France Bans Public Smoking; Stop Da Presses!
#31
Yes, I think most museums are actually privately owned, at least in the U.S.  They are paid for by endowments, and some federal funding, but they usually have their own board of directors.
If the U.S. Gov't ran the museums, we'd be in big trouble.  When some new group got in power, they'd pull a Taliban and start burning everything they didn't like.  Right now, they'd be burning Church treasures and Christian art.
 
OK, I exaggerate.  But not by much.
Reply
#32
If they get tax payer money, then they should be subject to the laws that govern (truly) public buildings ("truly public" as opposed to privately-owned establishments that are open to anyone who likes the place). Even here, though, I see no reason to get asinine about it (for ex., the rules about smoking even OUTSIDE in some places, or even in your own danged car if it is on such and such a property, etc.)
 
And when it comes to places where people are forced to be at times, such as Court Buildings (jury duty, for ex.), or places like hospitals where people get stuck, they should have, at the least, smoking lounges if they can't arrange their air filtration systems and windows and fans and such that Patient So and So smoking in her bed in Room B246 isn't deranging the person in Room B260 (who probably claims to have "attacks" when even thinking of someone smoking a cigarette).
 
No wait, that's not the "very least": the "very least" would be to provide warm, sheltered places outside for such people to smoke -- you know, so smokers don't have to stand in rain or sit on snowbanks --  but I guess even that is asking too much.
 
Wonder when they'll start banning perfumes, hairsprays, certain deodorants, people with cats, air fresheners, scented candles, and those smell-goody doojies one hangs from rearview mirrors in cars. I personally can't stand it when people blow their noses while I'm trying to eat. Or what about picking up a pay phone in a public building only to find it slathered with Jerry Curl? And a lot of people hate to hear children chattering in restaurants (nevermind the rowdy kids raised on Saturday morning cartoons). There ought to be a law! And the law should violate subsidiarity if at all possible! Make it federal! No, call in the UN!
Reply
#33
Vox,
 
I'm really beginning to take a shine to you![Image: laff.gif]
Reply
#34
VoxClamantis Wrote:If they get tax payer money, then they should be subject to the laws that govern (truly) public buildings
 
 
Then it's a moot point who actually owns the museums.
 
Quote:  
And when it comes to places where people are forced to be at times, such as Court Buildings (jury duty, for ex.), or places like hospitals where people get stuck, they should have, at the least, smoking lounges... 
 
Why? They don't have special doggy daycare for people who can't leave their pets at home alone. Tell me again why one group of people should have special privileges. Eating is essential to keep you alive (smoking isn't) but it's virtually impossible to find a place to eat in a lot of public buildings. I can't bring food into a classroom or the library or on the bus, and nobody is making special arrangements for me.
 
Quote:  
No wait, that's not the "very least": the "very least" would be to provide warm, sheltered places outside for such people to smoke -- you know, so smokers don't have to stand in rain or sit on snowbanks --  but I guess even that is asking too much.
 
 
You can't be serious. Yes, it is asking too much--it's asking too much for anyone! I stand out in the rain on a regular basis for any number of reasons--what wouldn't I give for a "warm, sheltered place"! The government isn't there to provide you with a comfy place to smoke.  
 
Quote:  
Wonder when they'll start banning perfumes, hairsprays, certain deodorants, people with cats, air fresheners, scented candles, and those smell-goody doojies one hangs from rearview mirrors in cars.
 

 
The perfume equivalent of smoking would be if someone was spraying perfume constantly. The other examples are even less pervasive. Nobody is being banned because they have the smell of smoke on their clothes. And in case you haven't noticed, people with cats usually can't bring their cats with them.
 
The problem seems to be that now smokers have become an angry minority. And we all know what happens when angry minorities start making a lot of demands.
Reply
#35
liliaagri Wrote:
VoxClamantis Wrote:If they get tax payer money, then they should be subject to the laws that govern (truly) public buildings 
 
Then it's a moot point who actually owns the museums.
 
It's not moot at all. Either a given musem is publicly owned or supported by taxpayer money, or it isn't. If it isn't, the government has no business saying anything about it.
 
liliaagri Wrote:
Vox Wrote:And when it comes to places where people are forced to be at times, such as Court Buildings (jury duty, for ex.), or places like hospitals where people get stuck, they should have, at the least, smoking lounges... 
 
Why? They don't have special doggy daycare for people who can't leave their pets at home alone. Tell me again why one group of people should have special privileges. Eating is essential to keep you alive (smoking isn't) but it's virtually impossible to find a place to eat in a lot of public buildings. I can't bring food into a classroom or the library or on the bus, and nobody is making special arrangements for me. 
 
Because people who are paying thousands a day to be in a hospital should be able to shop around for some service without the killjoy types setting all the rules, all the time, and enforcing them with the force of law (which amounts to enforcing them with the threat of deadly force), because people who are doing their civic duty by serving on juries shouldn't be unduly inconvenienced, etc. By the way, smokers also can't take food into classrooms, libraries, or buses, either, and nobody is making special arrangements for them on that account.
 
liliaagri Wrote:
Vox Wrote:No wait, that's not the "very least": the "very least" would be to provide warm, sheltered places outside for such people to smoke -- you know, so smokers don't have to stand in rain or sit on snowbanks --  but I guess even that is asking too much. 
 
You can't be serious. Yes, it is asking too much--it's asking too much for anyone! I stand out in the rain on a regular basis for any number of reasons--what wouldn't I give for a "warm, sheltered place"! The government isn't there to provide you with a comfy place to smoke.  
 
The government isn't there to make people's lives suck, either. Oh, wait a minute; yes, it is.
 
liliaagri Wrote:
Vox Wrote: Wonder when they'll start banning perfumes, hairsprays, certain deodorants, people with cats, air fresheners, scented candles, and those smell-goody doojies one hangs from rearview mirrors in cars. 

 
The perfume equivalent of smoking would be if someone was spraying perfume constantly. The other examples are even less pervasive. Nobody is being banned because they have the smell of smoke on their clothes. And in case you haven't noticed, people with cats usually can't bring their cats with them.
 
"Spraying perfume constantly"? Not all smokers are chainsmokers. And no, most people don't bring their cats to work with them, but they can bring a lot of cat fur attached to their clothes.
 
lilaagri Wrote:The problem seems to be that now smokers have become an angry minority. And we all know what happens when angry minorities start making a lot of demands.
 
Smokers just want to be left alone and to have business owners left alone to run their businesses as they see fit. It is the non-smokers who've been making a lot of demands.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)