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.
Government can permit or forbid businesses from having alcohol consumption on its grounds. Why is smoking any different?
Government can insist you have a license to serve alcohol. Slightly different distinction. For that type of licensure, it's about making someone abide by regulations from that licensure body. Primarly, this has been concentrated around tax revenue for alcohol.
The more important question, I believe, is why you think it's okay for government to dictate to businesses how they sell alcohol? Are you getting the bigger picture yet?
I believe smokers should have the right to smoke (although I never would), so long as they are not affecting anyone else. What they do NOT have the right to do is pollute the air others have to breathe with massive toxins and carcinogens. That is tantamount to assault, and over the long term (like if you live with a smoker who smokes in the home), assault with a deadly weapon.
People can CHOOSE to go into that bar or NOT. If you DON"T go in you won't be exposed to it.
Government can insist you have a license to serve alcohol. Slightly different distinction.
Hmm. I thought any business that has drinking needs a license.
Quote:
The more important question, I believe, is why you think it's okay for government to dictate to businesses how they sell alcohol? Are you getting the bigger picture yet?
I didn't make any statement whether I believe it's okay for government to dictate to businesses how they sell alcohol. My point was that it seems to be the norm in most places.
Hmm. I thought any business that has drinking needs a license.
I didn't make any statement whether I believe it's okay for government to dictate to businesses how they sell alcohol. My point was that it seems to be the norm in most places.
Actually, the license is for serving alcohol which allows them to skirt around the property rights issue. I agree that it is indeed the norm and why so many people went along with smoking bans.
While I have issues when government uses loopholes to get around making legal activities essentially illegal, the smoking bans don't even try to pretend they are using legitimate government authority. It is a clear property rights violation. They need to either making smoking illegal or stop with all of these property rights violations.
But your bar isn't completely a private property either. You can give up your license to do business and call it a home and the law would be fine.
Actually, it is entirely private property.
Unless the owner specifies, it is "assumed" that it is open to the public and the licenses simply tells the public that the business meets all of the standards established (building code, fire code, health code, etc... ) so that a person can reasonably expect a safe and legitimate business environment.
The business owner could very easily put up a sign that says private, members only, or he could sit at the door and dictate who enters and who does not. It is solely under their discretion.
Though I don't smoke, I've always been against government smoking bans on private property. Many businesses were already going smoke free of the owner's choice based upon customers wishes.
That's true, and I respect that and would actually patronize some businesses that had bans, although probably less frequently.
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.