Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know that it is complicated, but the area within a foot or two of my body is my "personal space". Hey, I'm not concerned. Just three weeks and you can be the one annoyed.
The only example given in this thread that I can comment on is O'Sheas.
The wife and I have met friends there 2-3x and it was incredibly smoky even early in the evening.
I would not take my children there. Not because, in general, it did not appear kid-friendly, just too smoky.
We have not returned because of this, we voted with our dollars.
I value the proprietors decision on which clientele they wish to cater to, more than my desire to eat there.
I respect their freedom as opposed to the heavy hand of government intervention.
It is interesting in that, in this entire thread (which you started) you choose to pick out someone's grammatical mistakes, yet you ignore every question posed to you regarding the issue at hand. I guess that is what happens when someone cannot construct either a logical argument or response...just divert the issue on to something else.
So, what is the question? And, it was you that mixed government interference and tha banning of smoke. Nevertheless, I will wait for whatever question you say I didn't answer. By the way, you are obviously not aware of the posting to which I responded when "I picked out someone's grammatical mistakes."
Finally, I have no arguments with you. You have your opinions and I have mine. Just for the sake of humanity, I am glad that a step has been taken to clean up the environment and making places safer to visit. Take care, and I will gladly answer that question if you ask.
I don't know what Obama has to do with this thread.
Obama has a plan for cleaning our environment. Smoke is a pollutant. There is a connection. I would like to see him ban smoking in all public places in the U.S., but that is my opinion and I am allowed to have one as is everyone else. I was just kidding about Michelle's growing rear end, but it is true. I agree that it had nothing to do with the thread. My bad!
1 - Why do you believe that the owner of an establishment should not have the right to decide (voluntarily) what legal activities they wish to allow, or not allow, within said establishment, regardless of whether or not it is a decision that you agree with? Or to put it another way...why should they be forced by law to cater to your personal preferences?
2 - Given that the are a large number of establishments that are both smoke-free and smoker-friendly, why do you see it as such a big deal that both smokers and non-smokers can have choices of where they would prefer to go for a meal or a drink? What is wrong with having options available to everyone that will suit the preferences of different groups of individuals?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vindaloo
You have your opinions and I have mine.
True - and on this one we are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Although I do agree with you about cel-phones while driving.
But obesity does affect others. If members of our society become increasingly overweight, that leads to a rise in health problems related to being overweight. These health problems need to be treated, which costs money, which will come from taxes to fund government-subsidized healthcare and insurance premiums paid by both businesses and individuals. So people getting fat does affect others...as we all will end up paying to treat obesity-related health problems, including those individuals who stay lean, mean and healthy (its kind of like the way some people made a personal choice to buy a more expensive house than they could afford, defaulted on the loan, and now even those of us who were financially responsible are paying for their poor decisions).
I find it interesting that you mention personal choice, as the law you support takes away the ability for people to make choices and enforces a single standard upon everyone. In fact, I would think you would be against this law simply because it smacks of socialism, which you have expressed your dislike of in other threads.
Here's an example: Here in my 'hood (Ayrsley), you have several options for having a meal or a drink: Salsa's, Eat Here Now, Red Lion, Wild Wing Cafe, Potofino's, Saffron and Moe's.
With regards to smoking: only Wild Wing allows smoking inside, and Salsa's allows smoking in the bar area but not in the dining room. All of the other establishments are (voluntarily) smoke-free. (technically, Portofino's does allow smoking at their bar - but their small bar consists of 5 barstools and in all the times we have gone there, about once every two weeks over the past 1.5 years, there has only been one occasion where I have seen one individual having a cigarette there - so for sake of argument let's just call it smoke free).
So if you find yourself in Ayrsley and want to get something to eat or drink and you prefer to be in a smoke-free environment, you have 5 out of 7 restaurants which you can choose from; that seems like a wide range of choices to me. On the flip side, if someone else here does prefer to have a smoke while at the bar or the table, they have 2 out of 7 choices. Everyone has options - everyone has a "choice" - including yourself.
I fail to see the problem here and why this is an issue for people such as yourself who support this law. You do not like to be around smokers, and you have a wide variety of choices available to you in order to be in a smoke-free environment. Do you really like the mediocre food at Wild Wing that much that we need a law to force them to be smoke-free like pretty much every other restaurant in a three-block radius? This is a legit question - what is wrong with a mix of smoking and smoke-free environments where people can choose for themselves where they want to go?
And to the main point. Suppose I decide to open Tober's Bar here in Ayrsley (which would be establishment # 8). All of the costs incurred to open, run and maintain the joint come out of my pocket. Why do I have to be forced to cater to your specific needs as someone who has no ownership interest and no financial stake in my establishment? If I decide to allow smoking, you can stop by and say, "Hey, I like the food, but I don't think I will come back because I do not like being around all of the smokers." As a businessman, if I get that comment alot, I might decide I want to make the place non-smoking because that would be good for business. On the other hand, I can also say: hey - if you don't like it, you don't have come here; go down the street to the Lion instead. But that decision should be allowed to be mine, and mine alone, as the owner. Not yours or anyone else's.
Tober wins the thread.
I have spoken.
But vindaloo wins the law.
The legislature has spoken.
I don't smoke. I hate being around smoke. But what I hate more is the government sticking their noses in where it doesn't belong. And it doesn't belong here.
As a smoker I still dont want to smell smoke when I sit down to eat. I also will not stay if the music is overbearing to the point I have trouble hearing the quite conversation I may be having and I for sure will leave if I can here loud talk from the bar or profane language from anyone near by....It shouldnt be an issue to a smoker to have his smoke after he leaves the building unless they got parking lot smoke police.
1 - Why do you believe that the owner of an establishment should not have the right to decide (voluntarily) what legal activities they wish to allow, or not allow, within said establishment, regardless of whether or not it is a decision that you agree with? Or to put it another way...why should they be forced by law to cater to your personal preferences?
It is simple. Public restaurants are open to the public. The public must be protected from things that are harmful. The law is not catering to my preferences, it is catering to the majority. That is the way of democracy. It just seems that the new law worked in my favor. It isn' that I am so anti-smoking as much as I hate smelling like an ashetray and the headache and caugh I get from smoke. Even when I did smoke, I felt terrible after being in smoke filled bars, etc. I really don't mean to make you mad. It is just that it worked out for me and obviously not you this time. There are private establishments where a smoker can still go and enjoy smoking. I also believe that establishments that sell alcohol and no food are places where smoking is allowed. I am a member of the VFW and American Legion, but I will never go to because smoking is still permitted and practically everyone in them smoke. So, I will just support them with my annual dues and stay away.
2 - Given that the are a large number of establishments that are both smoke-free and smoker-friendly, why do you see it as such a big deal that both smokers and non-smokers can have choices of where they would prefer to go for a meal or a drink? What is wrong with having options available to everyone that will suit the preferences of different groups of individual
Because there are so many more smoking places than non-smoking. Even when one goes into a restaurant with smoking and non-smoking options, most want to go into the non-smoking sections. Again the majority rules. That wasn't my idea, it's democracy.
True - and on this one we are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Although I do agree with you about cel-phones while driving.
Tober, I am sure you are a great guy and I would likely feel like you if I smoked. I hope your adjustment to the new law is easy and hope that you might even quit smoking. Probably half of my life long friends in Europe smoke and faced the non-smoking law that we are about to experience. I am happy to say that they all agree with it and have no real complaints.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
