free trade and free association is trumped by your right to not smoke?
If I choose to operate a cafe where people are allowed to smoke, why don't you just go somewhere else?
What happened to my rights as an OWNER?
If you want a smoke-free cafe, you put up the $$$$$ and time, don't make me do it for you.
..... and by the way I quit smoking 3 years ago ..... my choice, not yours

[Illbay]

What about the business owner?

Still not clear to me whether your support UNRESTRICTED "rights" of business owners. Hence my "group-sex" analogy. If you disagree that a restaurant can allow group-sex, then you are admitting there might be limits to the activities permitted on its premises.

Then it just becomes a case of your own selfish motives.

[Illbay]

A place of public accomodation has limits placed on its operation.

If you own a hotel, you have to keep the bathrooms clean.

[Illbay]

As a smokenazi you realize your position for the tyranny that it is...

BlahBlahBlah.

Do you favor UNRESTRICTED rights for any business owner who operates a place of public accomodation?

Then you must favor the right of the owner to allow group-sex.

If you do NOT favor that right, then you DO allow that restrictions can be placed on the operators of places of public accomodation. In that case, this stupid argument about "unrestricted rights" is just that: A stupid argument.

[Illbay]

To be accurate there isn't any "Clean Air."

Then that means that ANY air is "good enough" for you, right?

And therefore, that means that you don't believe it is possible to have some air "cleaner" than other air, right?

Perhaps you need to rethink your arguments. You argue like a ten year old.

[Wrigley]

Look up Temple Square in SLC. They are trying that there.

[Illbay]

So you really think my right to free trade and free association is trumped by your right to not smoke?

Give me example of totally free association, and totally free trade. These terms are not absolute.

Yes, my right not to smoke trumps all these other "rights." Just as my right NOT to have to witness sexual congress on the floor of a restaurant trumps that couple's right to engage in such congress.

All these arguments are simply rationalizations to allow your unfettered right to engage in your addiction at any time and any place, no matter how you affect the rights of others to enjoyment of the emoluments of a restaurant without having to deal with YOUR choice to be addicted.

Your choice, YOUR consequences. I do not have to pay the consequences of YOUR choice.

[Illbay]

Actually it isn't Temple Square. And the Church owns the property you speak of.

Wrigley, your string of unbroken lies remains intact.

[drstevej]

***If you want a smoke-free cafe, you put up the $$$$$ and time, don't make me do it for you.***

Agreed. Free market economics is a novel idea to some. Eating at a restaurant is a choice.

I prefer restaurants where I don't smell smoke. So there are some I don't patronize.
Some restaurants have blaring noise that I don't prefer so I seek a quieter restaurant.
Some restaurants ask that no cell phones be used in the restaurant and if I need to use a phone I go elsewhere.

My dad had a saying, "You pays your money, you takes your choice."

Let the free market work. It's a free republic.

[Wrigley]

At least I'm consistant.</sarcasm off>

[THEUPMAN]

Then you must favor the right of the owner to allow group-sex. If you do NOT favor that right, then you DO allow that restrictions can be placed on the operators of places of public accomodation. In that case, this stupid argument about "unrestricted rights" is just that: A stupid argument.

If the OWNER chooses to allow group sex, what buseness is it of yours?