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'm highly allergic to tree nuts, and know a lot of folks just like me. An allergic reaction to them will kill me quicker than any second-hand smoke. Do I have the right to lobby for the government to tell a business that they can no longer serve any tree nuts with their food, or even cook in peanut oil. NO!!!. It is a business right to decide for themselves. This isn't a pro or con smoking issue.. this is a business issue, and the government has no business being in it. Don't like smoke.. don't patronize the business. Don't like nuts... don't patronize the business. Plain and simple!
Careful, Aus10...too much common sense such as this might cause more heart attacks among the anti-smoking zealots than 2nd hand smoke!
I'm highly allergic to tree nuts, and know a lot of folks just like me. An allergic reaction to them will kill me quicker than any second-hand smoke. Do I have the right to lobby for the government to tell a business that they can no longer serve any tree nuts with their food, or even cook in peanut oil. NO!!!. It is a business right to decide for themselves. This isn't a pro or con smoking issue.. this is a business issue, and the government has no business being in it. Don't like smoke.. don't patronize the business. Don't like nuts... don't patronize the business. Plain and simple!
The tree nuts are specific to you, and your friends who are also allergic. No one is forcing you to eat them, even if they are on the menu. Second and third hand smoke is non-specific; it affects everyone around it is forced to breathe it in, whether they willingly participate or not. That is the difference!
Some things are just not "a business right to decide for themselves".
It's beyond me why people can't see that, while I dont believe it we have a poster here that would willingly give up their right to choose a non smoking establishment.
Actually, it is fairly simple coalman. I feel fairly safe in making a generalization that a disproportionate number of those on the other side are of a generation where they have been indoctinated (in various ways...thru school, media, etc), that their desires are all that matter. Then, combined as well with having no real concept of classical notions of freedom and private property rights?
Welllllll....the result is quite evident on this thread!
My wife's brother played drums in a polka band for 40 years. Played with Frank Yankovic for years, played with him when he was on johnny Carson.
Anyhow, the years of second hand smoke, from the bar scene, took his life. Not sure what the fuss is, should we end this national addiction and protect those that are not smokers?
How would you propose "ending it"? Prohibition? I think there is an historical precedent on how that turned out with another dangerous substance!
Also, what about the radical idea that perhaps non-smokers should protect themselves by not patronizing establishments were smoking is allowed? Sorta the same way those who choose to smoke go find a place where they can?
Should of read further, I call BS. You would be losing your mind if such a law were passed. In any event yes you would be abdicating freedoms. You would no longer have the choice to choose to go to a a non smoking establishment, you have no issue with that?
I would not like the lack of choice, any more than smokers now like the lack of choice to smoke inside public spaces.
However, that has nothing to do with freedoms. There is nothing in any constitution that gives you the "freedom" to smoke where you wish. I cannot "abdicate" a freedom that does not exist.
You are still free to smoke, even with smoking bans in place.
I am still free to choose not to smoke, even if it were still allowed everywhere, and I am old enough to remember when that was the case. DH and I have been dodging cigarette smoke for 45 years.
You have the freedom to decide to patronize a place that prohibits smoking. I would have the freedom to decide to patronize one that did allow it --- or order take out instead and eat outside or in the car.
Last edited by suzy_q2010; 12-29-2011 at 02:58 PM..
Reason: Fix typo
=Katiana;22315356]The tree nuts are specific to you, and your friends who are also allergic. No one is forcing you to eat them, even if they are on the menu. Second and third hand smoke is non-specific; it affects everyone around it is forced to breathe it in, whether they willingly participate or not. That is the difference!
Some things are just not "a business right to decide for themselves".
No, it's up to you and the rest of the anti-smoking zealots to decide, isn't it, Katiana? After all, you all obviously know better than the business owner as to what what is best for the said business, right?
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,145,129 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
No one is forcing you to eat them, even if they are on the menu.
.
No.. what you don't get is that some of us can't even be in a room with them. It has nothing to do with ingesting them. The oil on the skin can cause a reaction. Your just trying to justify what you "believe" even if it isn't true.
It most certainly does, without a law whether it's pro ban or pro smoking we all have the freedom of choice both the individual and business's. With the law that freedom of choice has been taken away.
Smokers can still smoke at bars that have adapted to the ban.
One Wisconsin tavern owner put in a heated smokers patio that paid for itself in the first year. Other bars lost business. I wonder where those patrons went instead?
Businesses that want smokers will find a way to accommodate them.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,145,129 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Businesses that want smokers will find a way to accommodate them.
That's great! But it sounds to me like so many businesses are not being given the choice to make up their own mind. Guess the hotel's could put in pup tents in the yard? Oops.. the smoking patrol would probably throw a fit about that..
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.
