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.
A hot topic discussion even in my own home with my wife - neither of us are smokers.
I lean towards the side of business being a free enterprise and they should have the right to determine if they serve a smoking, non-smoking, or mixed clientele. They then can market that uniqueness. Consumers then have the total free right to choose to visit that establishment.
If consumers feel so strongly about smoking bans, then they would freely choose to only frequent non-smoking establishments. If there are none, then that's a strong statement that consumer demand for smoke free is not there.
People push for laws, and vote for laws that please them...but government agencies (and agents) have to enforce all of these laws.
I don't understand how anyone who calls themselves a so-called "conservative" could vote for a smoking ban. (Or any ban that infringed on the rights of private businesses.)
In the old days, "true conservatives" were for "less government" not "bigger government!"
People push for laws, and vote for laws that please them...but government agencies (and agents) have to enforce all of these laws.
I don't understand how anyone who calls themselves a so-called "conservative" could vote for a smoking ban. (Or any ban that infringed on the rights of private businesses.)
In the old days, "true conservatives" were for "less government" not "bigger government!"
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that when it comes down to it...if their choice is being a "hard-core conservative," or dying a slow death of exposure to toxic second-hand smoke...saving their health and life wins out.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that when it comes down to it...if their choice is being a "hard-core conservative," or dying a slow death of exposure to toxic second-hand smoke...saving their health and life wins out.
I disagree. I am in no way hardcore, but I am a conservative. I am not a smoker and I don't like second-had smoke. But in this debate I vote for less government and local control. Free enterprise wins out.
I disagree. I am in no way hardcore, but I am a conservative. I am not a smoker and I don't like second-had smoke. But in this debate I vote for less government and local control. Free enterprise wins out.
Yes, that's all well and good...except I obviously wasn't talking about people like you.
I was referring to the people desertlovers was referring to in her post...conservatives who vote FOR smoking bans. She said she didn't understand how "true conservatives" could vote for smoking bans. I told her that regardless of being a conservative or a liberal (or anything besides, for that matter), the majority of people who vote for smoking bans care more about their actual personal health and well-being than remaining "true" to their political affiliation, in the case of the issue surrounding smoking bans.
You are a conservative who votes AGAINST smoking bans, so clearly, my comment (as well as desertlovers' comment) DID NOT APPLY TO YOU. I guess you just misunderstood my post. Sorry for the confusion.
Yes, that's all well and good...except I obviously wasn't talking about people like you.
I was referring to the people desertlovers was referring to in her post...conservatives who vote FOR smoking bans. She said she didn't understand how "true conservatives" could vote for smoking bans. I told her that regardless of being a conservative or a liberal (or anything besides, for that matter), the majority of people who vote for smoking bans care more about their actual personal health and well-being than remaining "true" to their political affiliation, in the case of the issue surrounding smoking bans.
You are a conservative who votes AGAINST smoking bans, so clearly, my comment (as well as desertlovers' comment) DID NOT APPLY TO YOU. I guess you just misunderstood my post. Sorry for the confusion.
Everyone has choices....Non-smokers could have written letters to large restaurant chains and asked them if they would consider opening more "non-smoking" restaurants....Besides, a lot of major chains were opening more "non-smoking" restaurants on their own.
Today, we have "tyranny through the ballot box" where some groups try to "force their will" on everyone...and this isn't the "American way" at all.
Two counties in Nevada "forced their will" on everyone else in the state and this is isn't right either.
Big city voters "force their will & lifestyle" on rural counties in a state, and this isn't right.
Non-smokers have turned Science into their "god!" And they have turned scientific reports into their "Bible!" This is spooky and scary!!
Science flip-flops all the time...due to ongoing research.
Something that is "frowned up" today might be "recommended" by scientists next year. I've seen this happen all through my lifetime.
a) The right to smoke vs. the right to breathe clean air was brought up. Logically, think about such, and can it seriously and honestly be put forth that the 'right' to smoke and produce ash/particles w/in the air that is being shared with others is greater than the 'right' of non-smoker to breath air that is not filled w/ such an odor? The first 'right' is optional, non-healthy, and recreational, whereas the second 'right' is aligned w/ a life-necessity.
b) At times throughout history what is morally acceptable and/or legal changes. Point being that just because smoking may or may not be legal still allows one to beg the question of health, concern for other humans, along with common respect.
And now for your entertainment, an example... As far as I know it is not illegal to walk around with a soiled diaper in my backpack. Right? Ok, so lets say I do such - and proceed to take this item around the town, visiting restaurants, libraries, and other places. The odor of such is not illegal; yet,,, is it proper and acceptable for me to do this? However, do I not have the 'right' to carry around my child's soiled diaper? To carry this further, when smoking around others, the effects of consideration are about the same, and actually smoking is worse due to its health and odor issues, via multiple studies.
A bar is first and foremost a DRINKING establishment, not a SMOKING facility. I desire to go into this building to have a few social drinks, play some pool, cards, shuffleboard, foosball, listen to some music, whatever, without the smell and health concerns of someone else's habit. A habit that spreads into the environment of all others around that person.
Ok, the example above was probably a very poor example, but maybe the gist of the idea behind it may carry through this post.
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.
