Posted on 01/06/2003 6:58:16 AM PST by SheLion
You've got that right Mr. Jefferson! Not only on this topic but other issues as well....anyone who doesn't agree with them, they would just as well put them in prison rather than do anything that would acknowledge other peoples rights as citizens of the United States of America. And to think....some of these people even have the nerve to 'complain' about the Taliban and Cuba and whatever - many of them would feel right at home with those people! Hypocrits one and all :-(
Recently, a buddy and I decided to go out to dinner and a movie. First, we went to Outback Steak House, who allows smoking in the bar (we both smoke, this was a consideration), but they were totally packed. So rather than wait 40 to 60 mins, we went to Tony Roma's, a short distance away. Tony Roma's prohibits smoking, even at the bar, which was fine by us, we CHOSE to eat there anyhow. The food was delicious, service excellent, but after dinner we wanted to visit and smoke at the same time. So, we went to another restaraunt, a regional 24-hour chain, most of whose stores allow smoking. There, we sat and had coffee, smoked and visited until it was time to go to the movie.
What is wrong with this?!? Everyone invloved has choices of where they want to go to dine out. In a truly public building (courthouse, DMV, etc.) there are no options to go to a different branch, so smoking is prohibited. But to dine out, the options are EVERYWHERE, even in small towns like the one that I am originally from. It seems as tho you antis have a problem with SMOKERS, yet you exercise your anger and strip rights away from people offering hospitality for a fee, denying them the right to run their business as they see fit. Where I live (WA State) where there is no ban, the options to dine out are virtually endless, and just as many (probably more) prohibit smoking as allow it. Why cant you just let them alone? Power-trip, self-righteous socialism at its finest, if you ask me...JFK
I agree with you. Tequila in a bar is a temptation to me and I am mean if I drink it. It should be banned.
I want Southern Comfort banned - if someone sitting next to me orders a drink with SC in it I have to move because the smell of it makes me violently ill. Why should I have to move? Why should that person have the right to inflict the odor of that nasty stuff on me???
Yes, I know I'm being ridiculous - but my initial comment about both liquors are the truth.
But the premise is the same as these whiney wimps about a bit of cigarette smoke.
I and all my friends in California are pleased as we could be about the smoking ban...At least until the California nannies learn what the Virginia nannies have been up to.Yipee for you...now you and your friends can go to bars and get stone-cold drunk and all go drink and drive if you feel like it ~~~ AND be able to get sick on booze at the bar without having to worry about all of those nasty smokers.
-Eric
I walk away from Free Republic a lot over that statement. And the fact of life that even our own kind hate us. How can anyone win any issue, when we can't even protect and stick-up for our own, babyface?
It brings to mind the comment a 7-11 store worker said to me once. I asked him how he was doing and he just shook his head and said, "Well, the whole damn country is just going to $h!t"....funny but I often think of that guy and how he said what he said. I don't think I could put it any better than that.
DON'T LAUGH! The anti's have marched into Las Vegas too!
Casino profits could go up in (no) smoke
LAS VEGAS - Perhaps the biggest threat to growth in the U.S. casino industry comes not from antigambling interests, but from health-conscious public officials.
On the other hand, there is this thing called ballot initiative? Which is utilized by people who know what democracy is? When the public voted to ban smoking, it was the will of the people in action. It was needed because the insensitive smokers are unable to smell their own stink, and be sensitive to others! Now you live with the law of the land. You are the cry babies.
That is correct.
However, the right to frequent the establishment is based upon the establishment wanting your patronage.
The desire of an establishment wanting your patronage as opposed to mine has to do with numerous factors including the establishments right to choose clientele, cuisine, price, seating arrangement, entertainment, etc.
Your demand is to remove one of those choices from ALL establishments. Even those establishments where you would never set foot because of your preferences to other types of whatever.
Of course, you can either believe those who have been affected by the ban who say they've been hurt or you can believe the studies and uneducated opinion that say they haven't. Frankly, I can't see any reason for business owners to lie about it since if the ban had been good for their business, they'd be pretty happy about it instead of fighting and defying it.
It is their choice to work in establishments that smoke. In fact, I would be willing to bet that those who work in those jobs are disproportionately smokers themselves and are likely some of the loudest opponents of such BS legislation. As I said before, it has nothing to do with protecting anybody and everything to do with controlling everybody.
I do not smoke and I am fairly sensitive to cigarette smoke, but having smoking areas is certainly adequate to accommodate everybody. Non-smokers who can't compromise to allow smokers equal rights, not to mention the rights of private business owners to choose what they will and will not allow in their OWN establishments are as bad as the whining liberals who advocate the confiscation of whatever of our rights they choose to put on their "pet freedom to go after this month" list.
What will be next? Will McDonald's be required to ban fat people because they are obviously being adversely effected by fast food? Will SUV's or even private vehicles be banned because people are being forced to breathe fumes? Would you be okay with being required to use public transportation if you wnat to get to work or take your kids to school or to the doctor? It isn't, after all, that far off. The same folks who are such vicious advocates of smoking bans, having pretty much scored an absolute victory in that area, are busily looking for new freedoms to eliminate and the ones I mentioned aren't too far removed from what they're scoping out.
The only time smoke is that big of a problem is if you have a lot of smokers in a small confined area with poor ventilation. Smokers and non-smokers co-existed and did just fine for generations before the PC smoking gestapo were unleashed and it is just wrong. Maybe smokers should start suing for illnesses contracted from being exposed to the elements when they want to smoke. There needs to be some balance in this issue and we need to get away from the all or nothing approach because any time you are at the extreme end of any issue such as this, somebody's rights are violated. Personally, I don't think we need to be justifying any more trade-offs on our liberties.
In AZ, many people are allergic to the Olive Trees people have planted in their yards. Should they all be forced to knock their trees down as not to upset their neighbors allergies? Alot of people are allergic to things. Your 'argument' makes no sense - you are grasping at straws - ssstttrrrraaaaaaaaaaaawwws ACHOO!
But this isnt a democracy. It is a republic. That means that all have rights that cannot be taken away by the whim of the majority. Dont business owners have rights too? You mentioned that banning smoking was put to a vote, but it wasnt. Whether business owners have the same rights to do with private property as they see fit the same is everyone else is what was voted on, and the whim of the majority stole the rights of these business owners. It is a shame. If you want to start a ballot initiative to prohibit tobacco altogether, fine, be my guest. As a smoker who sees the health benefits of quitting, I just might vote for it, especially considering it would do a good job of defunding the lefties by eliminating the discriminatory taxation on tobacco products.
But get your facts straight, the public did not vote to ban smoking, they voted to take the private property rights away from a minority of the citizens...JFK
What a laugh.
The Founders chose a republican form of government in order to avoid just the sort of tyranny of the majority that you're so heartily endorsing.
They feared that exactly your type of person would lead the charge against property rights and freedom of association, since they acknowledged the dark side of human nature and knew it would come to pass eventually.
So they threw up as many roadblocks against the tyrannical majority as they could.
Erosion of the meaning of the Constitution and the intent of the Founders leaves us with, well - you.
God help us.
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.