Results 81 to 90 of 162
-
09-06-2011, 11:30 PM #81
It would still be interesting.
-
-
09-07-2011, 12:02 AM #82
Businesses wouldn' be regulated by health codes, safety codes, labor laws or be required to provide handicapped access either.
But I like the topless/stripper idea. It would make a visit to the McDonald's drive thru a lot more enjoyable.
How do you make that connection? Those are still laws.. There is still the ADA for handicapped access, and the codes and labor laws apply to each business across the board where smoking is only regulated in some industries....
-
09-07-2011, 09:24 AM #83
If the government has no right to tell a business that it has to be a non-smoking establishment (a health issue) then the government also has no right to tell them that they have to provide access to the handicapped, pay employees a minimum wage or prepare food in a clean environment.
It is a simple connection. Either the government has the right to dictate aspects of business to business owners or it does not.
Just because smoking laws do not affect everyone that labor laws or health codes affect does not change the argument of whether or not government can dictate what goes on inside of their establishment.
-
-
09-07-2011, 09:29 AM #84
And this is a perfect example of why some government regulation is a good thing. A patron can readily tell if he enters an establishment that allows smokers. Not so easy to determine what the kitchen looks like until it is too late and you are vomitting on the sidewalk on the way to your car.
-
09-07-2011, 10:17 AM #85
if a business wants to allow topless waitresses or strippers then they should be allowed to. They'd have to follow adult entertainment codes. Then if a person didn't want to go there they wouldn't have to.
-
-
09-07-2011, 10:21 AM #86
Businesses wouldn' be regulated by health codes, safety codes, labor laws or be required to provide handicapped access either.
But I like the topless/stripper idea. It would make a visit to the McDonald's drive thru a lot more enjoyable.
I'm not saying that businesses should be the wild west and decide whatever they want when it comes to labor laws, safety codes, and handicapped access. I can see allowing smoking or not can fall into this range, but I think it's a little different.
In my opinion a business would be doing itself a huge disservice if it was a restaurant and it allowed smoking. It probably wouldn't be in business all that long as it would cut out a lot of potential clientele.
-
09-07-2011, 10:25 AM #87
I don't see that as being black and white. The government has to have some set of regulations, but just because there are some doesn't mean it shouldn't still be limited.
personally I love that almost everywhere I go is non smoking, but if a bar is smokey I make the choice to go there or not.
-
-
09-07-2011, 11:41 AM #88
The simple reality is that if given the choice 99.9% of smokers will choose to smoke and force the non-smokers to tolerate it. Smokers do not care that they are poisonng themselves, why should they care if they poison strangers? That is the #1 reason that I support anti-smoking laws.
I also support strict application of littering laws for people who toss out their cigarette butt. I am not allowed to throw my gum wrapper or candy bar wrapper out the window, why are they allowed to toss smoldering cig butts out?
-
09-08-2011, 12:31 AM #89BANNED
So by that standard then they have no right to dictate health codes for restaurants? No health codes for eating establishments, imagine the implications there....................
-
09-08-2011, 10:22 AM #90
That was my point. I don't advocate that tho. I was trying to point out that we can not pick and choose which aspects of business that we want the government to regulate. We can't say that the government has no right to tell a business that they can not allow smoking and then expect the government to regulate other aspects of business like health and safety. It would be a double-standard.
-
Originally Posted by andrewhoya 
