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.
EXACTLY!!! Just as if the place is an Italian Restaurant, and you don't like Italian food, then don't go there. Are you seriously going to complain to that Italian restaurant to start making hamburgers because you don't like their food? Of course not....
No-smoking regulations don't specify what type of food a restaurant has to serve. But every restaurant is subject to health regulations. Such as the no-smoking law.
Instead of opening your restaurant or bar to the public, make it a private smoking club with paid memberships, open only to those 18 and over or, in the case of a bar, 21 and older. You could probably then do whatever you please in terms of smoking rules, since you're not admitting the public.
And you don't have to go to places that allow smoking if you are so bothered by it.
And smokers don't have to pratice their habit indoors. Since they haven't had the common courtesy to restrain their behavior, it's now a legal requirement that they step outside.
Quote:
If you sunburn easily would you go sit in the sun? Hmmmm....
Sunlight isn't a behavior regulated by law. Smoking is, though.
And smokers don't have to pratice their habit indoors. Since they haven't had the common courtesy to restrain their behavior, it's now a legal requirement that they step outside.
Sunlight isn't a behavior regulated by law. Smoking is, though.
You keep dodging the issue. Go to a non-smoking establishment. It is not the government's right to interfere with a private business decision regarding a LEGAL substance. This isn't Cuba, or Nazi-Germany.
I don't know the legal implications. Does a cover charge keep out the public and admit members only?
There's nothing that says that a restaurant owner has to cater to everyone that walks in the door. Just as you can choose to eat there - they can choose to have you leave. All businesses that are privately owned are already private. They just can't discriminate against protected statuses.
And linking personal hygiene with smoking is an interesting approach. Though, I would think that hygiene and such health codes are to prevent contagious diseases from spreading...
I sort of like your idea... but here's the problem that I can see. It's like this in a lot of places, but around here - even "members only" clubs cannot sell X% amount in food or they would be considered restaurants. This would subject them to restaurant regulations and therefore mandated Smoke-Free if they are in certain areas.
I'm sorry, while I agree with the sentiments of how harmful smoke can be to somebody with health problems - the government is NOT the answer. More and more restaurants are popping up that are smoke-free. So why is there a need for a ban?
There's nothing that says that a restaurant owner has to cater to everyone that walks in the door. Just as you can choose to eat there - they can choose to have you leave. All businesses that are privately owned are already private. They just can't discriminate against protected statuses.
And linking personal hygiene with smoking is an interesting approach. Though, I would think that hygiene and such health codes are to prevent contagious diseases from spreading...
And the no-smoking law is meant to prevent the spread of disease linked to secondhand smoke.
Quote:
I sort of like your idea... but here's the problem that I can see. It's like this in a lot of places, but around here - even "members only" clubs cannot sell X% amount in food or they would be considered restaurants. This would subject them to restaurant regulations and therefore mandated Smoke-Free if they are in certain areas.
I'm sorry, while I agree with the sentiments of how harmful smoke can be to somebody with health problems - the government is NOT the answer. More and more restaurants are popping up that are smoke-free. So why is there a need for a ban?
The need is to protect the public's health. Smokers aren't prevented from smoking. They're just required to go outside and it's not a big inconvenience for them to do that.
Gee - wouldn't a discussion about them thar Gas Guzzlin SUV's be more fun???
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.
