Peter writes:
“A statewide ban would level the playing field, the WRA thinks, because most local smoking bans excuse taverns and give them a competitive edge. ”
Or, one could also “level the playing field” (if that’s the objective) by REMOVING the ban that’s causing the competitive disadvantage.
And if 3/4 of the population are non-smokers, and if that’s such a non-starter and a money-loser for the taverns because of the “bad image” it creates, then why is being “smoke free” placing the restaurants at a DISadvantage in the first place?
It’s such a red herring.
Bottom line – if you don’t like smoking, then don’t go to places where it is catered to. If that hurt’s the business of the owner, odd’s are they’ll change their policy to win you back. If smoker’s give them all the business they want or need, then that’s their business.
Otherwise, all you’re saying is that it’s YOUR restaurant or bar, and that the SMOKER should “choose” to go elsewhere, regardless of the clientel that the business owner would prefer to cater to, and the type of bar that the smoker would like to attend.
Perhaps next bars and restaurants should be banned from allowing consumption of alcohol?
As someone else pointed out, that one’s been tried. The Kennedy’s made a fortune from it, and created a dynasty.
So the anti-smokers hate tobacco, and despise the smell of smoke.
Fine. We get the point. Frankly, it’s getting so that smokers can’t really stand the sight, sound, or smell of you either.
Time to head out to the porch, drink in hand, and annoy my liberal neighbors with the billowing aromatic vapors of a fine, hand-rolled, Columbian cigar ….
http://forums.wausaudailyherald.com/viewtopic.php?p=7957&highlight=#7957
