Posted on 01/09/2005 10:43:35 AM PST by SheLion
No one thought it could happen to them. :(
The impact on businesses has been overwhelming.
As I drive around Buffalo and Niagara Falls I see more and more "Closed" signs.
It's one of the only things that I can think of where you can legally harm someone else without their consent
And the Govenors are yelling about how bad the economy is. Well, they can't have both.
It's the states fault that this is happening. Restaurants, bars, sports inns, taverns.....no smoking? Well, what did they expect?
And don't forget the anti's said they would be able to go out more if there was no smoking. So, where ARE they?
Lies, lies and more lies.
Can I be added to your ping list? Thank you. :)
Right on. I live in DE and I now frequent establishments more often BECAUSE of the ban.
This article refutes your perceptions. It does harm the establishments. Incremental fascism found acceptable in any form is detrimental to freedoms. Whether you smoke or not is the issue and the health effects are unproven. Capitalism found a way to cater to all. When politicians have the power to take away your rights and are emboldened by your acceptance - watch out. When will your rights be stepped on and you get affected? When businesses' close, when purfume is outlawed, when dangerous cars are taken off the street, when drinking is outlawed, when you're not allowed to vote, when your household activities is invaded, when guns are outlawed, when they pass the equal protection act and Rush is taken off the air, when public assemblies are outlawed, when you're not allowed to talk on a cell phone, when fast food goes bye bye?? I could keep going on - which one would affect you?
IF any of those seem silly - better do your research. All of these are under assault. So keep accepting incremental fascism and let big brother look out for you. I won't.
That second hand smoke fraud has been debunked so many times it's getting old.
How the heck do you think we all lived to be as old as we are if that second hand smoke issue was true?
I do go out more. Down with the smokers in public :)
After all is said and done on this subject, the one fact still remains........at least in my part of the country..
No one asked for this. It is borne of the nanny state and its subscribers and their need to 'protect' us.
A closer look would more than likely reveal that they are running out of things to regulate.
The real concern here, IMHO, is not whether or not smoking should be allowed, but whether or not interference with a citizen's right to make decisions on his own should be allowed.
Thank you. I'd pick alcohol AND cars.
By someone getting into a car, I'm in no danger. It's bad drivers, impatient drivers, (insert appropriate adjective here) drivers, that cause a good portion of the accidents. But just having someone enter a car does not affect my well being in the least bit. So your analogy with cars is not the same.
Got you added! Thank you! :)
I'd be ok with (and prefer) that all these anti-smoking laws be passed via refferendum than by local politicians. I think the results would be the same. It would just require a more organized movement.
Ok. The non-smokers and the anti-smokers all said that if there was no smoking, they would all go out more often. If that is the case, why have so many business's across the United States closed after a smoking ban?
Loss of revenue, jobs lost, business's closed.
I won't either.
and the politicans refusing to do anything about it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.