Laserfiche WebLink
is a bar or someplace else like that then that's fine, l thought about the <br /> argument well what if l arta a non-smoking adult and I want to go to that <br /> bar. You have the right to choose to go to a different bar. But, what if <br /> grant to go to that bar, should we force everybody to comply for <br /> everybody else? I think not. Business routinely caters to specific <br /> markets. some people just sell women's dresses. should we make there <br /> sell men's clothing as well? Granted it is a ludicrous example, But, it is <br /> ars example none-the-less. so I think that I am going to ask the board to <br /> modify the regulations to include no smoking only because it is an <br /> identified activity, which specifically gives off toxic uses to prohibit that <br /> activity within enclosed public spaces restaurants, stores and public <br /> buildings." <br /> Mr. Sall, "Bars too?" <br /> Mr. Doherty, "No. If a baris going to be a completely adult facility were <br /> no minors can be exposed. Then if an adult wants to go in there and <br /> smoke their adults. If you don't want to go in there and smoke then you <br /> don't want to go in there and smoke. Many people have said that a beer <br /> and a cigarette is what they like to do. It is still a legal activity whether <br /> e think it is good, bad, silly, foolish, dangerous or not. It is still a legal <br /> activity and there is still a balance here of non-smokers rights versus <br /> smokers right. I think where there is a question of where those rights <br /> conflict we should default to the natural state clause. The air is what it is <br /> without somebody else adding to it. That means cigarette smoke." <br /> Mr. Ball, "okay. I think the question before us tonight is was a request <br /> from the public that we consider banning smoking in restaurants and <br /> bars. I think that would be the first issue to address and other issues <br /> after that. Are I right on that " <br /> Mr. Santos, `Right* The way it was proposed to us was that the public <br /> health concern. It was not against smoking or people's rights or anything <br /> like that. It was the health of individuals and people in the town. I take <br /> my job seriously that's why I was voted to be on the BOH. To look out and <br /> make decisions even those is a tough one. 1 am the freshman on the <br /> board. The first tape second side ends and new tape begins.) The sole <br /> purpose for that building like Tinderbox their sole occupation is to sell <br /> smoking paraphernalia, cigars and cigarettes, If you walk in that store <br /> then evidently you are going to be a smoker. You might be buying a gift <br /> for somebody or you are going take that risk. It is something we need to <br /> weigh out.. I am for the ban. l would like to see the bars. Because, like I <br /> said the way I interpret and the way it was brought to rte is that it is a <br /> health concern. We have more than another documentation considering <br /> the hazard to health. That is my decision on it. Like I said where do we <br />