Jim Nantz jim at COTTAGESOFT.COM
Wed Dec 31 09:29:29 MST 1997

At 10:18 AM 12/31/97 -0500, Mike wrote:
>An interesting observation I've made since my move to the "South".  There is
>no such thing as a "non-smoking" anything down here.  I figured, coming from
>Montana, that we were always behind the times national, but there are very
>smoking businesses left out there.

I noticed the same thing since I made the serious mistake of leaving God's
country (Arizona) for the land of taxes, toll roads, humidity and chiggers
(Oklahoma).  There are a lot more smokers here than back home.  Not all
restaraunts here offer a no smoking section.  I have run into many smokers
here who seem to have no idea that their smoke could bother someone.

>The changes I had observed in Montana were gradual over the last ten years or
>so, but now that I'm back in the middle of smoking everywhere, all the
time, I
>forgot how much more pleasant it is to be in a non-smoking environment.

I've noticed the same thing back in Arizona.  Years ago it was a simple
warning that smoking could be bad for your health.  Now the state run ads
on tv saying that tobacco is a tumor causing, teeth staining, smelly,
puking  habit.  (did I get that right doug?) Also a couple of years ago the
city of Mesa passes a law banning all smoking in places of business.

>Now, more onto the point at hand; Does the government have the right to
>dictate what can and can't be done in a private business with respect to
>smoking?  I say yes.  The government regulates all aspects of a business in
>the forms of public safety and public health.  I'm sure that smoking could be
>argued to fall under at least one of those categories.

You do have a point here.  If it were found out that the air in a bar
contained levels of some other substance that were thought to be dangerous,
the appropriate government agency would step in and demand that the
situation be corrected.


Plutonium - fat free, no cholesterol, zero calories

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list