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
>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