Being a capitalist, I think it should be left up to the owner of a business, if it's smoke free or not... :smokin

Smokers have no right to light up in my restaurant. Nor do nonsmokers have a right to prevent smokers from lighting up in my restaurant.

To put it bluntly, the owner of the property should be able to determine ? for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all ? whether to admit smokers, nonsmokers, neither, or both. Customers or employees who object may go elsewhere. They would not be relinquishing any right that they ever possessed. By contrast, when a businessman is forced to effect an unwanted smoking policy on his own property, the government violates his rights.

That's the controlling principle. Private property does not belong to the public. Employing a large staff, or providing services to lots of people, is not sufficient to transform private property into public property. The litmus test for private property is ownership, not the size of the customer base or the workforce.

I thought this quote fitting...

?Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron?s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.?
-- C. S. Lewis

Also, I think it is an insufficiently commented-upon irony that cigarette prohibition and the public shaming it entails is the work of modern liberals. They're supposed to be the ones who are nonjudgmental, who live and let live, but they approach smoking like Carry Nation with her ax. Conservatives on the other hand let you smoke. They acknowledge sin and accept imperfection. Also most of them are culturally inclined toward courtesy of the old-fashioned sort.

Why do liberals punish smokers? Could we discuss this? Is it that it makes them feel clean? Some parts of our culture in which liberals largely call the shots--Hollywood, for instance--are fairly low and degraded. Maybe liberals can't face this, and make themselves feel clean if they ban unclean air? Or maybe banning smokers makes them feel safe, like they'll never die.

Maybe it makes them feel in control. Maybe it makes them feel superior.

Or maybe they just want to bully someone.

Many people find fragances as bad or worse than tobacco smoke, so we should forbid anyone wearing perfume or cologne from going to gigs also, right? Because they would be, in your inimitable words, "controlling what YOU breath."

The fact remains that in the sense of liberty most people find meaningful, a ban on smokers limits people's freedom more directly an onerously than allowing people to choose not to attend events where there might be tobacco smoke or perfume.

I have NEVER come home after a night at a bar and had someones shitty perfume permeate my clothes, hair and contacts like the disgusting smell of smoke.

Then stay the fuck home.

lol, why don't YOU stay the fuck home with all of your smoker friends? How fucking boring you must be if smoking is what makes the party for you.

I hate people that wear too much perfume too, but perfume isn't going to kill me, and if I go to the other side of the room It isn't going to annoy me, unlike the haze when smokers are in a room. It's insanely rare for someone to be wearing that much perfume it affects people in a pub situation - it's more flying on planes, buses, public transport. People are not universally affected by perfume either, it's only a small percentage, there are many reasons perfume wearing is not equivalent.

To have to go outside for a few minutes to indulge in their habit is far less of an intrusion than giving other people cancer or preventing them from going to the event. It allows both parties to enjoy the event, I don't see the problem - people today choose to have the addiction, there are responsibilities that come with that choice.

What a dummy... A club isn't cool at all, unless it shortens the lifespan of it's customers!

Breathing is so 1990's... Get with the program

What makes the party for me when everybody is out having a good time without punk ass motherfuckers trying to force bullshit rules that infringe on personal liberty.

YEAH!! Especially because Lung Cancer is sooooo in right now. All the cool kids have it!

Do you have a mullet?

No, it is You who controlls me, by making me inhale Your smoke.
So, we who don't smoke have to lead boring lives, stay at home?
My Partner was a bouncer in California, before and after the laws
were set inplace for no public smoking. The crowd died down for a few weeks, but then the club was again packed, full of people.

I bet, it was still smokers, who smoked a pack in the car, before going in to the club, but hey most people get drunk before they go to the club also.

I am all for the 2 level clubs where the top level is open to the outside or something, and thats where the smokers can go.

There was a club in Germany, that every hour, big openings in the roof would open and fans would suck the smoke out.
This also worked quite well.

Everyone might as well face it, all public places will be smoke free someday.

Oh, and just so you know, my wife Smokes....

Might be true about the same amount of toxins.
but walking downtown doesn't make me cough, or my eyes water,
Stink like smoke in the morning, and so on.

perfume bothers me a lot, I mean tears starts rolling, I have to get out of the area. I mean it bothers me bad. I don't think they should ban it though, I just leave. I tell women when I meet them, I can't go out with' em if they wear it. Not all perfume's bother this bad, just most. And I know very few people
would ever think it a problem for some people. I god dam sure wouldn't tell someone they have invaded my AIR SPACE. Fucking dip shits. Some people have Zero class, and yes that's what it is LACK of class. PERIOD.....

Well, I am all for club owners being able to decide whether it's a smoking or non-smoking club, or a fragrance-free club. Like I said before, no one puts a gun to your head and forces you to go to a club, and I don't see why your self-centered desire to be in a smoke-free environment should trump those who don't give a flying fuck or actually WANT a smoky environment.

If your wife smokes, that may explain your hostility, but don't take your marital frustrations out on the rest of the world.

I guess my argument regarding fragrances was too telling for you to comment on, eh?

BTW, I'm a non-smoker and I think the smoke is part of the atmosphere of a club.

I bet your one of those people that wear shitty perfume. YOU should quit wearing it right now. It bothers some people. And it bothers them a lot. Why should you plot your fat ass down next to me and I have to leave because of you're shitty perfume, as I'm caughing all the way out the fucking door, so I can get my breath. :321GFY you don't think your perfume doesn't get on my clothes and hair, shit I can smell it on my body, I have to shower when I get home.

what were you saying about a lack of class?

as opposed to a self centred desire to foist the by products of their addiction onto other people? c'mon the name calling can more than easily go both ways.

split levels and open air areas are a good idea.. I definately think there should be a compromise.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Hey smarty, we are talking about smoking in public places not about your super sensitivity to perfume. Shitty perfume is relative, you may think mine sucks but really isnt the issue. Are you really more sensitive to perfume than to smoke??!!

See what happens when you try and quit smoking or better yet, try and stop a smoker from smoking.

OOPS

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ban_stabbing_4

I wrote "I don't see why your self-centered desire to be in a smoke-free environment should trump those who don't give a flying fuck or actually WANT a smoky environment."

Quite frankly, I don't see any names in there, whether they be formal names like "Bill" or "Mary Smith" or epithets like "asshole" or "ignoramus." Since when did merely presenting an argument mean one was calling someone a name?

Smokers just smoke, they don't "desire to foist the by products of their addiction onto other people" anymore than when you buy a six-pack of Bud you are intentionally supporting an industry that has millions of people addicted.

And as for split-level clubs, a split-level club is a great idea if the club owner thinks it's a great idea. The government needs to butt out (no pun intended).