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.
If a business owner wants to allow a legal substance in the establishment he/she OWNS, the gov't should stay out of it. Period.
If you can ban people coming in your establishment for not wearing proper dress or not behaving properly, you can sure as heck ban them for smoking which is harmful to others, not to mention the fact it's STUPID (coming from a former smoker). If marijuana was legal and people were smoking it in restaurants, would you take your children there? I doubt it.
Location: Wherever it is, I am sure it is cosmopolitan
674 posts, read 804,288 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by groove1
If you can ban people coming in your establishment for not wearing proper dress or not behaving properly, you can sure as heck ban them for smoking which is harmful to others, not to mention the fact it's STUPID (coming from a former smoker). If marijuana was legal and people were smoking it in restaurants, would you take your children there? I doubt it.
Are you confused? There are no laws stating that one has to have "proper dress" to dine. BUSINESS OWNERS set those standards for their own business. That was the point I was making, which you clearly misunderstood. I believe that BUSINESS OWNERS should set standards of allowing or banning smoking, NOT the GOVERNMENT.
The point is that bleeding hearts seem to forget that the government has NO BUSINESS telling business owners what they can allow as far as LEGAL substances but YOU have the right NOT to go to a place that has smoking.
Now I will let this thread get back to whatever the point was in the first place.
Are you confused? There are no laws stating that one has to have "proper dress" to dine. BUSINESS OWNERS set those standards for their own business. That was the point I was making, which you clearly misunderstood. I believe that BUSINESS OWNERS should set standards of allowing or banning smoking, NOT the GOVERNMENT.
The point is that bleeding hearts seem to forget that the government has NO BUSINESS telling business owners what they can allow as far as LEGAL substances but YOU have the right NOT to go to a place that has smoking.
Now I will let this thread get back to whatever the point was in the first place.
How is cigarettes different if individual towns ban restaurant owners from serving alcohol? There certainly are laws banning alcohol being served in various towns...
I have my own opinions, but....
Do you have a problem w/local and federal government, or banned cigarettes in general?
Are you confused? There are no laws stating that one has to have "proper dress" to dine. BUSINESS OWNERS set those standards for their own business. That was the point I was making, which you clearly misunderstood. I believe that BUSINESS OWNERS should set standards of allowing or banning smoking, NOT the GOVERNMENT.
The point is that bleeding hearts seem to forget that the government has NO BUSINESS telling business owners what they can allow as far as LEGAL substances but YOU have the right NOT to go to a place that has smoking.
Now I will let this thread get back to whatever the point was in the first place.
If their were no regulations the vast majority of business owners would allow smoking. So the option of going somewhere else really doesn't exist. It becomes an option of not going out or going out and putting your health at risk. Someone should not have to choose between not going out and putting their health at risk. Which was the basic premise behind the law. Also the people who work in these establishments have their health put at risk. Some might say well get a new job, well anyone who was laid off from work, or stuck in a job they didn't like can tell you simply finding another job isn't exactly the easiest thing in the world. People shouldn't have to make the decision between working and staying healthy.
Now do some of the bans go a bit overboard? Perhaps, but no regulations is far from the answer either. People shouldn't have to put their health at risk simply because they want a night out or need to work.
As far as the original question, not really sure as I'm not down there yet, though I'm sure the ban on people not from Charlotte wouldn't work since it seems 1/2 of Charlotte is former New yorkers, and will have more as my parents are likely to move down there and I might as well.
Is it to late to ban the coming of winter and just skip to spring???
we can most certainly add that to the list! in fact I think we can ban summer AND winter since they're both too extreme for me!
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.
in fact I think we can ban summer AND winter since they're both too extreme for me!
