I guess there are no "private business rights" in California regarding
smoking??
Might I also ask why you support (if you do) regulations that prevent
privately-owned casinos from cheating their customers? Also, I assume
that you would have no problem with meat packers operating in dirty
environments leaving their meat filled with rat feces and harmful
bacteria; restaurants with dirty kitchens, pharmaceutical companies
that do not have to test their drugs for side effects, or sweatshops
using exploited, even slave labor. Or manufacturing companies dumping
carcinogens and other toxic materials in the reservoirs.After all, the marketplace should take care of these things. In fact,
why don't we eliminate all regulations and all public services except
the military. Private schools, police and fire would certainly be
more efficient than this government interference with private
businesses.
ยทยทยท
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: "lindaandrae" <lindaandrae@yahoo.com>
Date sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:30:40 -0000
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Non-smoking Sections in Casinos
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@...> wrote:
At 12:10 AM 7/10/2006, you wrote:
>I do and I have the right not to participate in any activity that is
>not my personal choice. If that activity is offensive to me, I
>don't have to enter or support that business.
>
>mroejacks rgmustain@... wrote: --- In
>vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, anita walker ab4nita@ wrote:
> >
> > Hi Steve and Paula,
> >
> > I'm not a smoker either but I absolutely agree with your comment
>concerning private business rights. If there is such a massive (non-
>captured) market out there for non-smoking establishments, private
>business owners should be jumping at the chance to cater to and
>capture this totally open market. In this country that would seem to
>be a better solution than forced smoking bans.
>
>Steve, Paula, Anita, et al,
>
>I'll ask my question again. Do you support nudity in private
>businesses? Sex? Exposure? All perfectly legal activities that are
>currently banned in the very places you are claiming should be
>without government regulation.
>
>If not, explain how it is different from smoking bans.
>
>Dick