“”Let me relate what took place in my area. Nobody would ban smoking. What they did is make accomodations for the non-smokers. They would put up a little six inch riser on the back of a seat and explain that smokers sit over there and non-smokers sit here.””
****************************
Your beef shouldn’t be with the smoker and their smoke, then. It should have been with the Private Business Owners who own the restaurants.
Pressure the restaurants to ban smoking on their own [and many already did on their own] and not to put in level playing field bans to every Tom, Dick and Harry establishment out there...
Some people like to go somewhere and smoke to enjoy their time more fully, others hate the smell of smoke. Some people like steak houses others like sushi...
If there’s an avenue to cater to the smoker, and profit can be made, why limit a Private Business Owners right to thrive?
Leveling the Playing field makes for a boring game.
To both of you and others, I appreciate the discussion. Look, I understand and agree with some of your agruements. I don’t like the idea of the government getting involved and telling folks what they can and can’t do. They have and in this instance I will admit to being glad they did.
Is it right that you shouldn’t have a place to frequent where you can smoke cigarettes and cigars and have a drink? I don’t think so.
It seems to me there should be a habidachery or some place where smokers could congregate and smoke. Then OSHIA would come in and step on that plan.
Let me ask you folks something. If the free market had gone it’s course and every establishment in the state would have gone non-smoking, would you have accepted that?
I expect one of two responses, one more than the other.
Here’s the one I expect most. That wouldn’t have happened. Some places would have remained a smoking establishment. AT first I would agree. But then as the business dwindled, I’m not so sure it would have remained that way.
Here’s the one I expect after that. No.