if i would open a "non smoking" bar/club/restaurant in your town

BAN APPLES



50 w0rd

Actually we live in a republic. In every location I personally know of (and that's a limited amount) it's been put to the voters and the voters have voted the smoking limits in. That's how a free government run by the people should work, IMO.

That said, I still would rather sit next to a smoker than a screaming kid

Dito, just have a large outdoor area.

why?

a screaming kid is plain normal, won't damage your body (Ok maybe the nerves a bit) and won't make you and your clothes smell bad (OK only if it ate to much and pukes all over you)

Just personal preference. My son ate in very nice restaurants from the time he was very young and my nieces are doing the same. They all knew that the minute they started misbehaving they were out the door. Many times never to return again

I see parents bringing young kids in after 9PM and the kids are running around, screaming, etc. Very irritating and in fact, instead of banning the kids, banning the parents would be more appropriate

The majority is not always right and laws should not be allowed to be voted in that suppress the minority.

you are right

it's all about the education.

don't blame the little brat, blame the parents for educating them wrong.

in my town? you'd be the only one there

Stupid??? I thought you knew that they can be addicts in the womb... but ok just promise not to come in my town

I wouldn't open one..the clubs I go to have a smoking section and they sometimes out number the non smokers

whoever smokes during pregnancy should not be allowed to have kids.

AND:

why can they be addicts in the womb ? because the stupid mother smokes...

Boston is completely smoke free...so you'd have no other choice.

yeah, that's *exactly* what i said.
if you're going to post on messageboards - why don't you worry less a little less about smoke and a little more about reading comprehension.

Just curious hon - have there been any locations that you know of where people were given the *choice* of:
- no ban
- total ban
- establishments allowed to declare themselves smoking or non-smoking?
I would guess not, because the political agenda is to ban it.

What usually happens is that *some* places want to ban it, and then the governmental entity involved *decides* that's it isn't fair for competition to allow some places to ban and some places not to (since the pro-ban restaurants are afraid that they'll lose business to smoking-allowed restaurants) and so the only choice presented is a total ban.

That's also why there's often been a "domino" effect in terms of bans enacted - a city or town enacts a ban so the smokers go to restaurants in the next town over, the "ban" restaurants get up in arms because of unfair competition, and eventually the state steps in and bans it everywhere to "protect" the establishments losing business. Same thing happens across state lines, and then there's pressure on the states surrounding the "ban" state. When I lived in New England, I watched it happen just like it was a predictable lab experiment, first in the liberal towns around Boston, then in Boston, then in Massachusetts, and then in Rhode Island.

Don't confuse me with facts, Mr. Smoke!! ;)

Oops...sorry, it's one of my many failings

Here in Connecticut, you can't smoke inside.

Like it fucking should be!