Next sins, in order: alcohol, seduction, evangelizing . . .

2/15/06 5:02:44 PM

Many times it easier to breathe

the smoke and be with friends than to listen to those same friends whine and cry when they go to a smokefree area.

I'm glad St. Paul, Minneapolis, Bloomington, and a few others have banned smoking in all public buildings, including resturants and bars.

A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"

Post #244,754

by drewk

2/15/06 5:10:47 PM

So *you* would rather breathe smoke than hear whining

So everyone else is told what to do.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #244,932

2/16/06 10:45:19 AM

Hell no

The only two establishments that I visit that allow smoking are: The bowling alley, 'cuz I joined a work league. Will quit after this year as I don't like the smoke and TGIFriday's when I have to pick up items (my wife is partial to their French Onion soup).

If I had my way, I'd just put a $10-$20 tax per cigarette and raise it annually by the same amount. I'd arrest anyone smoking in their vehicle, when they have children with them for child endangerment. Same for smoking at home when children are present. As I said, I have very strong anti-smoking views.

A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"

Post #244,935

2/16/06 10:57:50 AM

And you'd create a drug war to make our existing one...

pale to insignificance.

That is the main reason why I am for making it possible for smokers to smoke. No matter how much I dislike smoke, I'd dislike far more the increased violence from making smoking illegal.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #244,939

2/16/06 11:06:43 AM

I didn't say make it illegal....

Just illegal to endanger children.

Good point though on taxing it too high. How about until starts to hurt, but before it's cheaper to smuggle? :-)

A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"

Post #244,951

2/16/06 11:37:10 AM

It's already cheaper to smuggle...

if you can tolerate risk for guaranteed profit.

The question is when mainstream smokers will start smoking smuggled cigarettes. And that does not have a simple answer.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #244,954

by boxley

2/16/06 11:40:31 AM

now? I can mail order 4 cartons a month from Israel

Post #244,980

by jake123

2/16/06 12:53:29 PM

Now.

Smuggled and/or 'native' smokes are already a big feature here. A carton costs ~60 bucks, but I can get 200 smokes for fifteen from the right person. Mind you, they're manufactured on Mohawk reserves in the area (mostly Kahnesetake near Montreal) which is perfectly legal for them to do and sell sans federal and provincial taxes, but they do tend to be a lot harder on the lungs than tailor mades.

Smuggled is because I can legally go to a reserve and buy them for cheap, but if I want to get them here in Kingston from the right person, he and I are breaking the law if we don't pay taxes.

For the most part, I go with the cut rate smokes (I've been smoking a brand called Canadian Classics, manufactured north of Toronto); they cost about a buck and a half less of a mainstream brand (duMaurier or Players, for example) but are still legal and are better made than the KMT (Kahnesetake Mohawk Territory) smokes.

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #244,984

2/16/06 1:26:17 PM

Canada's taxes are higher than US taxes

And I already knew that boxley has a high tolerance for risk if he gets guaranteed reward.

Most smokers around here don't smoke smuggled cigarettes. But if the price changes enough, they would.

However it isn't just price. For instance if the postal service began monitoring better, boxley might be less inclined to mail order. And if it weren't for a ready supply of untaxed legal cigarettes, Jake wouldn't face such an easy choice.

But still at some point, people will break the law.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #244,985

by boxley

2/16/06 1:29:19 PM

do people around you go to Indian Smokeshops?

if they buy there, then dont mail a check to the california state government they are breaking the law.
thanx,
bill

Post #244,988

2/16/06 1:38:03 PM

Not that I know of.

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #245,009

by jake123

2/16/06 3:45:31 PM

Not true when it comes to smokes

The price of cigarettes in the border states to Ontario and Quebec are now very comparable to the price within Ontario and Quebec; in some cases they are even higher than they are in these two provinces (I'm talking about New York, Vermont, and Maine here).

When the price differential was large a few years back, there was a big smuggling operation from the US to Canada across the St. Lawrence River, mostly near Cornwall. However, that trade has dried up.

