Smoking is always damaging your health, and that of those nearby, but you can go without. You can damage yourself by eating, but you can't go without food, and you don't indirectly damage others (ignoring the bio-industry).
So that comparison didn't ring so well with me. Problem is: if you leave the choice up to the pub owner, every pub will allow smoking, since no one will want to block some 30 percent of their clients voluntarily. But not everyone of that non-smoking 70 percent agrees with smoke - so should that, say, 10 percent set up their own non-smoking bar? I don't suspect it's profitable enough, if ordinary pubs are still around.
And Colman's previous argument stands. To let non-smokers work in a smokey environment which is damaging to their health shouldn't be allowed. It works like this for me: you're free to do what you want until the moment your actions discomfort or harm others; that's where the line is drawn. Smoking is the perfect example here. On the food, you've a point, but I'm not qualified enough to mingle in the actual debate. That's why I prefer to stand on the sideline and launch offtopic comments at people. Glad to be of service.
BTW, the majority of the Italians are exceptionally pleased by their non-smoking regulations. As true Italians, they now comment they can taste the food and wine in restaurants much, much better. For Italians, that says something...
Now, that 70% of people don't smoke, and don't want to be around smoke, doesn't change anything. They can still demand that the owner ban it in his pub, or they can accept the fact that people are going to smoke, or they can leave. They're not forced to go to the pub. If you siphon off that 10% from multiple bars, I have very little doubt that you could probably make a profitable business.
Most major cities in Britain, from what I've seen, are much larger than the city I live in, in terms of population. (Greater Nottingham, alone, is roughly six times the size of Tallahassee, and I don't think Nottingham is very large by English standards. I could be wrong.) We have many smoking and non-smoking bars, some right next to each other, and all are profitable. (It's a college town. There are a lot of bars.) I'm sure the market would be large enough.
Non-smokers shouldn't have to work in smoke-filled offices, and they don't. They don't have to take the job. Again, I stand by my point that, if someone takes out a loan to start his or her own business, he or she should be able to set these sorts of rules, because it's that person's money and credit on the line. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Non-smokers shouldn't have to work in smoke-filled offices, and they don't. They don't have to take the job.
Nonetheless, your point is well taken. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
