Like you I don't necessarily buy the second hand smoke figures. I do think second hand smoke is detrimental none the less. And I don't see why I should have to put up with it.
Going in to public place we are equals. Those who pick up a cigarette place me at a disadvantage. I can't get away from them unless I completely give up eating out, going to a bar or dancing in public. They still can enjoy those pleasures. The only thing is, they will have to wait until they go outside to poisen themselves.
I may not be exposed to smokers day in and day out, but waitresses, bartenders and other employees are constantly. As much as I wish smokers could smoke in public without affecting everyone else, they can't.
Five years ago I and the other non-smokers were freed from the stench. I am glad.
You still don't get it. The bar/restaurant business is a hospitility business. Why was it necessary for the government to get involved in controlling business owner's? Why couldn't the business owner let his patron's dictate how they want the atmosphere of the place?
You and your family will NEVER make up for all the lost revenue all over the state, just because you do not like the smell of smoke.
Let's be fair here. The world does not and should not rotate on one person's butt. If I do not like the surroundings in one bar/restaurant, I take my purse on down the street. I think that works out a heck of a lot better then the heavy hand of government.
"Now that others must do what I want, and at my convenience, we are equals"... uh-huh.
Next, will you cheer for "equality" when those annoying guns (which are such a huge health hazard, and make one afraid to go outside) are banned? How about when non-politically-correct statements (which are so annoying, hateful, and supportive of violence) are banned in public as well? Yes, equality for all, as long as that annoying legal act is banned, as only one side wants.
Of course you should be able to dictate what a business owner can allow his patrons to do in his own place...
L
I can't get away from them unless I completely give up eating out, going to a bar or dancing in public.
You don't have to put up with it. You don't have to go where you are so easily offended by smoke. I have never heard someone who has to shower and shampoo after being exposed to cigarette smoke. What do you do about automobile exhaust? Your second statement is almost a lie. I am certain there are many places you can go to that are non-smoking. It appears you just want everyone to conform to your desires and to not offend you.
By the way, I am a non-smoker.
Why couldn't we have "choice" where the owner gets to set the perameters for behavior in his establishment? I truly believe that non-smoking bars and restaurants could succeed by establishing a clientele of like minds and the rest of us old butt-smoking drunks could have our places and never the twain shall meet.
Could it be that despite people who don't like smoking, such as yourself, that non-smoking bars and restaurants probably would not survive without coercion from goobermint type repressives?
"You're one!"
"No, I'm not! You are!"
"Oh, yeah?"
"Yeah!"
Gotta love it!
I fixed your little intentional error.
....well alot of people think your small children should be banned from resturants
.... where they want a nice relaxing meal and don't want to sit by your kid jumping or screaming.
....or don't want to have to clean their cloths because they sat on the sticky stuff your children spilt all over.
....of course, I am sure, you would be the first one screaming your rights have been trampled on!
My new home in Idaho features no smoking bans. As before, I don't patronize businesses where the tobacco stench is intolerable. The local Denny's has lost my patronage until they bulldoze it. The Pine Ridge restaurant has a separate non-smoking room. The front room just plain stinks. Perkins has the smoking section next to the lobby. If you can get a seat quickly, it is possible to get clear of the smelly part of the restaurant. If there is a wait, I go elsewhere. Many restaurants in town do a credible job of separating the smokers from the non-smokers. Frontier Pies, Eduardo's Mexican and the Continental Bistro do a very good job.
The small number of restaurants in town that have gone non-smoking are always filled. It's harder to get a seat now than before they went non-smoking.
The bars in town are places to smoke, drink and enjoy a good old fashioned bar fight. The bouncers are skilled at hurting people. One kid in his 20's was chased across the street and left most of the flesh on his face plastered to the brick wall surrounding the FBI compound. It knocked him out cold. They left him unattended. He eventually regained consciousness and found his way to a hospital.
I may not be exposed to smokers day in and day out, but waitresses, bartenders and other employees are constantly.As a part-time bar employee who does not smoke, I can assure you that virtually every employee I know would strongly oppose a smoking ban in bars. Not only would we lose clientele, but enforcement would be a huge PITA. This is liberal logic here, "sticking up" for someone without bothering to consider their opinions on the matter.
Most bars have equipment that reduces the amount of smoke. Even smokers don't particularly care for too much ETS. But I daresay that the type of people who are excessively hoity about smoking aren't likely to come to our place anyway.
-Eric
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.
You are wrong. You, as a person who would exercise his freedom to choose and take your business elsewhere...perhaps to a place that has separated smoking and non smoking sections...wield greater power than the rest.
Your views are not commensurate with the freedoms and ideals that most in this forum cherish.