Some religions teach incredible intolerance and harassment, occasionally spilling over into violent crime. Or those Christian Scientists who let their kids die cause they don't like medical care. Eating poorly costs us all money when you need to go to the emergency room or causes insurance companies to increase overall premiums to cover additional costs.
Yeah, but that's usually just used by people with no other arguments and an immense desire to use government against the free exercise of another's rights.
Or used by us that actually believe it.
You taking your kids to bars?
I only know a few bars in this area that doesnt serve food and children cant go into. There was nothing in this thread that said it was bars only.
I'm just wondering where this care of the children ends. Strip clubs, taking your kids there too?
There are none in this area, however, no they shouldnt go there. What does this have to do with this discussion though? Nowhere did it say bars only, it said bars and restaurants.
Well if it's all about the children, then adult businesses should be allowed to have smoking, yes?
No where did it say bars only, but you Lovejoy'd so now we're exploring the limits of your emotional argument.
Then say so. I dont play games. No children allowed bars, I could comprimise on. I am not going to try to write the law here though. Voting for or against the law would be a case by case basis.
It's only a game to those who don't agree. Those that think similar to me, we are serious about it.You are playing games, you're playing the "OHHHHH won't someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN" game. It's an emotional argument to elicit an emotional response that has nothing to do with the basis of government force against the free exercise of rights that you endorse against your fellow "freeman".
And I know my motivation is to help other people, especially the children (see, I played the children card).
What church you go to doesnt affect others around you. What foods you eat dont affect others around you. You shouldnt be allowed to make a decision that affects those around you.
What church you go to doesnt affect others around you. What foods you eat dont affect others around you. You shouldnt be allowed to make a decision that affects those around you.
Big Government at its inglorious best. The ban basically killed the pub scene over here. I was surprised that the government wilfully implemented measures that would rob them of considerable revenue. Prior to this travesty, non-smokers clearly weren't so concerned that it dissuaded them from frequenting licensed establishments. With any luck, a more enlightened administration will rescind the legislation. At the very least, such a move should have followed a referendum.Should cigarette smoking be allowed in some bars & restaurants?
Most states have blanket bans against smoking in all bars and restaurants. No exceptions. As a result, you often see smokers huddled in small groups outside partaking in cigarettes.
I am not, and have never been, a smoker but to me this in inherently unfair. IMO, the state should set aside special permits for a small percentage of bars and restaurants where smoking be allowed. To pick a number, I would say 10% to 15% of bars and restaurants should be allowed to have smoking inside. Have them post a large sign at each entrance notifying potentials customers, so everyone is fully informed and able to make their own choice. No one needs to go in and act surprised.
I don't see the need to make them age-restricted to 18+ or 21+, but I could live with that compromise.
What think you?
It's only a game to those who don't agree. Those that think similar to me, we are serious about it.
Big Government at its inglorious best. The ban basically killed the pub scene over here. I was surprised that the government wilfully implemented measures that would rob them of considerable revenue. Prior to this travesty, non-smokers clearly weren't so concerned that it dissuaded them from frequenting licensed establishments. With any luck, a more enlightened administration will rescind the legislation. At the very least, such a move should have followed a referendum.
Prohibition sucks ****.
Smoking ban hasn't killed bars/restaurants/bowling alleys/etc here in the US.
What will hurt bars is if they lower the legal blood alcohol level for driving to .05 from .08... I haven't seen any studies to show that there are a lot of accidents caused by people with BAC between .05 and .08 ; until I see those, I disagree with lowering it.
Back to topic - "private" businesses use public roads, public police forces, public airwaves for advertising, public clean water, etc. When they apply for a license, they need to follow the guidelines. I think no smoking is a reasonable guideline. Before the laws were passed, there weren't any non-smoking restaurants; I had no choice. Now I can go to restaurants and not worry about getting cancer or having my clothes reek. Some of you think that is an unreasonable restriction on a business; I don't.
You had no choice but to hang out in restaurants and bars? Hurts to be you, eh? lulz And look. You chose to patronise such places, despite your abject terror of disease and premature death. You're a brave soul.Smoking ban hasn't killed bars/restaurants/bowling alleys/etc here in the US.
What will hurt bars is if they lower the legal blood alcohol level for driving to .05 from .08... I haven't seen any studies to show that there are a lot of accidents caused by people with BAC between .05 and .08 ; until I see those, I disagree with lowering it.
Back to topic - "private" businesses use public roads, public police forces, public airwaves for advertising, public clean water, etc. When they apply for a license, they need to follow the guidelines. I think no smoking is a reasonable guideline. Before the laws were passed, there weren't any non-smoking restaurants; I had no choice. Now I can go to restaurants and not worry about getting cancer or having my clothes reek. Some of you think that is an unreasonable restriction on a business; I don't.
Because you think you have right to the labor of others and we don't. There were plenty of nonsmoking restaurants before the ban, fewer nonsmoking bars but the number wasn't zero. Restaurants on the whole had been trending towards nonsmoking for some times response to consumer pressure, which it's the proper avenue through which one brings about change in private business.
BTW, your home uses public roads public police force, blah blah blah. So can the government ban you from legal activities in your own home?
I'm not running a business from home. Big difference.
Maybe you had plenty of nonsmoking restaurants pre-ban in your area; I did not in mine.
Back to topic - "private" businesses use public roads, public police forces, public airwaves for advertising, public clean water, etc. When they apply for a license, they need to follow the guidelines. I think no smoking is a reasonable guideline. Before the laws were passed, there weren't any non-smoking restaurants; I had no choice. Now I can go to restaurants and not worry about getting cancer or having my clothes reek. Some of you think that is an unreasonable restriction on a business; I don't.
Smoking cigarettes will no longer be allowed inside the units of multi-family housing developments in Berkeley, effective May 2014, after a unanimous vote by the Berkeley City Council on Tuesday night.
So I don't think that preventing businesses from allowing smoking is any kind of "taking", any more than any law controlling what businesses can and can't do is. (For example, you can't have strip joints in many areas).
Obviously some of you disagree, and I doubt we'll ever come to agreement on this.
Moving on to private property - well, Berkeley is doing it:
Berkeley bans tobacco smoking in apartments, condos | Berkeleyside
Seems to me it's unenforceable in private owned dwellings; but for rental dwellings, it could be put in as part of the lease agreement. It's pretty bad to smell a neighbor's smoke, so I understand why they want this law. But like I said, not sure it's something you can enforce in a privately-owned dwelling.
So I don't think that preventing businesses from allowing smoking is any kind of "taking", any more than any law controlling what businesses can and can't do is. (For example, you can't have strip joints in many areas).
Obviously some of you disagree, and I doubt we'll ever come to agreement on this.
Moving on to private property - well, Berkeley is doing it:
Berkeley bans tobacco smoking in apartments, condos | Berkeleyside
Seems to me it's unenforceable in private owned dwellings; but for rental dwellings, it could be put in as part of the lease agreement. It's pretty bad to smell a neighbor's smoke, so I understand why they want this law. But like I said, not sure it's something you can enforce in a privately-owned dwelling.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?