I'm pro-choice. Anti-totalitarianism.

__________________
WHYY pays their CEO $750,000 a year. So WHYY should I renew my membership? Seems they have no problems finding money and spending it unwisely.


And this is why you should donate to PACCA, not PETA:

In September, PETA made headlines in Vermont and across the nation for asking Ben & Jerry's ice cream to use human breast milk in their ice cream, instead of cow milk

But it actually isn't "pretty good". It hurts the good guys NOW!

At The Grey Lodge Pub, we offer a 2nd floor non-smoking option; it opened last year when we opened our kitchen and was a very sizable investment; it does much less business than the first floor. This bill would penalize us by denying us the ability to offer a smoking option and will drive smokers to other neighborhood establishments that can get the exemption. It will reward those who never made the investment in their business or in our city.

__________________
"Things are starting to get interesting right about now"

Scoats - publician, writer, artist.

All comments made by me on his board are given freely and probably worth what you paid for them.

Not to the business owners, because I'm quite sympathetic to their concerns. But to the rest of you? Hell, no!

First of all, tell me any other job where you'd be comfortable telling people it's a matter of "choice", that choice being "Breath toxic fumes or go work someplace else." I mean, WTF? How arrogant. I am amazed and appalled at the lack of empathy for the hard-working guys and gals who have to breathe this stuff. If you think jobs that pay enough to cover the rent are that easy to come by, I have to wonder what you all do for a living. (You can't all be stockbrokers!)

No, I think what this boils down to for the average person is anger at being inconvenienced. So let me ask you this: How would you feel about, say, me taking out a bottle of acetone nail polish remover and nail polish and giving myself a nice, leisurely manicure at the restaurant table next to yours? After all, it's 1) legal; 2) it's my choice - why shouldn't I be able to do my nails and eat at the same time? Why should the government be able to tell me what to do? And how dare you judge me, anyway?

If you don't want to eat dinner in a place where the patrons are exposing you to toxic fumes, I'd tell you to go someplace else! Besides, if the fumes are so bad for you, why does the government continue to allow the sale of nail polish remover instead of banning it? I'll stop using it when the government bans it!

Seriously now, the real issue here is something that's been lost after 30 years or so of the "greed is good" crowd poisoning the public square. There's no sense of the common good anymore - it's all about "Me, me, me!" I shouldn't be inconvenienced; I shouldn't have to change my routine. Jesus, what a bunch of babies.

I do feel sorry for the businesses, but their establishments shouldn't flourish at the expense of the health and safety of their workers. If it's any comfort, I know I'll be spending a lot more time out once this bill passes, and I'm thrilled that my dining options will widen. Instead of eating out all the time in a handful of places, I'll be spreading the wealth.

For the guy who said his upstairs non-smoking place didn't do well - I never even heard of your place, and I am always looking for non-smoking venues. Maybe you just didn't advertise enough? I never saw it listed in the online smoke-free sites I check.

In any event, once most places are smoke-free, you should expect a lot more casual drop-in business. As it stands right now, non-smokers have to plan their nights out around the known available options. The studies bear this out - in most bars, business will increase. The only studies that say otherwise are the ones funded by the tobacco lobby.

Couldn't the city provide incentives to businesses to go non-smoking rather than banning smoking from restaurants all together?

BTW, I'm a nonsmoker. Always have been.

Sorry: the government already rightfully dictates important laws to businesses -- including worker safety laws to protect the health of employees. It is explicitly on these grounds, the safety of employees who would be exposed to second-hand smoke (not the health of patrons, as you and many others often cite) that city and some state governments have passed smoking bans.

You probably wouldn't object to laws banning employers from subjugating workers to daily Russian Roulette for the enjoyment of patrons. From the perspective of worker safety, smoking bans are no different.

Will the proposed casinos be exempt from this?

Well said!

Yeah, uberblonde, thanks for that. Glad to see someone talking sanity.

Ditto. Bravo, uberblonde!

Then DONT be a waiter/bartender! Nobody forces you to work in a bar and nobody forces you to go into one. You have a choice to work where you want. It's rather simple.


Go ahead and do your nails but I'm sure the owner will ask you to stop, because it's HIS place and if you don't like it LEAVE. Its his business and it's his choice. Don't like it? Leave and go somewhere u can do ur nails. Simple.


HAHA ... me me me??? It's you guys on the left that are insisting me me me. You are the ones that want the ban. Instead of choice you want to FORCE the rule on everyone. Now what sounds more like "me me me"??


You make it sound like all these restuarants are so smokey that you cant see in front of you. What restaurants are you going to that are like this? I would really like for once for people to actually name these "Toxic" restaurants they "can't" go to. Anyone?