Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Beemnseven
Not a fair comparison? What would be the difference between the government acting on behalf of the health of non-smoking patrons of a restaurant by banning smoking, and doing the same by prohibiting that same restaurant from serving unhealthy foods?
|
They're very different. One rule denies people the opportunity to eat food anywhere. The other denies people the opportunity to smoke IN CERTAIN PLACES. I don't see what's so hard to understand here. One is an all out ban, the other simply designates areas as off-limits.
If we were banning smoking altogether, I'd be against it. But we're not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Beemnseven
Your idea of personal freedom is an interesting one. Instead of acknowledging my right to start a business, say, a cigar bar that caters to cigar smokers, you're more interested in the right of a non-smoking patron to walk in that cigar bar, be upset with the smoke, and get the government to close down my business. That's kind of absurd, don't you think?
|
Cigar bars are an interesting case. That's a place specifically geared towards smokers. There's generally no reason that someone would go there unless they want to smoke, or be in the company of other smokers. So in that case I'd say cigar bars should be exempt from smoking bans. Their business is based around smoking, so they should be left alone.
Regular bars however, exist primarily to give people a place to socialize and have drinks. Smoking is not a necessary part of the business, it's just something that comes along with those who drink. You can eliminate smoking in the bar without putting the bar out of business.
If you disagree with that point, why don't we revisit this issue in 6 months or so. Let's see how many bars in NJ have gone out of business by then. I'm guessing the rate at which bars fail in NJ will not change from pre-ban times. Bars make a killing, they'll get along fine. Smokers will still show up, they'll adapt and smoke outside.