[FoRK] The Shift...
mattj at newsblip.com
Thu May 26 11:47:09 PDT 2005
Quoting Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org>:
> This: http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/24410.htm
> Seems indicative of a general worrisome trend. Where once it was the
> case that all that was not explicitly forbidden was implicitly
> allowed, now we shift to all that which is not explicitly allowed is
> therefore implicitly forbidden (or forbid-able.)
I don't get that read at all. What's the difference between this case and a
run-of-the-mill bar where the patrons want to smoke? There is no difference,
because the private club also has employees.
The purpose of the smoking ban is to protect employees from second-hand smoke,
not to protect the smokers from themselves. If the club members would fire the
staff, and volunteer to handle the duties themselves, my two-bit guess is that
they would then be free of the ban.
BTW, I found this funny... A query brought up this BBC article from 2004 about a
possible smoking ban in the UK:
A photo has the nostalgic caption: "Smoking in pubs and bars could be a thing of
the past". But what's in the photo? The two pub patrons smoking it up are...
women. Weren't women (de facto) banned from pubs until a few decades ago?
More information about the FoRK