France to ban Public smoking?

[Skuzzy]

Businesses, in the U.S., who allow people into thier establishment do so by choice.  They can just as easily ask anyone to leave.  They can close thier doors anytime they like.

By the very laws governing businesses, they are not "public", nor or they "open to the public".  The business owners are free to make that choice themselves.  The federal or state governments should not be allowed to have a say in who is, or is not, allowed into a place of business.  They very nature of such laws/statutes removes freedoms from the business owner.

Reasonable laws/statutes which govern the safety issues in a place of business are already in place.  Adding one which states a business must post as to whether or not they allow smoking is reasonable as it does not restrict the owner of the business and allows the people entering the establishment to make a choice before they enter.

I have no sympathy for non-smokers who chose to enter a place of business which allows smoking.  Anyone making that choice should suffer the consequences of that choice.  It's not like the business owner forced you into his/her establishment.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Dago
Dont you think your right to smoke should not in any way intefere with my right not to be exposed to the crap you put into the air?

Neither smoker's or non-smoker's rights trumps the owner of the restaurant's right to dispose of his property as he sees fit.  If he wants to cater to smokers it's his right.  If he wants to cater to non-smokers, it's his business...literally.

One can debate the wisedom of such a business decision, but if he fulfills the market's demand he will succeed, if not he won't.  It's called capitalism, it does an economy.

The majority overrulling the owner's freedom for the so-called "good of whole" is called communism, it is teh sux.

[JB88]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Businesses, in the U.S., who allow people into thier establishment do so by choice.  They can just as easily ask anyone to leave.  They can close thier doors anytime they like.

By the very laws governing businesses, they are not "public", nor or they "open to the public".  The business owners are free to make that choice themselves.  The federal or state governments should not be allowed to have a say in who is, or is not, allowed into a place of business.  They very nature of such laws/statutes removes freedoms from the business owner.

Reasonable laws/statues which govern the safety issues in a place of business are already in place.  Adding one which states a business must post as to whether or not they allow smoking is reasonable as it does not restrict the owner of the business and allows the people entering the establishment to make a choice before they enter.

I have no sympathy for non-smokers who chose to enter a place of business which allows smoking.  Anyone making that choice should suffer the consequences of that choice.  It's not like the business owner forced you into his/her establishment.

what he said.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Debonair
farting bothers me more than smoking

Back in the '70s my dad was taking a flight overseas and they screwed up on his seating and put him in the non-smoking section.  so he lights up and the guy next to him starts complaining and told my dad that he should go to the smoking sections.  My dad replied that when the guy farted my dad didn't tell him go to the farting section and shut the hell up.


ack-ack

[Dago]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Back in the '70s my dad was taking a flight overseas and they screwed up on his seating and put him in the non-smoking section.  so he lights up and the guy next to him starts complaining and told my dad that he should go to the smoking sections.  My dad replied that when the guy farted my dad didn't tell him go to the farting section and shut the hell up.


ack-ack

Reminds me of last summer, I was flying back from Rome in the first class section, and the guy next to me laid his seat out, turned on his side away from me to sleep, and kept farting.  Couldnt hear it, but the smell was there.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
I have no sympathy for non-smokers who chose to enter a place of business which allows smoking.  Anyone making that choice should suffer the consequences of that choice.  It's not like the business owner forced you into his/her establishment.

I disagree with you entirely skuzzy.

As I kid I suffered from bad asthma. Smoking would trigger or inflame it.

In this good'old'days restaurants, cafes, whatever usually had "no smoking" areas which were clearly defined. Did that stop smokers? No. Smokers would either ignore the signs, move the signs out of view, and ignore requests to stop smoking. Many business owners would simply shrug rather than have a confrontation with a customer.

So, as a victim of a-hole smokers in the past I now relish the rules being imposed on them. Once again, it is KARMA. Smokers failed to respect the rights and requests of others so now non-smokers are the majority we're getting payback.

[Samiam]

Originally posted by Vulcan
I disagree with you entirely skuzzy.

As I kid I suffered from bad asthma. Smoking would trigger or inflame it.

