Do you agree with Minneapolis' recently passed law?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

see Jake's comment. I don't know if he was sarcastic but that's my view

No, I was serious.  I'd be kinda angry if I had to smell smoke while getting a table dance.

well then we do agree on something, although I'd be suprised if you would want a lap dance. What if it was a Lebanese stripper?

I wouldn't, hypothetically though

Not even a Lebanese stripper?

[Jake]

see Jake's comment. I don't know if he was sarcastic but that's my view

No, I was serious.  I'd be kinda angry if I had to smell smoke while getting a table dance.

well then we do agree on something, although I'd be suprised if you would want a lap dance. What if it was a Lebanese stripper?

I wouldn't, hypothetically though

Not even a Lebanese stripper?

Not interested really

[Nym90]

Of course, I'm sure Dibble is ready to fire back with "restauraunts and bars aren't public places", so I'll let him handle the libertarian argument. He's better at advocating it than I am.

Which is true, they aren't, though I think of a restauraunt as more public than a bar, since the main focus is the food, rather than alcohol. It makes it more of a family environment; although as Dibble pointed out, technically kids can be in bars, the main focus of a bar is on a product that it's illegal for kids to buy or consume, so it's clearly not a kid-friendly environment. The Supreme Court also has ruled before that restauraunts and hotels are in a different category for things such as civil rights laws, since they deal with interstate commerce.

Smoking definitely is dangerous to adults just as much as kids, but at least adults do have choices about whether they'll subject themselves to it or not; kids obviously can't choose, and shouldn't have to suffer because their parents force them to be around smoke.

I guess maybe my argument isn't clear from a philosophical point of view, but I clearly see a restauraunt as more of a public place than a bar. I guess the primary focus being on alcohol (non-essential for survival, though I suppose some could disagree on that point ) rather than food (essential for survival) changes the atmosphere in my view.

[Rob]

I personally think that smoking is disgusting, but I disagree with the ban. Just have smoking and non-smoking sections.

[Ebowed]

I disagree with the ban.  Puffing on pieces of paper filled with blackening plants may be stupid and annoying but if that's banned then you know the government is really beginning to interfere with people's lives too much.

[dazzleman]

Of course, I'm sure Dibble is ready to fire back with "restauraunts and bars aren't public places", so I'll let him handle the libertarian argument. He's better at advocating it than I am.

Which is true, they aren't, though I think of a restauraunt as more public than a bar, since the main focus is the food, rather than alcohol. It makes it more of a family environment; although as Dibble pointed out, technically kids can be in bars, the main focus of a bar is on a product that it's illegal for kids to buy or consume, so it's clearly not a kid-friendly environment. The Supreme Court also has ruled before that restauraunts and hotels are in a different category for things such as civil rights laws, since they deal with interstate commerce.

Smoking definitely is dangerous to adults just as much as kids, but at least adults do have choices about whether they'll subject themselves to it or not; kids obviously can't choose, and shouldn't have to suffer because their parents force them to be around smoke.

I guess maybe my argument isn't clear from a philosophical point of view, but I clearly see a restauraunt as more of a public place than a bar. I guess the primary focus being on alcohol (non-essential for survival, though I suppose some could disagree on that point ) rather than food (essential for survival) changes the atmosphere in my view.

They're both public places according to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which I support.  That law delineated which types of establishments were denied the right to claim privacy and were forced to give up total control over who they wanted to serve and under what circumstances.  Neither a restaurant or a bar owner has the right under current law to unilaterally determine the circumstances under which he/she will serve patrons.

Private clubs are exempt, and private clubs may also discriminate in their membership practices.  This I support, because you have to draw the line somewhere.  But there is definite precedent for calling both restaurants and bars public places.

[Alcon]

I fully agree with Bob and Ebowed - smoking is disgusting, and I'd rather not be around it, but if businesses want to cater to smokers while ignoring the majority non-smoking population, we can take our (sizable) business elsewhere.

This should not be up to the government.

[Gabu]

I agree with pretty much all of the comments made from those who aren't in favor of this law.  Restaurants and bars are privately owned, and thus, it should be left up to the owners regarding what gets done about smoking.  If he alienates a giant chunk of his prospective customers, he'll simply go out of business.

Look down.

I have no idea why, but I absolutely cannot read this without hearing the prologue to Les Misérables in my mind.

Yes, I know what you actually meant.

[opebo]

NO!

Dibble is right, this is fascism.  Besides, though I don't smoke, I have always found smoking establishments much more fun than non-smoking ones, and generally I like smokers.  I used to hang out in coffeehouses back home a lot (big chess player), and they went through the smoking intolerance phase before bars - whenever a place would shift from smoking to non-smoking it would immediately experience a 75% drop in business and all the cool people would stop going.

[senatortombstone]

Before I would have said NO, but after going to a restaurant last week and coming out smelling like smoke, I changed my mind.  Smoking is evil and unhealthy and it leads to debauchery.  Though the motivations for this law were liberal and had nothing to do with morality, it doesn't happen to coincide and that's a good thing.

[opebo]

Before I would have said NO, but after going to a restaurant last week and coming out smelling like smoke, I changed my mind.  Smoking is evil and unhealthy and it leads to debauchery.  Though the motivations for this law were liberal and had nothing to do with morality, it doesn't happen to coincide and that's a good thing.

Debauchery?!  What a prude you are.

Remember, your 'morality' is just your subjective preference, and no one else cares about it.

[A18]

It's obvious that someone else cares about it, or they wouldn't have passed the damn law in the first place.

[Hatman 🍁]

Yes I do agree with it. We have had the ban in my city for the last 4 years. While it did have bad effects for the bars in the city, it is for the best. It shuts the smokers out in the cold or in their homes, where they belong, and the health of others will be better at their expense.

[FerrisBueller86]

What's this world coming to?  I agree with dazzleman in this poll as well!

[John Dibble]

Dibble is right

*has a seizure*

[Platypus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-Eddie Izzard

except Minneapolis is a very liberal city so it'd never ban those things since liberals aren't for banning them. Liberals are anti-tobacco, but not alcohol or sex.

and thirty years ago they were not anti any. In thirty years, i'm sure some of the more extreme ones will force the rest of ther left to become anti-alcohol, and then anti-sex.

But never anti drugs, oh no...

[No more McShame]

What's this world coming to?  I agree with dazzleman in this poll as well!

I agree with Opebo.  The sky really is falling.