Next step: Banning second-hand spit
Now that we've eliminated the threat of second-hand smoke in Minneapolis, it's time to take on the disgusting practice of second-hand spit.
(Seriously, though, what's the difference? If it were customary to spew tobacco-stained spit at bar patrons, would anti-spitting ban activists tell us to simply choose another bar?)
posted by Luke Francl @ 5:56 PM |
| 
6 Comments:
I disagree with you, but oh Lord that picture is hilarious. Thanks for the much-needed guffaw.
I agree with you to the very point. Smoking is an obnoxious behavior, and personally, I like to smoke. Its like spitting, or miming, it has its time and place.
I'm just curious. Why do you continue to think that your "right" to go to a bar and have it the way you want it is more important than your "right" to operate a bar that's the way you want it to be?
decaf9,
Shall we do away with the health code than too? Should a resteraunteur be able to put a piece of rat feces on a hamburger if that's what he chooses to do? If people don't like it they can go somewhere else. Or is there a public health issue there that needs to be regulated?
Rights, rights, rights. When do you want 'em and when do you not? Are all the people saying they have the right to smoke support the right of two people to be united under the law? Besides, no one is being discriminated against here, people who don't smoke can't smoke indoors either.
I've lived through this once before, when Portland, Maine went smoke free 3 months after I moved there. Time will show what the right thing to do was.
Tom,
I don't smoke.
I don't care if you do.
I don't care who you sleep with or if you want to call them your wife (or not.)
I do care if you won't let me do what I want.
There's a world of difference between rat crap (which is OK no where) and smoking where we're being selective.
You're missing the point - its not about smokers' rights.
Its about business owners rights.
Just because a person owns a business does not give them the right to create an independent set of laws within that business.
Businesses like Restaurants and Bars, Shopping centers, stores, if they are open to the public, constitute public spaces. That is, anybody can come in; and everybody must be served. In this case, the rights of citizens trump the rights of business owners. And rightly so, in my opinion.
Spaces based on membership, private clubs and private residences, etc are not public spaces and can set their own rules, to some extent. One way a bar or a restaurant could get around a smoking ordinance is to charge nightly "Membership Dues" and members consent to live with smokers.
Post a Comment
<< Home