Reply With Quote
Oh well. I'll think of it as us saving money by not going out as much.
Private business practices are changed all the time when they are unsound or unhealthy.
These guys could have just gone to some establishment that served "their kind", couldn't they?
Oh well. I'll think of it as us saving money by not going out as much.
Buffalo Wild Wings has an enclosed smoking section around the bar area.
What's great about the one on DeZavala is that the restroom is next to it and the smoke hits you in the face as you walk to it.
Michigan passed a similar law that went into effect this past May. And as a smoker I hate it. I'm not too bothered by not being able to smoke at restaurants, but I haven't been to any type of bar since the passing of the law. Same with alot of others. I keep hearing stories on local radio about bar owners losing patrons and money. Establishments that used to have a healthy amount of business are now facing the prospect of soon having to close.
I think it's absurd that the owner of an establishment can't decide for himself if he wants his bar to allow smoking.
With the economy as bad as it is (especially here in Michigan) you'd think the states/cities wouldn't push through policies that end up hurting more people.
And if the end game is to eventually get people to quit smoking, are the non smokers going to embrace the tax increases? I don't think people realize how much $$ comes into states from the taxes on a pack of cigarettes.
Blake I tend to be very very very distrustful of San Antonio's city council. I just hate the vast majority of they do.
A convention generally does bring business to a city but my point is that if we're arguing the smoking ban will bring conventions in order to add business we also have to factor in how much business it also costs before you can argue its a net gain.
I think the fact they spared the Riverwalk blows a huge hole in all of their arguments.
Sure. The difference being the cons ution doesn't seem to mention anything about smoking.Private business practices are changed all the time when they are unsound or unhealthy.
These guys could have just gone to some establishment that served "their kind", couldn't they?
The surgeon general has determined that there is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke.
If this is true, it's not much different than slapping someone in the face and telling them if they don't like it to go to a non-slapping bar.
You are also assuming that there will be other places to visit that won't allow smoking.
What would be the alterior motive behind City Council voting in favor of the smoking ban? I might be distrustful if they constanly vote unanimously on the great majority of important issues.
I would more leary of why Chan from Dist 9 and Clamp from Dist 10, whose cons uents are all northsiders, voted against it.
I've read my share of economic impact studies regarding smoking bans in cities across the state and country and I have found no impact myself.A convention generally does bring business to a city but my point is that if we're arguing the smoking ban will bring conventions in order to add business we also have to factor in how much business it also costs before you can argue its a net gain.
Let me know if you want me to share my findings.
I agree, and I agree with what Chan said in that if it really is a health risk, then don't compromise, make it a complete city wide ban on smoking.........(even though she voted against it)..I think the fact they spared the Riverwalk blows a huge hole in all of their arguments.
Castro's rebuttal is that this is necessary compromise in order to take that next step forward. For now, I'm ok with that over nothing, but the Riverwalk thing makes no sense to me.
No, it doesn't, does it?
No way! If she smokes, she pokes. This is a well known fact.
I dont' smoke cigarettes anymore but I always felt like smoking was part of the bar experience. I'm sad to see it gone, although in Austin there are still some places that you can go that has separate enclosed smoking sections.
The Michigan economy is bad for a lot of different reasons.
You'd have to really press hard to prove that establishments are closing specifically due to the smoking ban.
economy
They should ban smoking everywhere.
Wherever I go there is smoke frickin
If non-smoking was so cool, youd think you would have seen non-smoking bars, right?
amiright?
Oh, that never happened. Because until it was enforced thorugh law, a non-smoking bar would sit empty except for a few metrosexuals.
Pussies. All of you. Enjoy your utopia, your government wont be able to afford your pussy-ass lifestyle much longer anyway.
No, you wouldnt.
I used to go to a bar every weekend. I havent been to a bar in months. I spent, on average, $100 a night. Thats $400 dollars a month...at one bar. They dont have that anymore and I realized hanging out with metrosexual gots wasnt cool anyway.
Piss on government telling private property what they can and cant do.
Im out, enjoy arguing with a hater.
They better have this song on the juke box, the day I step foot in to a non smoking bar:
Doesn't affect private clubs according to the OP or some of the most visited areas in San Antonio.
PTL for Beer Joints & Cigar Bars!!!
smoking is being tough
Smoking is actually being re ed but thats the beauty of this country, if you want to be chemically addicted to corporations ---- have a blast
It's like a mother telling her child not to do something because it is dangerous or bad for them and the child throwing a hissy-fit over it
I know in Austin you can do this, but the room has to be closed off with a ventilation and purification system. Trudy's North Star is like this, but it's pretty damn expensive to do.
Do you smoke in your house?
Instead, they marched peacefully to achieve the physical coercion of Govt to force these buisinesses into submission into placating them.Private business practices are changed all the time when they are unsound or unhealthy.
These guys could have just gone to some establishment that served "their kind", couldn't they?
Racism is morally wrong, but this was not the proper way to do it.
If someone wants to not serve me because i'm mexican, then it. I'm boycotting them and asking like minded individuals to do the same.
One of the great measures of the civil rights era was to boycott. I think this was a noble concept and was a just one.
The Civil Rights Era rested their success on Govt coercion and abandoned their mission to change the hearts of americans and establishing a colorblind society. That's why they still exists. They coerced the public by force and are now fighting a different beasts.
Meanwhile they aligned themselves with other interests groups whose sole purpose was to make a whole political class dependent upon them.
Sure they got the right to eat at Wendy's and Denny's, yippee. But in those sections of america with past segregation, there's just as much animosity. They created a whole new burden to deal with.
Now their society is dealing with unwed and fatherless family units for which their allegiences created and fostered the environment for that to exist.
marching peacefully to apply force is an oxymoron.
I don't see a difference between Jerry Falwell and the statist anti smoking pushers here.
Both of them want to alter your lifestyle through the state.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
