October 11, 200718 yr Ok, I'll try to explain my reasoning again... Yes, the owner of the restaurant should have the right to sell food that will only cause diseases in the person who chooses to buy it and eat it.. The smoker does not only hurt himself, but all those around him. This is the best point, and the only reason I can tolerate smoking bans.
October 11, 200718 yr IMO a person has freedom of choice until that choice has a direct effect on another person - at that point the rights of both people must be taken into account. What if I use my freedom to choose to knock the snot out of the person blowing smoke in my face? Medical records could prove that my action causes less damage than his... Why should the law protect them from me if it doesn't protect me from them? Why would a Non Smoker go to a non government owned business that allows Smoking?There would be no direct effect on another person if they chose to go somewhere else that does not allow Smoking... IMO that is Feedom of choice... If you could throw a Punch like Mike Tyson That would definiatly kill someone faster than second hand smoke...
October 11, 200718 yr Why would a Non Smoker go to a non government owned business that allows Smoking?There would be no direct effect on another person if they chose to go somewhere else that does not allow Smoking... IMO that is Feedom of choice... If you could throw a Punch like Mike Tyson That would definiatly kill someone faster than second hand smoke... As I said above, I watched my father-in-law die a slow two-year undignified death from lung cancer. He lost one lung and the other failed slowly... Given a choice, I'd rather go by the hands of Mike Tyson. IMO freedom of choice only extends to the point where that choice negatively effects another person. What about this view on freedom of choice: Those who can't get through their meal without a hit can put in a dip or a plug - or simply put on a patch. There is even nicotine gum now. There is no logical reason to require the non-smokers to choose another business when there are so many options to choose from for the addict that wouldn't infringe on the rights of those who can't tolerate smoke.
October 11, 200718 yr The non Smoker has the Choice not to enter the OWNERS Business...Freedom of Choice... If they would have let the People of Fayette Co. vote on this issue there would not be a smoking ban in Lexington...There are alot of Non smokers out there who would vote no on a Smoking ban because they Believe in Democracy and The Freedom of Choice... As a business owner (like AA and his family), I agree with AA. I have no problem with requiring businesses to post that smoking is allowed as a warning to potential customers. For example, this could be posted outside the entrance to the business. Is this fair to workers who work in the restaurant? It is if they know beforehand that smoking is allowed. I understand the argument against smoking in businesses also. But, I think it's a business owner decision. On the other hand, I have no problem with prohibiting smoking in government buildings where the public MUST go.
October 11, 200718 yr The owner does have the freedom to choose to close the business or to vote for a different politician who is pro-smoking... or to take a novel approach and capitolize on the situation. Put the patch or the gum on the menu. Create a patio atmosphere that is 2nd to none where the smokers have ventelation and can feel that they are in the lap of luxury. Heck, offer a pack of cigarettes on the "to go menu" or give singles out like fortune cookies as the patrons exit the building. (Make sure to card the ones who are under 18.) Y'all should hire me as a consultant...
October 13, 200718 yr I wonder how those smokers are fairing tonight at the games in this weather. ............... nevermind.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.