 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:37
|
|
I think what Calgary did was a sensible compromise. A restaurant or pub can remain "smoking" but NO ONE under the age of 18 is permitted inside. So smokers still have their bars but families will go elsewhere and most places opted to be no smoking .
Well actually most larger places have a restaurant (no smoking) and a "pub" (smoking). In most cases the menus are almost identical
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002 time: 17:37
|
|
Ok somebodies holding a gun to your head and demanding you do something. You have the choice of doing it and living and not doing and dying. Choice? (ok far out example but hopefully my point comes out)
Flubber - What happens if none of the clubs/bars offer smokefree? Many eating places went smokefree here a long time ago, but all bars/clubs (ie saturday night entertainment) didn't till it was legislated.
As far as I'm aware it has not hurt business at all in this country so for all you its gonna hurt business people it ain't gonna happen. Peoples will to drink in town outways their laziness to stay sitting inside and light up, thus they still go into town and use either the outside areas provided or take a couple of steps outside.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001 time: 00:37
|
|
Do you support the concept of liquor licensing, or do you think that any place that wants to serve alcohol should be able to do so any time they want, as long as it's not to minors (which in itself brings up the question of having a legal drinking age at)?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001 time: 00:37
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Flubber
I think what Calgary did was a sensible compromise. A restaurant or pub can remain "smoking" but NO ONE under the age of 18 is permitted inside. So smokers still have their bars but families will go elsewhere and most places opted to be no smoking .
Well actually most larger places have a restaurant (no smoking) and a "pub" (smoking). In most cases the menus are almost identical |
How is this a sensible compromise? It's regulating private business every bit as much as requiring all places to be smoke free.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:37
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kontiki
How is this a sensible compromise? It's regulating private business every bit as much as requiring all places to be smoke free. |
Simple-- The argument against regulation is about the choice of going into a smoking place . Children don't have that ability so the state has made that choice with regard to children in public venues. The parents still have the full choice for themselves when not with children. The businesses had a choice to be smoking and non and abide by the rules that that status brings
Note I do not support any parent that "chooses" to regularly inflict tobacco smoke on their children in their own home . Knowing what we know about tobacco, I can respect a person's right to do that to their own body but am uncomfortable with their "right" wrt their children. It is beyond what I think the state can or should get involved in though
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37. Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|