Idea about "click it or ticket" (mandatory seat belt laws)

[Flubber]

I think what Calgary did was a sensible compromise. A restaurant or pub can remain "smoking" but NO ONE under the age of 18 is permitted inside. So smokers still have their bars but families will go elsewhere and most places opted to be no smoking .

Well actually most larger places have a restaurant (no smoking) and a "pub" (smoking). In most cases the menus are almost identical

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Dauphin
"You can have the car in any colour, as long as its black". It's not a choice if you need a car. Similarly, "You don't have to go in to that bar", is not a choice if you want a few drinks with your mates and they are not bothered by smoke that all the bars have.

You are claiming choice, but its not that simple.

IN practice the choice does exist-- We have bars within a few clocks of my workplace-- some allow smoking and some don't. We go to the non-smoking ones much much more since the group is predominantly non-smoking. The smokers don't even raise their voice

[Flip McWho]

Ok somebodies holding a gun to your head and demanding you do something. You have the choice of doing it and living and not doing and dying. Choice? (ok far out example but hopefully my point comes out)

Flubber - What happens if none of the clubs/bars offer smokefree? Many eating places went smokefree here a long time ago, but all bars/clubs (ie saturday night entertainment) didn't till it was legislated.

As far as I'm aware it has not hurt business at all in this country so for all you its gonna hurt business people it ain't gonna happen. Peoples will to drink in town outways their laziness to stay sitting inside and light up, thus they still go into town and use either the outside areas provided or take a couple of steps outside.

[Ming]

The problem here is that bars that go smoke free usually lose money... so some of the bar owners want the government to mandidate that all bars don't allow smoking... so that they won't be at a disadvantage for being smoke free.

That is crap...

Yes, there are some smoke free bars here... but they generally aren't the "hot" places. Gee, I wonder why

[Dauphin]

Of course, the solution to the smoking debate is not to ban smoking, but to demand a high level of ventilation and effective smoke extractors.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Of course, the solution to the smoking debate is not to ban smoking, but to demand a high level of ventilation and effective smoke extractors.

Sounds great in concept... but even as a smoker, I have to laugh. Better ventilation and effective smoke extractors help... but I've never been in a heavy smoking bar where they actually work.

[Kontiki]

Do you support the concept of liquor licensing, or do you think that any place that wants to serve alcohol should be able to do so any time they want, as long as it's not to minors (which in itself brings up the question of having a legal drinking age at)?

[rah]

Go to VEGAS, the last bastion of smoker's freedom.
But there are many casinos opening no smoking sections for gamblers. There are even a few bars that allow no smoking. They're giving people a choice.
The interesting thing was the no smoking gambling areas were quite crowded. The no smoking bar was always empty. Let the owners choose and the market place help them decide.

And on the seat belt issue, there will always be those examples where the seat belt led to a death. And there will always be knuckleheads that use those examples as an excuse not to use them. I have no problem with letting them choose to be idiots. I used to only use my seat belt when I thought about it. (my first car didn't even have them) But when our daughter was old enough to be in the car without a baby seat, we had a rule that we wouldn't move till she had her seat belt on. She used to stare at me until I would buckle mine. Now out of habit, I put it on 99.9% of the time. Daughters are wonderful.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Flubber
I think what Calgary did was a sensible compromise. A restaurant or pub can remain "smoking" but NO ONE under the age of 18 is permitted inside. So smokers still have their bars but families will go elsewhere and most places opted to be no smoking .

Well actually most larger places have a restaurant (no smoking) and a "pub" (smoking). In most cases the menus are almost identical

How is this a sensible compromise? It's regulating private business every bit as much as requiring all places to be smoke free.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ming


Sounds great in concept... but even as a smoker, I have to laugh. Better ventilation and effective smoke extractors help... but I've never been in a heavy smoking bar where they actually work.

It creates CHOICE. You can go the bar with the light smokers because the ventilation is effective enough, rather than the heavy smokers bar! CHOICE! Why don't you want to give people the CHOICE!

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Flip McWho Flubber - What happens if none of the clubs/bars offer smokefree?

Then there would not be smoke-free places -- Free choice. But if enough people made it known that they wanted a smoke-free alternative, someone would offer one. It might have taken longer but it would happen.

The fact that nobody chooses a specific option today does not mean they do not have that choice

[Ming]

Originally posted by Dauphin


It creates CHOICE. You can go the bar with the light smokers because the ventilation is effective enough, rather than the heavy smokers bar! CHOICE! Why don't you want to give people the CHOICE!

You misunderstood my response... I have no problem with people putting in that type of equipment... I even applaud those that do. My point was, in most cases, they don't make much of a difference

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kontiki


How is this a sensible compromise? It's regulating private business every bit as much as requiring all places to be smoke free.

Simple-- The argument against regulation is about the choice of going into a smoking place . Children don't have that ability so the state has made that choice with regard to children in public venues. The parents still have the full choice for themselves when not with children. The businesses had a choice to be smoking and non and abide by the rules that that status brings

Note I do not support any parent that "chooses" to regularly inflict tobacco smoke on their children in their own home . Knowing what we know about tobacco, I can respect a person's right to do that to their own body but am uncomfortable with their "right" wrt their children. It is beyond what I think the state can or should get involved in though

[Sava]

I propose a public ban of children.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Sava
I propose a public ban of children.

I propose my son plays beneath your bedroom window with his drums while you piddle away another lazy-ass day