The history is that Ontario and Quebec dropped their taxes on cigarettes significantly after negotiating with the feds to do the same, resulting in a huge price cut in Canada, and esp. in Ontario and Quebec. This was done specifically to remove the economic incentive to cross border cigarette smuggling; the public order problem had become unmanageable, with running battles on the St. Lawrence involving automatic weapons between police and smugglers as well as between different groups of smugglers. It was becoming very risky to boat on that part of the river, and since that area is also a major tourist area, the decision was made to kill the smugglers by rendering the activity unprofitable instead of through interdiction; the lesson of prohibition (where we were the country doing the supplying) was well learned and not forgotten by law enforcement as well as by government.

After that happened, in the US the states won their suit against the tobacco companies (ISTR 300 G$ being the amount won) on the basis of medical expenses or some such, which resulted in the price of smokes skyrocketing as the industry had to hit consumers to pay the legal bill at the same time that these states started charging more taxes on cigarettes to ostensibly cover the increased medical costs that smoking incurs on the part of medical consumers. Since then, Ontario and Quebec have gradually increased the prices over the course of the last four or five years to a point where they brought the price up into the range of that being charged on the other side of the border.

There's more history to it than that, of course; the era of hard core smoke smuggling across The River near Cornhole is as colourful as any other smuggling story (like prohibition, for example). But the economics of it are basically as above.

Right now, smokes cost marginally more in Watertown than they do in Kingston (though perhaps the recent tanking of the US dollar will have changed that). There is no impetus to smuggle across the border anymore.

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #245,023

2/16/06 5:05:46 PM

Good to know. My impression was out of date.

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #244,749

by admin

2/15/06 5:03:03 PM

The restaurant was always busy before the ban.

My uncle had a book with a mathematical "proof" that you could always get one more person in a full hotel by moving everyone around.

There are no conclusions to be drawn from this particular instance.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #244,718

by boxley

2/15/06 4:10:17 PM

funny I dont even see a listing for that here

[link|http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/11029-2.asp|http://www.emedicine...icles/11029-2.asp]
thanx,
bill

Post #244,727

by admin

2/15/06 4:21:06 PM

...

"Cigarette smoking or other tobacco use, including cigars and chewing tobacco"

Are you just trying to be funny or something?

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #244,734

by boxley

2/15/06 4:36:24 PM

doesnt mention second hand anything

and 60% isnt listed anywhere
thanx,
bill

Post #244,739

by admin

2/15/06 4:47:56 PM

2/15/06 4:50:54 PM

Oh, right, because smoke magically only affects the smoker.

[link|http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7446/980|http://bmj.bmjjourna...full/328/7446/980] - "A substantial body of epidemiological and laboratory data indicates that, unlike the case with lung cancer, the risk of acute myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease associated with exposure to tobacco smoke is non-linear at low doses, increasing rapidly with relatively small doses such as those received from secondhand smoke or actively smoking one or two cigarettes a day." (emphasis mine)

And the original study: [link|http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7446/977|http://bmj.bmjjourna...full/328/7446/977]

The [link|http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3557|mechanism]:

And sorry, it was 40%, not 60%. Same diff.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Edited by admin Feb. 15, 2006, 04:50:36 PM EST

Edited by admin Feb. 15, 2006, 04:50:54 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #244,743

by drewk

2/15/06 4:58:07 PM

That's new to me

I never heard that before. So basically the smoke was the last straw.

Hmm, is it fair to say that the smoke is the "cause" of a heart attack when the person had to be already "teetering on the brink"? Trigger, yes.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #244,747

by admin

2/15/06 5:01:47 PM

Re: That's new to me

So if there was someone with a deadly peanut allergy, and someone else aerosolized some peanuts and sprayed them, causing anaphylactic shock, was the spray the cause of the death, or just the trigger?

In other words, if the person is not dead without the extra little bit, they're still not dead no matter how close they are to the brink or not.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #244,752

by drewk

2/15/06 5:09:40 PM

Not at all the same

In your scenario the peanut was the only factor.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #244,757

by admin

2/15/06 5:14:52 PM

Uh, no.

