Posted on 11/08/2005 11:37:13 AM PST by SheLion
The city, county nor the state governments should have any right imposing no smoking prohibitions on any owner of a restaurant or bar. It's the owners property and they should set the rules. How about a restaurant make the rule that all chicken or pork must be eaten raw if you are to patronize their establishment.
If you don't want to get wet, don't go in the water.
Yet another way the gubmit is mommie and daddy for those of us who don't know what's best for us.
Washington, the whole state, I believe, is voting on this TODAY!
"I cannot speak for the board's position on this issue, but I can say that I personally support this measure in the strongest possible terms. The weight of the medical evidence overwhelmingly points to second-hand smoke as a danger to non-smokers.
"We restrict many of life's activities by time, place and manner to ensure public health or safety," Van Meter added. "In my opinion, smoking should be similarly restricted. One person's pleasure should not be another person's health risk."
Van Meter apparently is incapable of reading for himself and only parrots the anti-smoker talking points, he also needs to be seeking another line of work.
What about second hand drinking? Izzat dangerous too?
I predict that in the next few years, somewhere like San Francisco will ban meat products from all restaurants. It's not a matter of if, just when.
the Indian casino lands...which seem to be whereever they want to buy....are exempt from any rulings....so our tax paying restaurants and bars are being punished and some will not survive if they lose 10, 20, 30 % or more of their business....
...first, this state gave the okay for a tribe to buy land near the city to build its own casino and restaurants and entertainment facilities....
then the state when it had the chance to refused to allow simple slot machines in taverns or dance halls,etc....
and then the stupid voters decided we shouldn't have all those evil slots just anywhere so an initiative failed last year that would have allowed some slots at bars, etc away from the casino.....that initiative was defeated by Indian casino money.....
how far can a community go in giving away millions and millions of tax revenue to non-tax paying tribes and not have it affect every facet of government....and that means my property taxes and sales taxes keep going up and up and up.....
As many of you know, we have the no smoking law in Florida. It covers restaurants and bars serving less than 10% food. However, one can smoke to his or her hearts content in the Seminole Casinos. But, that's their rule, not the states. You can't smoke in their restaurants, however, anywhere. I have no problems with that. It's their rule. Again, it is my opinion that the owners make the rules and not the government. Sushi chicken, anyone?
In my opinion the evidence of second hand smoke being a serious health risk is dubious. However, if people feel that it is dangerous, they have the choice to not patronize places where smoking is allowed.
I'd be happier if people did not smoke in public places. However, I don't see any need for laws to force that on business owners.
I am quite capable of walking out of a resturant that I feel is too smoky. I've done it before and I'll likely do it again.
It's safe, as long as you're not mixing.
Do you feel the same about a state law that forces private employers to allow their employees to carry a firearm onto the employer's property? I only ask because to me the argument is the same in both situations, yet many Freepers who oppose govenment regulation of smoking on private property don't seem to have a problem when the issue concerns firearms.
Let's see. How many folks do you know who have died from second hand smoke? It's a bunch of BS! Guns don't kill, people do. Apparently, given your question or statement about carrying direarms to work, you don't think people should. Good for you! I hope the police in your community don't carry guns! One thing your argument lacks is, common sense!
Thanks for your honest, but incredibly stupid response. The issue is not whether second hand smoke causes cancer or cures cancer or whether guns or good or bad. The issue is government regulation of private property. If I own a private business that I operate on private property, then I should have the right to set my own rules. If you don't like cigarette smoke, then don't eat in my restaurant and don't ask me for a job. And if I want to ban firearms on my property -- or require you to carry a firearm on my property -- and you don't like my rules, then don't come to me for a paycheck. But I don't want government telling me what I can and cannot do on my property.
Thank you! I had to dumb down to get to your level!
If I had employees as stupid as you, I would ban them from carrying a firearms also. Too bad you can't think in the abstract and have a rational discussion about legal principles without getting hung up on the word "gun." The issue is I was trying to discuss is not smoking or firearms, specifically, but government regulation of business and the erosion of private property rights. Have a nice day and try not to hurt yourself.
The fact that personal property rights are being taken away by the government, whether it is a smoking ban or whatever, from the owners of establishment, is wrong and has always my premise. You brought the guns to this fight!
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.