Restaurant smoking ban in Baton Rouge

Just think, if it wasn't for those pesky cigarettes, we'd all be immortal.

 

I will now breathe large quantities of polluted air without all that smoke getting in the way!:hihi:

I'm so glad my government is looking out for me...

 

Fascinating discussion here!
I found the Colorado bartender quote quite interesting and then SabanFan's quote quite better, a classic SF quote.
I have mixed feelings about this subject.
I don't want the government really policing every aspect of our society, it really seems like government keeps growing and gets more powerful every year.
I honestly believe we are at a crisis in this country from what our Founding Fathers feared and theres nothing I can do about it.

Someone mentioned outlawing smoking in a car here.
Like I've said here many times who is at the switch and determines what is right or wrong or where does it all end?
In government we tend to overdue things and take things further than origionally planned.
That is my whole argument about moving godly things from our society.
Not trying to change subject just showing my consistantcy here.

The whole problem with this situation is that smokers should show more courtesy when smoking around non-smokers without puffing smoke in someones face.
There is nothing more annoying than a smoker that isn't pollite.
You should have the choice to go somewhere based on several factors, there are choices and consequences for every decision in life including going to a place full of smoke, I don't like it but neither do I like the government taking
over every aspect of my life.

 

Slippery-slope logic is just silly. It's like that senator (?) who was saying that if we allow gays to get married, then we'll have to allow people to marry pigs and whatever other animals he mentioned.

No one is proposing a ban on smoking. Of course, people should be allowed to do whatever stupid things to their bodies that they please. But it's when these things begin to effect other people that it's an issue. You can't go into a restaurant and release other sorts of substances that would harm people. So if ETS is as harmful as some are proposing, then why should that be any different? Because it's effects take years to develope? It's not just an annoyance issue. If that was it, I wouldn't be defending it, because I'd also have to support restrictions on cell-phone usage and bans on Hummers.

I think that steroids, as well as other drugs, should be legal as long as meatheads aren't running around sticking their needles in other people. If you want to shave years off of your own life, be my guest. Just don't make it my problem.

 

If people were developing illnesses that had a correlation to perfume exposure, then it may be an issue. I suppose, for clarity, that's worth reiterating that this isn't an issue of annoyance. That seems to keep getting ignored.

 

You seem to be ignoring that you're taking away the freedom of choice of 2/3 of the groups this law affects. Business owners can no longer choose what happens in the place that they are finacially responsible for, and smokers cannot choose whether or not to light up. But since the group that you belong to get their choice, you're happy. This law is all about freedom. You don't have to go into a place where smoking is allowed. You can avoid it if you choose. You're conviently forgetting that you choose whether or not to frequent these establishments.

 

It goes both ways if you chose to smoke you can just stay home and allow the non smokers to eat in the rest. The business doesn't have to worry about a smoker suing him for not allow him to practice his freedom to light up. Cracker Barrel is already doing this and it is just as full as it has always been. Want to smoke, go outside. That what I do.

 

You and Nutria are both right. However, it comes down to who decides what goes on in their business -- the owner or the government. I'm a bit surprised that the supporters of this legislation haven't enacted laws requiring cloth napkins or free Cokes. After all, the majority of people like nice napkins and Cokes. Especially when it's "free."

Ignored? You ignored the fact that I got a headache from this heffer's perfume. And it happens very frequently. Who's to say that perfume doesn't cause cancer?

I dunno...but it sure does cause headaches, which is a helluva lot more severe than somebody dying when it's their time anyway (be it because of cancer-causing power lines, water, cell phones, industry pollutants, bad genes, second hand smoke, first hand smoke, sunbathing, pesticides, or anything else that has a link to the Big C.)

 

You have to define private.

Maybe 1-50 restaurants are owned privately, the rest belong to a public exchange or are given tax incentives to operate their businesses there. Once tax breaks, stipends, or rebates are given to any company for operation then yes the governement has every right to impose their will on them or remove the funds or fine the establishment for violation of the contract they signed prior to opening their establishment. This incluldes taking a government subsidized loan at a below market interest rate.

If you are talking about a mom and pop place that has never received any benefit from state, federal, or local goverment at all, then yes they should be able to make their own decisions about their own place of establishment, but I can tell you now that those places are very far and few inbetween.