Others are not imposed. They aren't there at all if they have the sense to leave.

I don't smoke. I'm inside with the guys who do.

In response to Penchiefs screed against the evils of business, and the virtues of his idealized view of our founders intent.

Hope you don't mind my condensing your post.

I don't think Government is "evil". I think Government, like any tool, can be used for "good" or "evil". History leaves me wary of granting powers to government, as they seldom relinquish them.

While we are at it, I'd prefer a government that didn't feel obliged to protect me from my own decisions. :shrug:

Now, with that said:
Bullshit. If I own and operate a business and want to adopt a strict policy of not seating folks who haven't bathed in a week, I have every right to refuse service. Likewise if I run an upscale eatery, and don't care to serve the Lady and Gentleman with matching facial tattoos and piercings with several chains connecting the two lovebirds.

Would it be silly for me to discriminate like that? Depends. In both cases, it might help me keep my customer base, but it opens me up to a frivolous lawsuit from the unwashed or excessively holed.

The only ones I can't "discriminate" against, are those specific classes recognized and protected by law.


You're suggesting that a non-smoker should be accommodated under the law and require service as (say) those protected by the ADA are.

I suggest the non-smoker is no more deserving of accommodation than someone hyper-sensitive to perfume is at the cologne counter.

Or, the other way, if the owner wants non-smoking, the smoker has the same right to demand accommodation. IMO, none at all.

Not when I choose to eat in the streets of Juarez, which I've done many times without ill effect.

But generally, yes.

Not trying to pick a fight, although that is seemingly what you are trying to do, but how is smoking in a place that allows smoking "imposing the consequences of your habit onto others?" It isn't. The non-smoker is imposing it on him/her self. A parent can't get upset if their kid hears foul language if they took them to an R-rated movie.

I'd appreciate it if you'd take the phony quote attributed to me out of my name.

That said (in summary), if someone is going to open their doors to the public they can not discriminate. That doesn't mean that "no shoes, no shirt, no service" isn't a good policy. In fact, my argument fits right in with that because both are intended to prevent an UNHEALTHY environment (which would also include unsanitary individuals). I don't agree that you should be able to count tattood people as unsanitary. Maybe that wasn't what you were trying to suggest.

IMO, being discriminatory and upholding health standards are two different things. In fact, I'm advocating health standards, not opposing them.

I'd venture to say that most people ARE personally responsible in regards to smoking. Unfortunately, some people, smokers and non-smokers will never be responsible. You ever driven down the 405 freeway and seen the trash on the side that was thrown out of vehicles? Should we ban all vehicles from the 405 because some people aren't responsible?

Bullshit. You're taking over individuals' business decisions.

A business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason ( other than race, creed, sex, or sexuality). It isn't just a health issue.

I know that you're not trying to pick a fight.

Let's say that grocery stores still allowed smoking. Why should I be exposed to cancer causing agents when all I'm trying to do is survive by going to the store to buy food to eat?

Go to the nonsmoking grocery store. If there are enough people who don't want to be bothered by smoke they'll prosper.

Modified by request.
I thought your argument was that no one could legally discriminate.


I offered several examples of how I legally could, if I chose to.

Sorry that was too subtle a point. Next time I'll use a really big font. Maybe that will help.

I completely disagree.

I just gave you an example of finding numerous cigarette butts where smoking was clearly not allowed.

I live in the Hollywood Hills East, near Lake Hollywood and it's deemed a fire zone. There are No Smoking signs everywhere. Yet, I find tourists on daily basis walking through my neighborhood, smoking, looking for access to the Hollywood Sign.

People were thrown out of clubs in Los Angeles and NYC (one person was murdered in NYC for being ejected for smoking) back in 1997 when the bans were first enacted.

As mentioned earlier in KC, there was a couple chain smoking in a NON-SMOKING section when one of the girls in our party was pregnant in October.

As I mentioned earlier, Chiefsplanet members seem to be the exception, not the norm, if we're to believe that all of the smokers here are as polite and respectful as they say.

I wonder how many businesses would allow smoking inside their properties if all smoking bans were lifted tomorrow? What % would go back to the days when there was an ashtray on every office desk and restaurant table?

One of my favorite things to watch is smokers going out in the cold to blaze up. Where I work, you can't even be on the property. So they have to go down to the corner off the grounds. This costs them several minutes each way.

They smoke them tubes of blue death so fast it must sound like a dry Christmas tree crackling in their hand.

Funny shit.