I understand your challenge and feel for you. However, these laws are not being passed for this reason. I honestly know gal that can't walk through Macy's because of all the perfume floating through the air from the perfume ladies standing around hoping you'll stop by for a sample. It literally causes her to break out. She enters the mall from a different entrance.

BAN PERFUME!!!!!

I wish no ill will on Smitty or any other bar owner. All across America (and the world), smoking bans have been in effect for more than a decade. An overwhelming majority of these bars and restaurants saw no change economically.

As for Smitty (and I mean no disrespect), if his business model is based on an action that's being banned throughout the world, he should have foresight to adjust his model or prepare to change occupations.

I don't care and I've stated that I frequented bars for years, regardless of the negative health issues (I'm asthmatic). But I'M not dictating anything. This is a vote by the American people.

Well, if you want to ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, be my guest. MY experience has been far different and NEVER in my life have a been in a bar that allowed smoking, yet only ONE person was smoking (in reference to your "whisp" of smoke). I've been to plenty of bars in the KC Metro area that were completely FILLED with cigarette smoke. I had no choice but to either leave or inhale.

As far as your "Spokesman of the World" jab, I guess I'm more educated about the laws of other nations due to extensive travel.

I'm almost certain that the bar scene is different in LaPlata than it is in ANY major metropolitan area. If smoking is the only reason for people to frequent a bar and socialize, then it's apparent that a bar isn't necessary. And if the bar isn't necessary, it will go out of business. It's a sad reality for those bar owners but in those cases, the success of the bar wasn't predicated on drinking alcohol but on smoking.

Thanks for the Kalifornia jab. I don't know why people on this forum can't see me as someone with a differing veiwpoint, especially considering I've stated time and time again that I spent the first 27 years of my life living in either Missouri or Kansas.

Secondly, as I've stated in this thread and the other thread from a few weeks back, smoke-filled bars never prevented me from going out to enjoy a few beers, see bands, play in bands in clubs, etc. I do FEEL better frequenting bars that have banned smoking (asthma, headaches, burnt-lungs, etc.) but it hasn't stopped me when visiting Kansas City. And I certainly don't get up on a soapbox and never will.

But if you think that working or hanging out in smoke-filled bars, night after night won't have an impact on a person's health, we're in disagreement.

Reason IS my argument. I think that considering the fact that 82% of the American public doesn't smoke, I see no reason that the other 18% should be allowed to smoke in closed-in public areas that may affect my health.

Thanks, Doc! :doh!:

That's what you don't get. Bars and Restaurants are not "public areas". They are Privately owned areas, open to the public. That's why many have signs saying "We reserve the right to refuse service". ;)

It's a subtle, but very important, distinction.

I have the same problem except that I start wheezing so I can't wear perfume and have to avoid it if possibe. I literally have to read my women's magazines in a well ventilated area.

I understand my plight is not the reason to pass the law and I don't expect that it should be. I think it should be majority rules and the majority of the American people do not smoke. That makes smokers the minority.

While we disagree on the subject, I personally respect your opinions and think they are well formulated. We've argued over them a few times, I don't want to do it again. However, you have one of the most logical arguments I've heard from that side of the fence.

Don't install a handicapped accessible toilet and/or entrance and see how far that argument gets you.

Rant, rant, rant, rant, rant.

Thanks for the name-calling, too. You've convinced me!

You've convinced me that you're just another close-minded jerkoff that who can't see outside of the little box you've created for yourself.

Good luck with that.

You desperately need to read this essay by John Stuart Mill.

Pay close attention to the part about the "Tyranny of the Majority".

http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm

So you're no longer arguing I don't get it? That's OK. You've made it abundantly clear you don't have a clue about something as simple as property rights.

As for the insults, get over it. You started flinging the "moron" label, so you can deal with the flood of primate-shit aimed at your Bonobo-esque "You don't get it" display. I get it, you're just so close-minded that you can't accept someone else might "get it" and come to a different conclusion.

That's part of the problem of allowing Government to dictate to private property. It's a slippery slope, and morons like Dane and meme are all to eager to push us right on down it. :shrug:

No, they're not "Privately Owned Areas".

It's real estate that is ZONED for businesses. Zoning laws are different for businesses than they are for residences and in most cases, I highly doubt that business owner actually OWNS the building where his bar or restaurant operates.

Last time I checked, grocery stores, drug stores, clothing stores, ice cream shops and shopping malls don't allow smoking on their premises.

Why should bars and restaurants be excluded from the same laws that exist for other business owners in the same business zone?

How about gay people. They are the minority, should we be allowed to not hire them based on their sexual orientation?

What are gays doing to harm your long term health?

But the ironic thing is, ADA was enacted into law. Denying service to anyone else might not be against the law.