Doughnut shop bans children to allow customers to smoke

The Globe and Mail ^ | January 5, 2001 | Krista Foss

[proudofthesouth]

Personally, I'd go out of my way to visit a kid-free, smoking donut shop.

So would I. I see nothing wrong with this. People gripe about smokers but they willing take the revenue that the taxes on the cigarettes generate.

[Ditter]

Good one Howlin. ;9)

[Caipirabob]

..."Those businesses that are putting smokers ahead of youth are shortsighted and grossly irresponsible," he said. "They are putting profits ahead of employees and customers. This issue has always been about health."...

Most people who possess a functioning brain see it as an issue of business and profits. Democratic Socialists see it as an issue of children's health. When the stores that comply go out of business, where will the children go then?

Judging by the path this idiocy is taking they'll sue the stores that ban children for age discrimination.

[gundog]

Howlin,

I posted a link to this thread over at smirkingChimp. Here's a sample of what your post has engendered over there:

I've spent little time over at FR, but as others on this site have mentioned, it really is a nasty place. How could someone actually think it would be fun to see stacks of frozen children or to eat a donut in front of someone who wanted one, child or not? This is the kind of petty cruelty I would expect from sociopaths. Why all the hatred at soccer moms? I suspect it has to do with misogyny or a frustration because the world doesn't understand that it owes them merely because they're white men. Is that what the bulk of Freepers are like? If so, they really are nasty, selfish little people and hope I never have the displeasure to meet one. Yucky, yucky, yucky.

Just thought I'd share...they're really quite humorless over there.

gundog

[jimt]

I nominate you for best post of the day. It IS a beautiful story !

[Frohickey]

City councillor Mark Lubosch, who chairs the committee that pushed for a ban on smoking indoors, called the businesses choosing to ban children "laggards."

"Those businesses that are putting smokers ahead of youth are shortsighted and grossly irresponsible," he said. "They are putting profits ahead of employees and customers. This issue has always been about health."

Someone should give city councillor Mark Lubosch a class on what the main motive of businesses are. If its not making a profit, I don't know what it is.

[I'm_With_Orwell]

If that's the basis for their objection, then they are obviously not familiar with the case in which a homeless man's right to smell bad was upheld, on 1st Amendment grounds, against a public library which had banned him for the aforementioned smell.

That's why its become a "health issue" with 3,000, 12,000, 50,000 (pick your crap figure) deaths from passive smoke.

When you look behind the health facade, you see a bunch of people who don't like the way we smokers smell.

So, you can protect the rights of the 0.001% of the population who are homeless and smell bad, but you can't protect the rights of 20-30% of the population who some non-smokers think smell bad.

And anti-smokers think we are inconsiderate, when what they are really saying to us is, "You stink!"

Well, goodness me, I wonder why we give them the Marlboro King Size finger?

[gundog]

When you look behind the health facade, you see a bunch of people who don't like the way we smokers smell.

I think those people are just the useful idiots employed by those that would make everything a public health issue, and thus, under a socialized system of medicine, a matter for the State to deal with. Tobacco, alcohol, firearms, auto emissions, diet, exercise...the list of things is endless...but it's for our own good, you know. Or at least for the good of the children.