Ravenwood - 11/05/02 10:52 PM
Imagine owning property in Florida. It is now illegal for you to smoke or allow smoking on your property. The fact that the Florida ballot initiative had to make an exception for private residences, illustrates just how sweeping the smoking ban is. It will probably only be a few more years before even that is illegal.
Although I don't smoke, nor do I live in Florida, the thought of mob rule being able to take away a person's property rights is very disturbing to me. The biggest impact will be on bars, restaurants, and clubs where smokers often frequent. Wait staff and business owners will feel quite an impact in their tip jars, and many people may be put out of work.
Whenever I think about the whiny pleasure police pushing their agenda on people, I get pretty pissed off. Customers of business establishments should have no right to control whether or not that business allows smokers. Quite frankly, if there is a large enough demand for non-smoking establishments, a free market will provide them for both customers and employees.
I feel VERY strongly that if you want to work for a business or set foot on someone's property who allows smoking, you have to either deal with it, or get the fuck out! Taking away the rights of the business/property owner simply because you don't like their behavior should not even be an option.
GAWD!
Posted by: Da Goddess at November 6, 2002 2:57 AMFlorida's just going the way of the Ultimate Idiotarian State, California. (Sorry, Joanie, I know you're fighting the good fight, but it's like shovelling water out of the ocean.) When CA enacted workplace smoking bans, you couldn't smoke in your own home if you employed a housekeeper or nanny!
The anti-smoking brigade loves to cloak everything in the name of health, but the science on second-hand smoke is nowhere near conclusive. It's not about health, it's about controlling people on their own property. (Just as gun control isn't about crime, it's about controlling people.)
Rather than ask individual business owners if they'd consider making their places smoke-free, the anti-smokers take away everyone's rights and ban smoking everywhere.
They can get away with it because smokers are only 20% of the population. But what will they go after next?
Posted by: Steve at November 6, 2002 9:17 AMMy God... It isn't as if a person in a bar doesn't expect to breathe a bit of smoke. Even if Florida's goal is to reduce exposure to second-hand smoke, this was clearly overkill. This isn't going to help anyone.
Posted by: Owen Courrèges at November 6, 2002 7:57 PMOh for the record: I don't smoke. Okay, I might smoke 3 or 4 cigars in a year, on the top deck of my stately manor, but that's it. I don't like cigarettes, and don't particularly care for cigarette smoke. But I respect the rights of property owners to decide what happens to the air that they own.
Posted by: Steve at November 6, 2002 9:16 PMHey, I'm not thrilled with how California's being run. I didn't vote for any of these idiots and I don't like them telling me what to do. But, I do agree with the health aspects of it.
I realize I'm going to take a lot of flack for this, but, as a nurse, I see the effects of smoking on children. I have seen the effects of smoking on neonates. I can tell by handling a placenta (I've already told Acidman this story....) if the mother was a smoker or exposed to smoke. I'm not as good as my former nursing instructors.....But, I can do it. There ARE health effects. BUT, that doesn't mean that we have to legislate every last little bit of our habits because someone has an agenda.
Okay. I'm done.
Posted by: Da Goddess at November 7, 2002 12:07 AMBut the bottom line is that you don't have a right to patronize a business. If you go into a place and it is full of smoke then leave. If you cannot find any good non-smoking places, then open one. You are bound to make a killing if the demand is there.
Posted by: Ravenwood at November 7, 2002 8:46 AM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