Both situations have a pre-existing medical condition and an external exacerbation.

Are you in sophist mode or something today? This is getting tiresome.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #244,764

by drewk

2/15/06 5:23:49 PM

I'm the sophist?

Someone with a peanut allergy is exposed to peanut. Peanut was the only factor.

Someone with fatty deposits on their arteries is exposed to smoke. Multiple factors. One was the trigger, one was the underlying condition.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #244,769

by admin

2/15/06 5:32:25 PM

Re: I'm the sophist?

Peanut allergy is to fatty deposits as peanut is to smoke.

wtfever, Drew.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #244,845

by Ashton

2/15/06 10:04:11 PM

Ah.. It's-Good-for-You -- is Enough: OK, suppose we PROVED

the proposition that ~
Organized Religion is/has been the catalyst for virtually every major war in history.

(Let us say that the Boolean is done meticulously, arrayed about the Root proposition, common to all Major\ufffd 'Religions': Our God is the ONLY Real-God - ergo if you aren't with US - you WILL go to {etc. etc.}

Let us suppose further, that there is so little %chance that these organizations DO NOT seduce their membership into such an inherently bellicose mindset towards Others - - - that causality is deemed to be established, (at least as inerrantly? as in the extrapolations from? '?measured?' effects of second-hand smoke inhalation, as of 2/'06.)

What're the odds on the first church-closing?
(Or especially, after the blood & guts are cleaned up: on the second??)

Poor George Boole - he actually *thought* that his cute, ever-so-mechanically productive little algebra: applied to human discourse, too! and would eliminate all that Reasoning stuff, argument and thrashing.. Why .. a machine could finally end the necessity for Compromise! - (why, it all reduces to a 1 or a 0, after all the factoring-out.) er, cha :-\ufffd cha

Post #244,711

by lister

2/15/06 3:49:22 PM

I don't get cancer if you eat a Big Mac

I do if you smoke.

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

lister

Post #244,720

by imric

2/15/06 4:11:58 PM

2/15/06 4:12:23 PM

Right back at you.

Why do you have the right to prevent me from opening a 'smoker's club'?

Oh, that's right - because you can. Right after you rationalise that somehow, I'm forcing you and all the workers into the building.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Edited by imric Feb. 15, 2006, 04:12:23 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #244,736

2/15/06 4:44:23 PM

You do pay for his decrease in health

through higher medicare and insurance premiums.

And since higher expenses increase your stress...that increase in stress can be statistically linked to higher probability of heart disease and stroke.

Thus he should be banned from eating Big Macs.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #244,926

by jb4

2/16/06 10:03:28 AM

jb4
"Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'."
&mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration

Post #245,030

2/16/06 5:24:22 PM

Hey

Don't smack me...there was logical reasoning in that post (for once ;-)

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #244,704

2/15/06 3:31:28 PM

On fire codes and such...

Would you really want compliance with fire codes to be optional? In a city or in a dense housing development? I sure wouldn't. Fire has a nasty habit of not confining itself to where it starts...

And on smoking in public places - I think it should be forbidden in confined public spaces (especially inside buildings). Just as there are noise ordinances (someone can't have a 100 dB boombox playing where ever they want in public), things that cause a nusiance to others that 1) don't involve freedom of expression; and 2) have demonstrated negative health effects on those who don't partake; should be reasonably restricted.

On handicapped access: Public buildings should be reasonably accessable to the public. Defining reasonable is the rub.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Whose paternal grandmother and maternal grandfather died of smoking-related illnesses, and who hates cigarette smoke.)

Post #244,714

by drewk

2/15/06 4:01:03 PM

Insurance

Your place burns down. It didn't meet fire code. You have to pay for the cost of fighting it. While I didn't specify, that includes the cost of damage to others' property. Now go try to insure your building. Oh, it will cost more to insure it than to comply with the fire codes? Works for me.

Thought experiment.

