Posted on 06/23/2002 9:26:10 PM PDT by chance33_98
Smoking Ban Hurting Tempe Restaurants
Tempe, June 19 (AP) -- It may be a breath of fresh air to walk into restaurants here and not smell smoke, but restaurant and bar owners say they're smothering.
They are asking the City Council to do something to ease the financial pain arising from the new, restrictive anti-smoking ordinance.
A number of owners say revenue is down by as much as 20 percent since the voter-approved ordinance took effect May 30. They plan to outline their concerns during a council meeting Thursday.
"You can either kill yourself with gloom and doom, or you can take the tack that clean air is far better than dirty air," said Lee Fairbanks, who spearheaded the campaign to restrict smoking. "It's healthy, it's better than sitting in a cloud of cancerous smoke."
Since Tempe voters approved the most stringent smoking ban in the area, police have responded to 38 complaints of smokers in bars and restaurants but issued no citations.
PROVE IT!
Actually, it was a comment on your logic.
"You say we are all owed courtesy, but we are not. "
No, I said we used to be a courteous society.
"We owe neither the government nor you anything."
That is why people must take it. And, that is what non-smokers are doing. Rather than being considerate of others, you insist upon your "rights." That is why to accomplish anything, non-smokers are taking the initiative.
"If a group of blacks, whites, blacks and whites, Swahilis, Norwegians, Freemasons, Mossad agents, communists, anarchists, Republicans, or even a Genuine Dyed-In-The -Wool Registered Democrat, want to get together and drink and smoke 'til death do them part, it is simply not the states business."
That is true as long as they do it amongst themselves.
Says who.
Probably not. The tobacco companies will go broke from litigation before any such law would be passed.
It is no surprise that, although the poster even stated the source in the post, you still think that is a line from the Constitution.
And its no surprise that you do not understand that it does in deed mean property anyway. Your ignorance notwithstanding.
Great Dane, go and gnaw on that bone. You are late to this conversation.
Tally, are you back again? Remember our last post.
Don replies: That is why people must take it. And, that is what non-smokers are doing. Rather than being considerate of others, you insist upon your "rights." That is why to accomplish anything, non-smokers are taking the initiative.
There you have it, folks! Don in a nutshell. No further discussion warranted.
Don, you are correct in this statement and, IMHO, it should still hold true, however, we are not talking about someone deliberately blowing smoke into someone's face, we are talking about people frequenting places that already have, at least, somewhat seperate areas for those who smoke and those who do not. The bigger issue still remains; whether it is a proper function of government to mandate private behavior on private property. Case in point - let's try porno houses. I certainly believe they should be erradicated BUT that doesn't give me the right to tell the government to close them all down. Capish?
Have you been in a bull ring recently?
Oh, I understand. the problem is that non-smokers have had to go this route to get anything done.
Somebody help me out here - there's a quote about the government gaining more power and control by making more and more things illegal - I DO wish I could remember it word for word ..... anyway - it certainly fits here, doesn't it. Just like gun laws, pot laws, minimum ages for this and that, I seriously doubt that there are any among us who haven't broken some law or the other even if it was done completely innocently. When there is nothing left that is not regulated or taxed we have ceased to be free. Slaves with an illusion of freedom are still slaves, after all.
On the one hand you're telling us second-hand smoke is a killer, and smokers are a danger to non-smokers. On this basis you think it's perfectly ok for the government to control the use of public and private property to regulate its use.
Yet on the other hand you think smoking should remain legal? Your own reasoning argues against your position here. If it's dangerous enough to regulate its use on private property, why should it remain legal? Why would you oppose those who want to ban it?
Don replies: That is why people must take it. And, that is what non-smokers are doing. Rather than being considerate of others, you insist upon your "rights." That is why to accomplish anything, non-smokers are taking the initiative.
That is the scariest statement I have read on these boards. He is justifying the erosion of individual rights. That is the worst of all possible cancers, and ironically, once he supports.
Wrong. Non-smokers have gone this route because they want to have their cake (eat in certain restaurants) and eat it too (and have them behave in the way that THEY like). Therein lies the problem - SOME people forcing others to act in a manner that they LIKE with government powers to back them up.
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.