Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:10 pm Post subject: Budget crisis could shape L.A.'s future
The comments made by Smith and Parks are amazing! These are the very people that are destroying Los Angeles and whatever economy it has left. Unbelievable.
It wouldn't hurt if the L.A. Zoo were run by Disney under an official banner with added simulators (animal preserve ride), an animatronics exhibit of extinct animals, and a water park among and throughout the surroundings, and some method of providing a tram or people mover for the older folks, but L.A. has got to get off their health nut kick and start providing services for the revenue.
That means smoking areas at the zoo, popular foods, and beer on the outskirts.
It wouldn't hurt if the L.A. Zoo were run by Disney under an official banner with added simulators (animal preserve ride), an animatronics exhibit of extinct animals, and a water park among and throughout the surroundings, and some method of providing a tram or people mover for the older folks, but L.A. has got to get off their health nut kick and start providing services for the revenue.
That means smoking areas at the zoo, popular foods, and beer on the outskirts.
They could raise a few bucks selling "smoking licences" to all of the restaurants and clubs and bars where smoking has been banned.
It would only help those business' that want to buy a license ... it would help the city ... and it would protect those business's who do not want to allow smoking. Smokers and non-smokers can freely decide where they want to spend their time.
Joined: Aug 06, 2007 Posts: 1065 Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:37 pm Post subject:
EinsteinSmoked wrote:
They could raise a few bucks selling "smoking licences" to all of the restaurants and clubs and bars where smoking has been banned.
It would only help those business' that want to buy a license ... it would help the city ... and it would protect those business's who do not want to allow smoking. Smokers and non-smokers can freely decide where they want to spend their time.
It's a win, win win!
I'd also love it if a special smoking license was ever created for places that wanted to allow indoor smoking, and not just outdoor patio smoking. Course, California has so many screwed-up and zealous municipal councilmen, that at least an outdoor patio smoking license would be amazing progress for all communities that went excessively far in banning patio smoking.
I still love Rancho Cucamonga(sp?) for voting down an outdoor patio ban, and I'd definitely go out of my way to any community in the LA area that doesn't have a patio smoking ban, the day I one day visit that area on a vacation. (my cousin is actually an inspiring comedianne, but she unfortunately is still trying to make a bigger name for herself right now)
They could raise a few bucks selling "smoking licences" to all of the restaurants and clubs and bars where smoking has been banned.
It would only help those business' that want to buy a license ... it would help the city ... and it would protect those business's who do not want to allow smoking. Smokers and non-smokers can freely decide where they want to spend their time.
It's a win, win win!
Ok, ES, I say that Slearwig should run for City Council in my district (Garcetti) and you should run in the district next door (LaBonge)! Now we just need a few more people to replace Parks and Smith, and well the rest of 'em!
They could raise a few bucks selling "smoking licences" to all of the restaurants and clubs and bars where smoking has been banned.
It would only help those business' that want to buy a license ... it would help the city ... and it would protect those business's who do not want to allow smoking. Smokers and non-smokers can freely decide where they want to spend their time.
It's a win, win win!
There was a brief rumor of a "Smoking License" option here in Ohio.
My reply;
"I have heard that there is a possibility the legislature may want to sell my property rights back to me in the form of a specialized license! Oh what a magnanimous gesture!
This is no compromise but rather a feeble attempt to justify the folly of having allowed one of the wealthiest “non-profit” organizations on the planet to write a law that should have been penned by the legislature in the first place. Acceptance of such a “compromise” would only signify agreement to remain a servant of the State, and any offer to restore my liberty for ransom paid is not only insulting, it’s the reason I would be voting against every single incumbent for the foreseeable future.
I am however confident that most hospitality business owners would eagerly agree to this illusion of help from the State. Those non-franchised neighborhood operations that have managed to hang on till now would readily apply for such licensing out of pure desperation to preserve their businesses, their livelihoods, and their property but they will in fact be gaining nothing. Except perhaps the only thing that was ever actually required to begin with, a sign on the door clearly stating the Tobacco Use policy of each establishment as “Smoking Allowed”, or “No Smoking”
Nothing more was ever required." _________________ http://inconvenientliberty.blogspot.com
"I would rather suffer the inconveniences attending to much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it" - Thomas Jefferson
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest 2009 by The Smoker`s Club. You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php or ultramode.txt
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