Laws are as they are today. You are required to meet fire code. A city-paid inspector signs off on it. You have insurance. The place burns down. The city absorbs the cost to fight the fire, passed on to everyone through taxes. Your insurance company covers the damage to your property.

Second case, you decide meeting the fire code is too expensive. You try to get insurance. The cost is more than complying with the fire code. You decide to comply. The insurance company sends out an inspector. The place burns down. If your insurance company can't prove the building was up to code, they are on the hook for not just your damages but everyone else's, and the cost of fighting the fire.

In which case is the inspector more likely to be thorough?

And for the non-financial, what if someone next-door dies because your non-code building burns down. Sounds like negligent homicide to me.

It all comes down to a simple idea. Anything I do that causes demonstrable harm to someone else, I'm respnsible for making it right. Not things that may cause harm, things that do cause harm. Anything else is no one's business but mine.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #244,721

by admin

2/15/06 4:13:46 PM

Comes under the category of "reasonable"

Or case 3: You decide meeting the code is too expensive, you don't care about insurance, and you burn down your neighbor's business, killing 3 people, after which you skip town.

If there's a reasonable chance that your firetrap will burn down and possibly kill someone in my building, then yes, I should be able to prevent a situation that *may* cause harm. Because an upset insurance company doesn't do jack for the person dead in the fire. You can't fix everything with money, and there's always someone out there greedy or stupid enough to Just Not Care.

Do whatever you like that can only cause harm to yourself. You can go stuff yourself if you think I'm not going to get upset when you open Moe's Indoor Open Pit Barbecue And Pinata Festival next door, though. If there's a reasonable expectation that your actions can cause harm to me, then I don't want them happening in the first place, insurance or no. I also don't want blind people driving or drunk pilots flying airlines.

I don't trust people's ability to overcome their own stupidity and greed when it comes to my personal safety. Post facto is too late.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #244,729

by drewk

2/15/06 4:30:03 PM

You just jumped the shark

You just argued that we need a strict law to regulate risky behavior on the basis that some people will run from the law after committing actual harm to others. This is the same reasoning that says that because we have some people who keep driving drunk even after we take away their license, that we have to lower the allowable BAC.

The problem in both cases is that we are trying to solve a problem with one group of people -- the ones who Just Don't Care -- by applying a law to everyone else.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #244,735

by admin

2/15/06 4:40:28 PM

WTF?

And you think that one line was the sum total of my post... why? Hello, Bryce, is that you?

But just to play along:

Uh, wrong. That would be true only if there were no law against driving drunk in the first place. The reason we don't let people drive drunk is because there is a reasonable expectation that they will cause someone else harm. You're saying we should just let them drive drunk, even though we have a pretty good idea that someone is going to get hurt, because we can just raise their insurance rates and throw them in jail afterwards and that will Make It All Right.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #244,741

by drewk

2/15/06 4:53:34 PM

Do you support random roadblocks?

Because otherwise, the only time police stop a drunk driver is when they see him driving badly. And once that happens, I don't care why he was driving badly. Is it OK to weave from lane to lane because you're on your cell phone? Is it OK to run a red light because you're tired? Is it OK to cut someone off because you're eating while you drive?

All those are cases of actually doing something wrong. We already have laws against them. If that's not enough, if we want to pre-emptively arrest anyone who we suspect is more likely to do something wrong, then we need the roadblocks. And while they've got us stopped, they might as well check for unregistered weapons, in case we might go hurt someone. And they can check for fertilizer in case we might want to blow something up.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #244,755

by admin

2/15/06 5:11:17 PM

2/15/06 5:16:21 PM

No.

I'm fine with stopping them when they're weaving.

Buildings don't move, so it's more effective to inspect them as part of the process of creating the building. Different situation with a different practical solution.

I'm going to repeat all of this too, since you insist on dragging this off track:

If there's a reasonable chance that your firetrap will burn down and possibly kill someone in my building, then yes, I should be able to prevent a situation that *may* cause harm. Because an upset insurance company doesn't do jack for the person dead in the fire. You can't fix everything with money, and there's always someone out there greedy or stupid enough to Just Not Care.

