Posted on 10/20/2007 1:52:53 PM PDT by Wheee The People
I agree. That’s why I said “many” not “all” smokers. I say let the marketplace speak but please smokers - pick up your butts and be considerate when lighting up in front of others!
In effect what you are saying is that every non-smoker should just stay home. Very few restaurants will implement a no-smoking policy because there’s always the place down the street that allows it. Non-smokers won’t show up so the business is impacted negatively.
If all businesses are non-smoking, then everyone is free to use every restaurant. Even smokers can breathe there.
I’m not familiar with the KELO decision. There may have been some negative unintended consequences or enhanced implementation that you’re referencing that I am not aware of.
If you’d like to explain, I’ll respond.
When two people walk into a restaurant they are equal. As they both share the same air they are equal. As they eat they are equal. When they pay the bill and tip the waiter they are equal. As they leave they are equal.
When one of those people lights up, they are no longer equal. Once person is enjoying his habit while the other person is having to deal with the stink.
Who took the offending action?
I know you think you are advancing the cause of freedom. I don’t see it that way at all. You are advocating the freedom to destroy someone else’s freedom, and then telling that person whose freedom was impacted that they are in fact the one destroying the other person’s freedom.
That libertarian guideline has been repeated to me many times. It shouldn’t be something that only applies when it works for your benefit.
Thanks for the response.
Well, that’s the way I see it as well. I appreciate your comments.
How can you call smoking bans an infringement on property rights when it is the restaurant owners themselves that support statewide smoking bans.
For example even in the Great State of Texas the Texas Restaurant Association supports a statewide restaurant smoking ban.
http://www.restaurantville.com/v2/std/newsrelease.cfm?newsid=22
The government took the offending action, by removing the option from the private property owner to invite smoking customers.
The thought of eating sushi repels me, so I avoid sushi restaurants.
For the life of me, I will never understand why anti-smokers seem unable to make a simple choice. Enter, or not.
Libertarianism argues in favor of private property rights; socialism argues "equality."
Libertarians shout rights when it suits them. Non-smokers only have a right to stay home.
Just the opposite. If the non-smokers are indeed a majority and represent most of the people, than any business owner would be advised to have a no-smoking policy to solicit their business. Those businesses that permit smoking would attract less business and cater to essentially the smoking crowd, if smoking is as offensive as you believe. Instead of having the goverment mandate no-smoking, let the people decide with their feet.
Very few restaurants will implement a no-smoking policy because there’s always the place down the street that allows it.
That defies your basic premise. If smoking is so popular that the place down the street can draw customers away from the places that have a no-smoking ban, that should tell you something.
If all businesses are non-smoking, then everyone is free to use every restaurant. Even smokers can breathe there.
Spoken like a true socialist. Why can't someone who smokes [a legal substance] be able to go to a restaurant and enjoy a cigarette or a cigar after a meal? We are fast approaching a complete nanny state where the government decides what is best for us and what is offensive. One size doesn't fit all. People should have a choice just like they do between a Prius and an SUV.
My wife is a smoker. I have never smoked. I don't advocate smoking. It is a bad habit. However, I don't want smokers to be considered as lepers. Don't businesses have a right to cater to them as well. If smoking is so bad or offensive, then ban it. Otherwise, let the business owners and the consumers decide where they will eat and drink.
Shouldn't the decision be up to each restaurant owner and the individual customer? If the restaurant owners are so opposed, then we should allow them to make the decision rather than having mandated by government bans. Using your logic, the effect will be the same.
From your link:
“TRA members recognize that the current disparities that exist in smoking bans enacted at the local level have had a detrimental impact on the restaurant industry in Texas,” said Richie Jackson, TRA executive vice president/CEO. “By applying an equitable ban that is enforced in all workplaces, we will ensure a level playing field and the $32 billion Texas restaurant industry will continue its vital role in our state’s economy.”
In essence, when one town or area bans smoking, some patrons go to other towns or areas without the smoking bans, thereby harming the restaurants in the areas with the bans.
The phrase ‘level playing field’ just makes it easier to back, it’s a pretty business term.
If you want my opinion about what the best situation would be, I’ll give it to you. If the offending party would simply use some common courtesy, none of this would be necessary.
If smokers would go outside or simply hold off smoking for the hour to hour and a half they were in the establishment, none of this would be taking place.
Instead we have to look for a solution to this mess.
You have advocated to have feet make the decision. I don’t think that would alleviate the problem, but that’s my thought on it.
Non-smokers have a right to patronize establishments that cater to their wishes; they don't have a right to call on the full force of the government to force property owners to cater to their wishes.
A free person has choices, which implies that alternatives exist.
The fact is that overtime, due to public demand, the number of venues where smoking is permitted will continue to decrease.
This is true from the movie theater to the airplane to the office to the restaurant.
The owners of all the above at first resisted smoking bans but now if bans were lifted very few if any would revert back to the days where smoking would be permitted in their venues.
You expect addicts to abate their addiction for an whole hour and a half!
The owners of all the above at first resisted smoking bans but now if bans were lifted very few if any would revert back to the days where smoking would be permitted in their venues.
#################
Well then, let’s try it, I’m game... Lift all these draconian bans and see who reverts back to smoking or not.
Free Market - What a Concept!!!
Opinions are like a##holes, everyone has one. You consider smoking to be offensive. Not everyone does. It is a legal substance, but the politicians won't ban it because it is a cash cow for them. They would rather add 61 cents a pack tax to fund another socialist program.
If smokers would go outside or simply hold off smoking for the hour to hour and a half they were in the establishment, none of this would be taking place.
Why should they be inconvenienced if they would like to enjoy a cigar after dinner with a cognac? There would be no problem if people had choices between smoking and non-smoking restaurants and bars. Then there would be no one offended. You know as soon as you enter what the policy is. We don't need the smoke-Nazi to decide for us.
You have advocated to have feet make the decision. I don’t think that would alleviate the problem, but that’s my thought on it.
It is only a problem because we have some people trying to impose their views on others using the government as the instrument of enforcement. Taking it out of the hands of the individual consumer and business owner is the cause of the problem. Again, if smoking is that offensive and bad, it should be banned period.
Again, you don’t need government mandated bans to achieve that result if smokers are so offensive to the vast majority of people. Each business is capable of making that decision and so is each consumer. And certain businesses can decide to cater to the niche market.
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.