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'll give another example: should it be OK to defacate in the hotel room on the floor? If you don't like the smell, go somewhere else!
No. A private business is private for a reason. Smokers should go elsewhere if they want to smoke, but let's not forget fire and insurance rates (private companies that won't cover your ass if a smoker burns your hotel/motel down) just so you can have a cigarette/cigar/pipe.
Sorry, but you can't blame this change in the law on liberals. It's good a business position to take. More people ask to have their rooms changed after checking in because the rooms they were assigned smell bad than there are smokers who check in. It also costs the hotels and motels more money to maintain a room where smokers are because they have to dry clean the drapery and bed spreads more often, not to mention they have to paint more often and replace furniture and counter tops with burn marks more often. The hotels and motels can have a smoker's lounge where smokers can go and the management has a chance to sell them snacks and drinks while they smoke and their insurance rates go down. The law is good for their business.
They could raise rates on smoking rooms to recoup the cost and reduce the number of smoking rooms based on how often they are rented. Oh, but I'm sure that would somehow be discrimination based on smoking status.
Point is, it doesn't need to be a law, it should be up to the owner of the hotel.
They could raise rates on smoking rooms to recoup the cost and reduce the number of smoking rooms based on how often they are rented. Oh, but I'm sure that would somehow be discrimination based on smoking status.
Point is, it doesn't need to be a law, it should be up to the owner of the hotel.
..and they and their insurance companies have chosen which way it's going to be. So choose to take your business elsewhere, or abide by their rules.
..and they and their insurance companies have chosen which way it's going to be. So choose to take your business elsewhere, or abide by their rules.
Exactly, even though I am not sure you intended it this way. Regardless, though, if a private business does not allow smoking? Then a smoker should go elsewhere if they want to smoke. On the other hand, if a private business permits it on a total or limited basis? Then someone who doesn't want to breath/smell smoke, should go elsewhere.
What is so complicated or unreasonable about that?
Exactly, even though I am not sure you intended it this way. Regardless, though, if a private business does not allow smoking? Then a smoker should go elsewhere if they want to smoke. On the other hand, if a private business permits it on a total or limited basis? Then someone who doesn't want to breath/smell smoke, should go elsewhere.
What is so complicated or unreasonable about that?
It's unreasonable because somebody might actually smoke a cigarette and the Puritan nannies can't have that. They might be enjoying themselves!
I swear...between the smoke-Nazi's, health nuts and Evangelical Republican's, I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't a conspiracy to remake America using Cromwell's England as a role model.
We all know about the court rulings and etc. on "public accomodations". Many of your posts seem to presume the rest of us are ignorant of them. That is why I said earlier that some of the same are extremely condecending and didactic in their presentation. Maybe you don't mean it that way, but that is the way it so often comes across.
The main point is that that -- in the realm of the public accomodations rulings -- that some of them are outrageous violations of private property rights. Just because something is ruled by government, and ok'd by the court, doesn't necessarily translate into that it is a good idea, and will not reap unintended consequences. Sometimes those of your ilk use the "Public Accomodations" argument as if it came from a Burning Bush and is the Alpha and Omega. Geez...
As Mr. Bumble pretty much said in "Oliver Twist"; If the law says that, sir, then the law is an ass!
Quote:
I'll give another example: should it be OK to defacate in the hotel room on the floor? If you don't like the smell, go somewhere else!
C'mon. This is just another one of those silly and totally inapplicable comparissons the anti-smoking zealots try to make and it doesn't hold water.
Of course it is not ok to "poop" on the floor of a motel room. For one thing, it is against the law on several levels and always has been! Depending on the circumtances, it could be part or all of Destruction of Property, Disorderly Conduct, Assault and/or Battery, etc, etc. To say nothing of that the place itself being guilty of neglecting public safety standards, if they didn't clean up the mess (there is a difference between public safety and public health regulations when the latter involves knowlege aforehand and free choice on the part of the consumer).
The better comparisson would be if a motel allowed people to dump cigarette butts all over the floor and empty the ash-trays on the beds and carpet. Right? And that would constitute the same violations of law mentioned earlier.
On the other hand, smoking per se is NOT illegal. If "you" want to stay in a place where smoking is not permitted and you are a smoker? Go somewhere else. On the other hand, if you don't like it smelling smoke? Do the same! Go elsewhere. Simple as that.
On a related tangent -- not so much talking to you, Katiana, but if the shoe fits, wear it -- what is striking a bit in this thread is how so many of those taking the "let's ban smoking (or some aspect of it) position" seem to have that supercilious attitude of lecturing others....yet they themselves are so blinded by the self-righteous/self-centered outlook, they can't see the forest for the trees....
It's unreasonable because somebody might actually smoke a cigarette and the Puritan nannies can't have that. They might be enjoying themselves!
That historical observation occured to me as well. That is, the Puritian types. As I recall (without looking up the exact quote and who said, on Google!) there were two good ones (paraphrased):
1. The Puritans of New England are not content with limiting their fanatical ideas to themselves, but instead, to force them on the rest of the country.
2. To the Puritan mindset, there is always the nagging thought that, somewhere, out there somewhere, somebody might be enjoying themselves.
Quote:
I swear...between the smoke-Nazi's, health nuts and Evangelical Republican's, I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't a conspiracy to remake America using Cromwell's England as a role model.
The exasperating thing about it, IMHO, is that those who want to restrict private property rights and personal freedom choices, never seem to grasp the connection between the two. That is, the gradual government banning of smoking and the same being done (on a more limited scale at this point in time) with foods and such that are "bad for you".
Of course, the real Health Police zealots know exactly what they are doing. The problem is -- as history sadly reveals itself -- the number of "useful idiots" out there who buy into all this charade.
It's unreasonable because somebody might actually smoke a cigarette and the Puritan nannies can't have that. They might be enjoying themselves!
I swear...between the smoke-Nazi's, health nuts and Evangelical Republican's, I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't a conspiracy to remake America using Cromwell's England as a role model.
the big bad "gov't" says ya can't smoke in a movie theater, either. Yell "fire!" in a theater and watch the reaction.
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.
-- what is striking a bit in this thread is how so many of those taking the "let's ban smoking (or some aspect of it) position" seem to have that supercilious attitude of lecturing others....yet they themselves are so blinded by the self-righteous/self-centered outlook, they can't see the forest for the trees....