Do whatever you like that can only cause harm to yourself. You can go stuff yourself if you think I'm not going to get upset when you open Moe's Indoor Open Pit Barbecue And Pinata Festival next door, though. If there's a reasonable expectation that your actions can cause harm to me, then I don't want them happening in the first place, insurance or no. I also don't want blind people driving or drunk pilots flying airlines.

I don't trust people's ability to overcome their own stupidity and greed when it comes to my personal safety. Post facto is too late.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Edited by admin Feb. 15, 2006, 05:16:21 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #244,724

2/15/06 4:17:41 PM

That's too simplistic.

IMO.

The fire code laws don't exist to make insurance affordable, they exist to reduce the risk of fire in the first place. Fire departments, and regulations designed to limit fires, existed [link|http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_031400_firedepartme.htm|before] insurance:

The earliest mention I've found of fire insurance is [link|http://www.firemarks.co.uk/History.htm|1667] in the UK.

Society doesn't merely exist to retroactively punish people for offense or lack of foresight - it exists to "promote the general welfare". Having safe public places certainly fits within that mandate.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #244,700

by jb4

2/15/06 3:21:38 PM

Beat me to it...Drook, what he said!

Post #244,712

by imric

2/15/06 3:57:57 PM

I was poor, true. Desparate times DO require desparate

measures. I worked a job that was unhealthy, too - and was glad to get it. Did I scream that we should all get air filters and respirators? No.

Did I change jobs when I found a better? Even when it meant leaving friends and family behind? Would I have changed jobs when I found another (even a bad job) there? Yes. It comes down to personal responsibility.

As for 'perception' issues - that's easily solved by raising liquor license fees for smoking establishments (Hell, give the difference to health orgs). If there are no-smoking establishments alongside 'smokers', then wait staff that prefer those environments will have someplace to go. If that many staff have a preference IRL, then smoking establishments will have to pay more to retain their staff as well. If there IS no difference, and it costs more, then the anti-smokers will have places to go, and smoking establishments will remain. As far as 'networking' goes - that would remain with non-smoking clubs as well - it's another rationalisation. Economic disincentive would get the ball rolling on breaking the so-called 'perception' without making people 2nd class citizens.

My point STILL stands.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #244,730

by admin

2/15/06 4:34:55 PM

Finally, a reasonable counter-suggestion

And if you 1) don't have any other skills than being a waitress and 2) there are no other jobs around for you and 3) you have two kids to support and want to keep them in their current school and aren't willing to leave them behind and 4) can't afford to look for a job in another city...?

Thanks for that beautiful demonstration of my point. You don't rock the boat when you are lucky to have a seat at all.

I like the liquor license suggestion. That's actually workable and reasonable.

How would the networking remain? And sorry, I see YOUR "points" as the rationalization. That goes both ways. Don't just wave your hands and scream "rationalization! bogus point!".

And it's not making you a second class citizen. You can still go to the bar, enjoy your beer, talk to your friends. You just can't smoke inside the building with other people. The cigarettes are being 2nd classed, not you. Now if you identify yourself so closely with your smoking, then that's your issue, not mine. You're welcome to change your behavior if you don't like that. I can't exactly get rid of my asthma.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #244,737

by drewk

2/15/06 4:45:21 PM

How about peanuts?

There are people with peanut allergies.[1] Should we not allow nuts in public places?

Then there's [link|http://allergies.about.com/cs/fragrances/a/aa022299.htm|frangarance allergies]. I guess we have to outlaw perfume, cologne, scented deodorant. But damn, then we end up with BO, and that's against the law, too.

[1] There are [link|http://www.aafa.org/|2.5 times as many people with allergies as with asthma]. Alergies are [link|http://www.foodallergy.org/anaphylaxis/index.html|potentially fatal within minutes].

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #244,738

2/15/06 4:46:54 PM

Thats why you get pretzels on planes now.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #244,770

by Simon_Jester

2/15/06 5:33:16 PM

I thought it was because the pretzels are cheaper.

