Posted on 10/03/2006 10:07:28 AM PDT by southernnorthcarolina
649 people out of 8,049,313 were polled, and that's the whole state supporting it? The psychotic antis must be marginalized as insane, agenda-driven liars.
Neither do I.
But a good way to appeal to people to get a law going is to speak to their creature comforts.
Your analogy is a poor one.
:)
There are almost no restaurants that allow smoking in a town I used to live in, and it's not because of any anti-smoking law or regulation.
In direct terms, neither of your desires means squat. It's whether the owner of the restaurant wants to allow smoking that means everything.
In a roundabout way what you want does mean something, in that it will influence various restaurant owners to use their right to dictate smoking or non-smoking to cater to either or both of you.
Nanny State Ping!!!!!!!!
649 people polled in the entire state???????? I would like to know which anti-smoker organization paid for this piece of bovine excrement.
This number is VERY close to the number polled (with the same results) for the City of Peoria, the entire State of Delaware, which has a population of less than 900,000, for the city of Philadelphia, as well as the entire State of Pennsylvania.
You must not get out much. People do go to restaurants and bars to have a drink and/or a smoke, but (gasp!) not food. But let's run with it just to make you happy. What if a restaurant serves fish? Fish stinks. Should the gubment ban fish from all restaurants?
Thanks for the ping. Please read my post at #26.
The fact is they are free to patronize an establishment that caters to their preferences, or better yet talk to the owner about going-smoke free instead of running to big brother government because they are too lazy or too scared to make a personally responsible choice.
Please expound.
But I know exactly why they are popular, and it's not a desire to control other people.
It's a desire not to deal with a physical discomfort.
Well, if you poll parrons at the local Starbucks in downtown Charlotte, of course you will find more liberal vegans that think smoking is stinky.
But go to 90% of the rest of NC (including my hometown)in a local dive beer joint and you might get a different reaction.
Non-smokers who disapprove of government intrusion are in denial?
What I am seeing are a bunch of conservatives who oppose government intrusion, and a few whiny liberals who need big brother government to hold their hands.
Of course it is gaining ground. Just like every other socialist program we have implemented. No one respects private property any more and they feel more entitled to its use than the owner. Entitlement mentality is leading us down the path to ruin.
They're called closet smokers.
Thanks for the Background.
"Does YOUR desire not to have your clothes smell like smoke override MY desire to want to smoke?"
Neither desire matters at all. The only thing that matters is the desire of the property owner to cater to a specific market.
I totally agree with you.
Amazingly, over the years I have found that some of the most vocal opponents of these mandated smoking bans are owners of establishments that are already smoke-free. They have created their niche market and feel this is intrusive and will hurt their bottom line.
"What if a restaurant serves fish? Fish stinks. Should the gubment ban fish from all restaurants?"
Let's be even more realistic, some people have real, lifethreatening allergies to shellfish or peanuts. As a result we should ban all restaurants from serving shrimp and we should ban roasted peanuts from baseball games.
The antis just don't get 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.