lnkncontiverto
Feel my Pacifists-of-Fury
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2008
As I mentioned earlier, I believe it should be the business owner's right to choose. There are plenty of business opportunities out there for non-smoking establishments that people can go to and also work in. But it should be a matter of choice, not laws enacted because non-smokers don't like something.
And let's not use "health risks" as the basis of argument here. Otherwise, McDonalds franchises and the like need to be closing by the thousands and "banned" altogether considering the sh!t food those places serve.
I don't like the idea of government limiting freedoms either; however, up until about six months ago, Michigan business owners did have the right to chose. Unfortunately the vast, vast, vast majority chose to accommodate the smoking minority. The only restaurant in my area that my wife and I could safely patronize was a crappy family diner.
The McDonalds franchises are a totally different animal; there, you abuse your own health at your own risk. Conversely, allowing smokers to congregate indoors affects the health of such innocent bystanders around them. (think children, people with lung issues, ex-smokers).
If you do something wreckless that can/will have negative consequences for only yourself, my thoughts are 'go right ahead'. An example would be riding a motorcycle without a helmet. The problem is when said perceived wreckless behavior causes consequences for those that do not chose it, as in drunk driving.
Fear not, McDonalds will not be banned.