Post #244,742

2/15/06 4:57:30 PM

Already have "stink" restrictions in many places.

Especially in the workplace. Workers filed grievances, unions reacted. Too much "scent" any you get set home to shower.

I enjoy the faint aroma of perfume, but I hate the assult on my nose from those who bathe in perfume (or cologne - some men are just as bad)

I won't get involved the discussion on smoking. My dad died of lung cancer - from smoking - when I was just 15. I have strong anti smoking feelings.

A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"

Post #244,744

by admin

2/15/06 4:58:18 PM

They don't allow peanuts in the schools here.

Nuts aren't generally aerosols, either (although very very rarely some people seem to have that level of sensitivity).

And there are a hell of a lot more people with asthma and heart conditions than with deadly peanut allergies. I know one person with a deadly peanut allergy. I know dozens, if not more, with normal allergies and asthma.

That's a pretty inane use of statistics, Drew. I'm not interested if you're just trying to play games.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #244,751

by drewk

2/15/06 5:07:36 PM

Not playing games, making a point

I just realized this is the same argument the EU is having about "self-regulating" the media.

Here is something that "bothers" most people. Let's ban it.

Ah, here is something else that bothers, well, a lot of people. We'll ban that, too.

Now here's something that only bothers some people, but it really bothers them. And most people don't care much about it one way or the other, let's ban that too.

Gee, now here's something that's actually kind of popular, but it really really bothers this small group of people. You know what? Let's just ban that, too, and save ourselves the hassle.

...

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #244,760

by admin

2/15/06 5:18:51 PM

Re: Not playing games, making a point

Sorry, I don't see a connection between banning stuff that offends people's sensibilities about their myths, and banning something that actually affects stuff that matters, like health.

And you're not making a point by using lousy statistics. You're just, well, using lousy statistics.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #244,767

by drewk

2/15/06 5:28:23 PM

Those offended by the cartoons would say that's what matters

Not saying I disagree with you. But you're deciding for other people what matters.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #244,771

by admin

2/15/06 5:34:26 PM

Shrug. It's all in your viewpoint.

But I give a lot more weight to a demonstrable physical reaction than someone's metaphysical outrage.

And that's exactly what the law is: deciding for everyone as a whole what matters, as far as everyone else (or at least a majority) is concerned.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #244,843

2/15/06 10:01:08 PM

Capitalism is imperfect

Suppose that you have some way that you're honestly better. You have to get the word out somehow. That has a real cost and can't always be done.

Until NYC had a smoking ban I simply expected every bar to be filled with smoke, and so would never go. After the ban was put in place I expected them not to be filled with smoke so I would go occasionally. If a particular bar was smoke-free, I would have never heard about it and would have never gone there. Furthermore when I go to a bar it is always a social occasion - a group is choosing to go and I'm choosing to be with that group. If that group includes smokers (and virtually all groups of any size do), it will choose to go to a smoking bar and I'll choose to not go.

The upshot is that in the presence of a smoking ban I personally spend more money at bars. In the absence of a smoking ban I spend less - and there is absolutely no way for a non-smoking bar to get me to spend that potential revenue. (Of course the presence of people like me is offset by the fact that some non-smokers will stop going.)

This is one of a large number of ways that the oversimplified economics that Libertarians are so fond of spouting don't actually work out in the real world. For a whole bunch more, read The Logic of Collective Action. (Better titled "Collective Inaction"...)

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #244,849

by drewk

2/15/06 10:12:03 PM

Capitalism and libertarianism are orthogonal

I never said the point of allowing the bar owner to make the choice was that he would make more money. What I'm saying is that the owner should be free to choose what he believes is in his own best interst. There is clearly a perception among many of them that they make more money when their clientel is allowed to smoke. They may be wrong. They should be allowed to be wrong.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #244,856

2/15/06 10:39:30 PM

I wasn't saying what was right

I was addressing Skip's argument that if there was money to be made in having nonsmoking bars, why doesn't someone go prove it by opening a nonsmoking bar?

