I'm sorry, I just do not want the government telling me what I can or cannot do.
I do not smoke, can't and don't want to because of health reasons and because of how much it costs ... BUT I do NOT support any smoking ban imposed by any governmnet entity. Let the resturants do the banning, let there be freedom of choice here ... I want to hear people say "I don't want to go to that resturant because too many people smoke there." I do not believe that any governemnt will be able to protect me from all the evils of this world, I have to do that for myself and that's the message I want any government to send out to people. Next thing you know they are going to tell me that I cannot ride my motorcycle without a helmet, or drive in my car without seatbelts !! Oh yea, they already do that too. I just feel the government has gone too far in what they have thier hands into, it's none of thier business ... I should NOT have to worry about getting a fine if I'm caught driving without my seatbelts on or if I'm smoking in the wrong place ... that is me worrying about the police and with these types of laws, it only give a police state more power. On Mar 12, 10:23 am, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > from my local paper > > With regard to the recent letters about smoking bans at restaurants > and other public accommodation venues, I would prefer to think of it > not as an issue of freedom of economic choice for the restaurant > owner. I prefer to think of it as an issue of workplace health and > safety. > > As long as leading health experts not funded by tobacco companies are > in agreement that smoking and second-hand smoke are indeed injurious > to the health of those affected by both, it would behoove government > to set the health and safety requirements for people who do not smoke > but find themselves employed by these venues. > > The person working in such venues should not have to choose between > keeping their job or their health. I, for one, would not want my tax > dollars paying for the health care of a person who wished only to work > for a living, but ends up contracting a smoking-related illness. A ban > on smoking in public venues is not an intrusion on private enterprise > as much as it’s minimal government interference in a personal habit > that affects the health and pocketbooks of innocent citizens. > > Robert Munro, Angleton --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
