Apparently there are no signs. It's a law and if you don't know about it, too bad.Originally posted by Warren Dew:
Do the signs read, "No one over 18 allowed unless accompanied by a minor"?
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Warren Dew:
That said, I don't think smoking is 'victimless', unlike the other examples in this thread, because second hand smoke does affect people other than the smoker. Some of us are very sensitive to the smell - for example, I can tell if my wife had lunch with someone who smoked, because I can smell it in her hair when she gets home.
42
Originally posted by Jessica Sant:
What gives one person the right to do something if by doing so they impose on other people? It's a public space right? everyone should have equal right to enjoy the space -- but if someone is playing their music extremely loud, it imposes on the people around them (who have no choice but to listen to it) and those other people may be forced to leave the area...
42
Originally posted by Max Habibi:
[qb]
That would probably be a violation of equal access but, in principal, yes, we have the right to tell people how they must behave in public.
Yes, but there are limits, as there should be. I can't stop you from listening to Sinatra, nor can you stop me from listening to Rage Against The Machine.
So it would be illegal to pass a law that says that women can't use a public park but it would probably not be illegal to say that lawyers can't use a public park since they are not a protected group.
I'm not sure how I feel about "protected groups", but that's probably a door we shouldn't open here.
Speaking of...
By the way, NYC has a law that prohibits someone without a child from sitting in a park near a children's playgroud.
Interesting how I've changed. Ten years ago, I would have been up in arms about this. Now, I can see it. I guess you really can't trust anyone over thirty :roll:
By and large, I think this law(smoking ban), as well-intentioned as it is, is designed to protect people from themselves. That, IMO, is inappropriate.
42
CIAO Peter M. Cooke
-Dan
And what if there are no other choices? This may work great in a big city but if the next closest donut shop is 50 miles away, do you buy a donut or go home and sulk?Originally posted by peter cooke:
But the law should not be involved in determinig what I can and cannot put into my body. if a resteraunt want to allow smoking, I for one will go some where else.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
CIAO Peter M. Cooke
Le Cafe Mouse - Helen's musings on the web - Java Skills and Thrills
"God who creates and is nature is very difficult to understand, but he is not arbitrary or malicious." OR "God does not play dice." - Einstein
They could in NYC but the laws for advertising, size of street signs, eligibility for a liquor license, etc are all different. It is unlikely that you would think a private club was somewhere you could drink if you didn't know about it already.Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
Why can't the bars and restaurants that want smokers simply reorganize as private clubs, with annual dues of $1, membership applications and membership cards available at the door?
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog