![]() |
I could accept an exception for those places that are based on tobacco use- the cigar shop that served food, or the water-pipe bars mentioned in the original article. If tobacco is the *point* of going there, it's easily avoided by those of us who choose to.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Or if the tobacco part is actually separated from the nonsmoking part, then it would be ok by me. As long as I can choose to avoid it, smoking doesn't bother me. It's only because it's so unavoidable, that it's objectionable. Maybe a geographic zoning of some kind- places here can have smoking, places here can't. As long as the zones are made small enough that people have access to both at any given point of the city, that might be ok. |
Quote:
I believe there's a whole different set of restrictions regarding Pacific Islanders. |
Oh, I'm not saying it isn't a rational decision. That is the nature of the slippery slope. Based on the previous decisions the next one doesn't so odd any more.
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.