pokegimp wrote:
...It simply boils down to...wouldn'
their own places to go where they can be comfortable?
------------
Total agreement.
============
pokegimp wrote:
Why do non-smoking ban proposers say that instead of having places for
everyone, they should be comfortable EVERYWHERE and to hell with
anyone else?
------------
Probably because that's their only chance. They can't pick and choose
which places would need to ban smoking, so it's an all or nothing
proposal.
============
pokegimp wrote:
I agree there are very few choices right now. I too wish there were
more. And hope a lot more do appear soon. But to ban smoking from
ALL places is giving NO CHOICE AT ALL. It doesn't matter which side a
complete elimination of choice serves, to have one's ability to choose
taken away is just plan wrong. It would be wrong to pass a law to say
that no place is allowed to have a non-smoking policy; it should be
just as wrong to say that no place is allowed to have a smoking policy.
------------
But there aren't ANY choices in Las Vegas now. A smoker can go to any
casino and feel right at home. A nonsmoker can't go anywhere. Give
the nonsmokers something, that's all I ask...I'm not in favor of
having every casino be nonsmoking--
Montana (just kidding).
There was some talk about Silver City...what a joke! We went there in
the 80s and actually thought it would be the place to be for us. They
had absolutely nothing to offer and when we did play a little vp
there, a guy sits down next to us and he's smoking. I reminded him
that this place was nonsmoking, but he said he just has to finish this
one. Nobody representing the casino came to tell him any different,
we cashed out and left.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