In this good'old'days restaurants, cafes, whatever usually had "no smoking" areas which were clearly defined. Did that stop smokers? No. Smokers would either ignore the signs, move the signs out of view, and ignore requests to stop smoking. Many business owners would simply shrug rather than have a confrontation with a customer.

So, as a victim of a-hole smokers in the past I now relish the rules being imposed on them. Once again, it is KARMA. Smokers failed to respect the rights and requests of others so now non-smokers are the majority we're getting payback.

Witness the Tyranny of the Many. This country was not founded on the values that the majority gets to trample the minory. This is a classic case of "I want what I want and what you want doesn't matter because I'm the majority."

Why, pray tell, would you as an asthmatic, even consider giving your busines to a restraunt who's owner shrugs you off in favor of a smoker?

Because you fail to excercise your freedom to stand up to a restraunt owner, walk out, and never return, you now think it's OK to use the government to bully the restraunt owner into providing the service that you want?

[Engine]

Originally posted by Vulcan
Smokers would either ignore the signs, move the signs out of view, and ignore requests to stop smoking. Many business owners would simply shrug rather than have a confrontation with a customer.

I've lived 26 years in NYC, and never seen this happen once.

This sounds too much like someone who wants an excuse to support smoking bans because, deep down, they can't reconcile their dislike of smoking with their belief that private businesses have the right to do as they please (within the law).

[Skuzzy]

Then your parents should have gotten up and walked out and not gone back Vulcan.  Someone should have called child protective services on your parents for putting you in harm's way.  It was thier choice to do so.

See how regulation can cause a chain reaaction of events you really do not want?  If you do not like the food at a restaurant, do you keep going back?  Maybe a law is needed to restrict restaurant owners from serving food that does not taste good?

No, you simply do not go back if you do not like the food.

If the restaurant allows smoking, then do not go in it.  It is your choice.

All my life in Texas, and I have never witnessed what you professed Vulcan.

[lukster]

Smoking in a public place falls into the same category as someone carrying a loud playing boom box on their shoulder imo. Both are intrusive but allowed in certain places while not in others. It really is about common courtesy and if if you have none expect to lose your privilege.

[Skuzzy]

A place of business, which allows people to enter, is not a "public place" as defined by law, in the U.S.

A "public place" is an area where anyone can traverse without constraint.  A public park is an example.  Most outdoor areas, unless marked, are public places.

Businesses are private property.  Private property is not considered "public".

[lazs2]

vulcan is a perfect example of the selfish voter that the politicians target to get more laws passed and thus... give themselves more power over all of us...

How selfish is it to restrict the rights of everyone based on some inconvience to you or maybe percieved cost?

smoking has gone down.  the "death toll" has gone down.... seatbelts are widespred.....

What did all of you do with the huge rebates you got from the health and car insurance agencies you deal with?

What are you doing with all the money that your reduced premiums are saving you?

As was pointed out... if you don't like what they are doing in a private business.... don't go in there.    The smell of incence sickens me.   I don't go into hippy shops that have it.   no big deal.

lazs

[lukster]

I agree that businesses are private places. Most aren't going to let someone crank up their boom box assualting and offending the senses of others. Cigarettes assault a different sense but can be just as annoying.

I agree that government should not be dictating policy to privately owned businesses.

[Samiam]

Originally posted by lukster
Smoking in a public place falls into the same category as someone carrying a loud playing boom box on their shoulder imo. Both are intrusive but allowed in certain places while not in others. It really is about common courtesy and if if you have none expect to lose your privilege .

And here we have the root of the problem.

Apparently the government exists to grant us the priviledges that it sees fit with respect to behavior in our privately owned establishments.

Stupid me, I was trying to make this about the basic rights of business ownership and personal freedoms that shouldn't be infringed upon by a majority will.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Samiam
And here we have the root of the problem.

Apparently the government exists to grant us the priviledges that it sees fit with respect to behavior in our privately owned establishments.

Stupid me, I was trying to make this about the basic rights of business ownership and personal freedoms that shouldn't be infringed upon by a majority will.

When you enter another's private property you do so on privilege, not right.