Weak Knee'd politicians go-down in Garden City

[lurker]

It's not really about second hand smoke. It's about political power and control.

"Obviously, we would've liked to see something stronger, but this is a great start," said Donna Gerstner, a coalition member. "We cannot be disappointed with what took place."

Next, Gerstner said, coalition officials might look into lobbying for action by Finney County officials to extend the ban beyond the city limits of Garden City....

http://www.hutchnews.com/news/regional/stories/smoke080906.shtml

The intelligent solution is (and has always been) to let the establishment's managers decide. It's called "choice" and it extends beyond smoking....

[Detector]

Another America choice removed and the ignorant are clapping.

This seems so stupid. A business should have a choice when it comes to something that will affect their survival or bottom line. It should be the business owners choice to allow smoking or not. It should be their choice to even offer a non-smoking section or not. Non-smokers have the choice to patronize the business or not. Now smokers have the same choice as the owner. NONE!

This is still America isn't it?

[cky]

[dustinwadams5]

I agree with Detector on this. I personally do not smoke and I dislike cigarettes and smoking so i'm not just a smoker arguing for my own cause, but I still believe that the owner should be able to make up the owners own mind about smoking in the owners own restaurant. Because I might not like smoking, but it's the choice, as Detector pointed out, that is supposed to make America "The Land of the Free".

Dustin

[Detector]

Hypocrites. They'll fight tooth and toenail to the end to protect "peoples rights." Even when they don't agree with the right being protected they claim rights should be protected no matter what. Oh course a business owners rights don't count when it comes to smoking.

[K C Muffin]

You guys hit it square on the head. I don't smoke, so I am going to choose a non-smoking restaurant over one that just has the non-smokers divided from the smokers. That's my right. Just like it's the owner's right to decide whether or not he wants to jeopardize his clientele by allowing smoking on his premises. If he doesn't care whether or not I frequent his establishment, then neither should the government. Who knows - I may not go there even IF he changed his place over to complete nonsmoking. Who gains?