There is a smoking ban bill making its way through the legislature. I know many people like this type of legislation because the majority of people don't smoke, even though it takes away the rights of private business owners to decide what type of customers they want. Anyway, that's not the point of me starting this thread. The bill was amended that would exempt certain restaurants. Why you ask? Because this lawmaker wants to continue smoking at Ruth's Chris and Sullivan's, two establishments frequented by the legislators.:nope: You know, there are days when I wouldn't mind seeing a plane flying into our state capitol.:hihi: Full Story
Re: Typical Lousiana Politics... OK, would one of you admins edit the title of this thread for me? I really can spell the state where I live.:grin:
Re: Typical Lousiana Politics... Sounds like typical politics in general. The rest of the country's politicians are no different. They want to regulate our lives, so long as it doesn't affect theirs - just like the legislation that came up with restricting driving big vehicles but they wanted to still have theirs... I think that was in California. Politics... :angryfire They will restrict what ages and times people can drink, and then get their child off the hook if caught. They make drugs illegal and then use them behind closed doors.
Re: Typical Lousiana Politics... I could not agree more. I am a non-smoker, but this legislation just makes me boil. If a business owner, who is paying through the nose in taxes, wants to choose to make his business non-smoking, than so be it. If I, as a non-smoker, do not want to be around smoke, then I should choose a restaurant where smoking is not as prevalent. What happened to the free enterprise system where the demand of the consumer controls what suppliers provide?
Re: Typical Lousiana Politics... I see nothing wrong with a ban on smoking in restaurants. Hell, do it for bars, as well. It was so nice getting home from a bar in NYC and not smelling like an ash tray. As for restaurants, I honestly can't stand it when I'm trying to eat a meal and somebody at my table or another table lights up a cigarette. I will have an occasional cigarette from time to time, but I can't stand second-hand smoke (ironic, huh?). As for the bill, you either make a law that encompasses every restaurant or leave the issue alone. But yes, it is kind of convenient how Chris' and Sullivan's were left out of the bill. Politics as usual...
Re: Typical Lousiana Politics... What's next: The last report I've seen, over 75,000 people die each year from alcohol related deaths. Shouldn't we expect the gov't to protect these people, too? Shouldn't they protect me from those who go to restaurants and bars, drink too much, and then get in the car and kill me? Ban all public drinking. And what about all the unhealthy foods these restaurants serve us. Shouldn't we get some protection from the gov't? Afterall, we have an obesity epidemic on our hands in this country. Let's do what is best for them as well. Ban all unhealthy foods. Seriously, if cigs are as bad as our gov't claims, then shouldn't they make tobacco illegal? They estimate about 400,000 people die from smoking, yet they allow it to be sold legally. But yet they illegalize performance enhancing drugs and steroids because a handful of people died. Go figure...
Re: Typical Lousiana Politics... The bill makes no reference to those restaurants individually. That is just creative writing on the part of the person who wrote the article. Ruth's Chris and Sullivan's will have to enclose their bar areas (if they are not already?) in order to allow smoking in the bar areas to continue. I believe all restaurants have until January to do that. Looks like the writer is stirring the pot, saying that the politicians managed to write the bill in a manner which still allows them to smoke in their stomping grounds and hangouts. Read or skim over the entire bill on the senate website. It's only ten pages.
Re: Typical Lousiana Politics... if you owned a bar in new york, and all your smoking customers started taking the short train ride to hoboken to drink and smoke, wouldnt you feel like it was unfair that you couldnt choose for yourself whether your bar allowed smokers? i dont smoke either, and occasionally i cut off my friends when they stink up my house with smoke. but i dont go telling others what they can do at their house.
Re: Typical Lousiana Politics... That's ridiculous. Most restaurants have the smoking and non-smoking sections divided by glass or completely apart from each other. Not to mention the ventilation is usually pretty good in those places so the smoke doesn't go wafting through the air, clear across the restaurant and even if it did the smoke rises so it would be above your head before it got to you anyway. If it is somebody at your table smoking ask them not to smoke at the table with you, most people are pretty nice when it comes to these kind of things and will respect your wishes. As for sitting at a table next to someone smoking simply ask to sit in a non-smoking area. As for the bill, I am totally against it as a non-smoker but if it does pass it has to be all restaurants or none, it can't be selective ones. And if a restaurant wants to have people smoking everywhere I will choose to go to another restaurant or get my food to go and not worry about it, capitalism is a wonderful thing.
