SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (99191)2/8/2005 7:19:19 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 793739
 
I know its standard usage but I think it is misleading to refer to privately owned establishments as "public buildings".

I take your point.

For myself I'd probably like the direct results of such a ban but as a matter of principle I am against it.

It's really hard to reconcile principles with desired outcome on this one. I am violently allergic to cigarette smoke.

I don't buy for a moment the right to smoke. People have a right to defecate, but not at their table in a restaurant. Restricting smoking does not violate any smoker's rights.

But, like you, I'm uncomfortable with telling a restaurant owner that he can't allow smoking if he wants to. Maybe we should allow restaurants to make that decision but make them put a warning label on the door... <g>

I'm also uncomfortable with that kind of nannyism. People shouldn't smoke. Whether the government should engineer that outcome by banning smoking is another matter.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News