Replies

CSM - you're probably going to hate me for this, but I don't think TheOtherOne's idea is really all that bad.

Think about it - a license is required to sell acoholic beverages and a different one is required to permit the consumption of said alcoholic beverages on the premises.

A license is required (in most places I am aware of) to sell tobacco products, so why not treat tobacco completely the way of alcohol?

Here's an idea: perhaps we actually let the ATF do it's job and quit farming out their business to every other dept under the sun... License for a business to allow smoking, sure I'm fine with that. Post prominently that smoking IS allowed in this establishment. Many restaurants/bars post menus and schedules at the door so people can decide at the door if they want to enter ... why can't non smokers/smokers choose the same way? The insane part is that 'private clubs' are also restricted in many places, how stupid is THAT?

Gabz, I could never hate you. You have done to much for freedom for me to take one aspect of an opinion and hold it against you....

Anyway, I see liscenses for anything as a restriction of use of private property. They do nothing more than confiscate that property. I understand the point and if the offer was made to back off of a ban by issuing liscenses, then I would consider it an improvement. However, I still wouldn't accept it as right!

What you would end up with is the same situation as the liquor liscenses. You would have a state mandated limit as to the number of liscenses by ratio of the population. If they don't restrict the number, then what would be the point of a tobacco liscense? They could accomplish the same thing by just forcing all businesses to pay an extra annual tax and allow the business owner to make the decision. The only thing a liscense ends up being is a tax!