care to take another guess? I personally can't stand the smell of cigarettes when I'm at a restaurant. Hate would actually be a better word. It is one of the few things that will cause me to lose my appetite ok, you're wanting to off people with a slug from a .45, yet you think I need to calm down? you live in a completely different world than I do apparently. business owners' rights are being trampled. I do not own a business, never have. So, technically, it ain't my rights I'm bitching about. See but even those rights that don't directly benefit me personally need to be defended. I don't want those guys to lose their rights anymore than I want you or me to lose ours.
Considering every other public building or establishment has a ban on smoking in Louisiana this is just an expantion of what already is in place. Now I am in no way condoning anything the hinders the free market , but to play devil's advocate here, what is to say this ban will actually hinder the free market. How many people can honestly say they go to the casino or bar to smoke. I would think the % would be very close to 0. Smoking is merely a by product of this. My next question would be how hard is it to step outside for a few minutes to smoke, do they not already do this when they are at work because of the ban on smoking in public buildings? And finally, how many smokers who want to go to a casino or bar, would drive all the way to another state just so they could do both inside a building, under the assumption they don't live right on the border across from another city? My point is that is it really going to stop people who gamble from going to the casino and people who like to drink in public from going to a bar? The current ban hasn't stopped people from eating in restraunts. I really don't think you can make the argument that it will hinder business if all are required to adhere to the law. However, I could be wrong. I do know that Atlantic City either made some kind of compromise by creating a room, or started allowing smoking in the casinos again. And I do know the ban was partially put in place with the health of the workers in mind. But I think the reversal had to do with already falling profits because the economy was turning bad at the time and they didn't want to do anything to run off the customers they did have. As for my opinion, I'm torn because I don't like the idea of taking choices out of peoples hand but at the same time I don't like breathing in second hand smoke. Which is why I make the choice to go to restraunts to drink and I only play at the poker tables in casinos where smoking is prohibited at almost all if not all of the casinos. But I still have the choice.
once again though you failed to address my other point-- the pollution you're sucking up from tailpipes and plants on daily basis are a much greater health risk than going to a restaurant once a week or month you seem to be concerned with. Ironically, you have no choice in that matter whatsoever. a public place mind you. yet its obvious you dont understand that concept as shown before. a simple yet fundamental concept. have you ever been to a bar and counted the people who are not smoking? you can usually do so on one hand. but thats not the issue at all. its the issue of privacy and anything that limits the rights of the owner, limits the choices of the customer which is inherently bad for any capitalistic economy. you should almost never argue in favor of something just because everyone else has done it. in fact, you should usually do the opposite. even 1000 times so if the opposite favors less government and more individual choice.
The gov't tried to ban alcohol in the past. Results weren't very pretty. I am for smaller, less intrusive government. We are well beyond overregulated. But never fear, our incredible government will step in. Heck, the gov't made the cigarette manufacturers create negative ads against their own product. How communist is that? I happen to draw the line at smoking. I don't smoke. I have never had firsthand smoke. I have had more than my fair share of secondhand smoke. You can claim all you want that you are stepping up for a business owner that is going to lose his business. I think the bottom line is...When someone's actions have a disparate impact on others, it is the government's job to regulate those actions. If you want to putrify your own liver, knock yourself out. You can drink all you want and you aren't going to inflict the first bit of damage to my liver. However, your secondhand smoke is impacting my lungs, and the lungs of every other person in that immediate vicinity, potentially predisposing me (us) to cancer. I was a huge fan of the "smoking room" at the airport. I loved watching all the poor bastids in a room full of carcinogens, steady puffing away. At least for me, I didn't have to be in that room, inhaling all that crap. But we could all still be at the airport. If we could make a small room at the back of the bar, where all the smokers could hang out, and the rest of the public could enjoy smoke-free, eardrum damaigng music, the world would be a wonderful place.
you can draw the line in not stepping in private owner's establishment that allows smoking and heading on over to the one that doesnt. simple concept. you can regulate your personal choices just fine if you want.
All of that is just fluff and smoke screen because you can't come up with a legitimate reason why non smokers should have to breath your toxic smoke simply because you chose to kill yourself. Car pollution is a totally separate issue although no less unhealthy.
I agree, but where are these no smoking bars that the market should be bringing to fruition? I would patronize them if I knew where they were.
i dont smoke. im able to separate my inconveniences for personal choice. and not only is it a legitimate point, its rather strange how you seem overly concerned with second hand smoke yet likely dont worry over the carbon monoxide you breathe in traffic where you have no choice. its a public place. that causes you more harm. maybe you should take your .45 and shoot all those in SUV's on your way to work or perhaps the foreman at the chemical plant. I mean, what about your sacred rights? and yes its a separate issue although a glaring one which almost voids anyone arguing against their choice in a private place when they can hardly do so for a public one.
But the market didn't bring that about. Government trampling the rights ob business owners did. I am kind of torn on this one between the principles of liberty and the excitement at the prospects of going to a bar at 1 AM and not having to suck down secondhand smoke.