My point is that it is economically possible that all bars will make more money if there is a general smoking ban, but no bar will individually make more money by implementing a smoking ban. Which answers Skip's point.

I introduced the remark about Libertarians because the point addresses a common Libertarian belief that we're all going to be better off if we allow everyone to do their own thing. In fact we generally wind up worse off when it comes to public goods. (The public good in this case is the general perception of bars as smoky places.)

In fact, if memory serves, this is what happened in both California and New York after their smoking bans. But the article suggests that there was a actually a net loss in Ireland. (Whether you win or lose depends on the details of the population in the area where the ban is implemented.)

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #244,858

by drewk

2/15/06 10:49:46 PM

Not my point

Many Libertarians do argue that we will all be better off financially if we allow everyone to do their own thing. Some of them even think that's the goal. Really, though, the point of Libertarianism is that being free to make your own decisions is the goal. "Better off financially" is not the same as "better off".

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #244,860

2/15/06 11:02:42 PM

And completely orthogonal to mine

I was trying to address Skip's question about how it is that smoking bans can be good for bars, yet no bar will choose to ban smoking.

I was explicitly not trying to say whether smoking bans are right or wrong. In fact I'm trying to stay out of that argument. Because the answer as to which you think is better is highly dependent on your personal value system, which varies from person to person.

I also note that I never said, nor did I mean to imply, that all Libertarians believe as they do for economic reasons. Some, sure, but not all. However many do argue their position on economic grounds, and I was pointing out that those arguments are fallacious because of exactly the kind of counter-intuitive dynamics that show up with smoking bans. (Many is, of course, far from all.)

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #244,862

by imric

2/15/06 11:11:48 PM

I am a moderate as a Libertarian

I HAVE seen the lessons of history. It doesn't work at extremes. any more than anything else.

However, I am all for personal freedom. I am against government regulation of morality, or enforcement of what the current 'we know what's best' crap that is pop-politics. There is NO REASON that gathering places for smokers should be illegal. There is NO REASON that non-smokers should be able to say 'but we don't want smoke, but we want to be able to be able to hang out with smokers, so smokers should not be able to smoke where we are hanging out - with smokers'. It's irrational - but that is what is being argued. It's nonsense. NOTHING prevents non-smokers from having there own places where smoking is banned - why should there not be places where smokers are allowed? The ONLY reason is that the anti-smokers are in a position to force their own choices on others, so they are. THAT is immoral. THAT is wrong. THAT is what is happening.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #244,866

2/15/06 11:46:57 PM

I'm not arguing for or against this change

I am just telling you that it is a matter of fact that with smoking bans, more non-smokers go to bars. And without smoking bans, individual bars won't win by trying to be non-smoking. Therefore your argument that this change has to be bad for bars doesn't hold water. It can (and according to the numbers actually did in California, something that I just read suggests that New York is still at a loss) happen that a smoking ban leads to more people being in bars, spending money.

In other words the actions which you say there is NO REASON for can actually lead to a public good for bartenders.

This result is not guaranteed. In fact the article claimed that Ireland that suggest that a smoking ban costs money. And I'm also not saying that this effect is a sufficient justification for the action being taken.

I am just saying that it isn't as simple as saying, "If people want to go to a non-smoking bar, they should just create a non-smoking bar". That can be a losing economic idea at the same time that everyone will make more money if there is a general smoking ban in place.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #244,895

by imric

2/16/06 7:23:11 AM

"That can be a losing economic idea"

But it's a good idea to ban it everywhere? At least you point out that this is not a guaranteed outcome.

IF more smokers come out, then there is an unmet demand. If there is demand, money can be made supplying it. Unless the demand is insufficient to support the business. If demand is insufficient to support the business, then it's a case of a group forcing their choices on others.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #244,896

2/16/06 7:35:29 AM

All society is groups forcing their choices on others

What if I want the right to piss on people in public?

If you say I can't do that, then you're forcing your choice on me. That makes you EVUL!

And in health/hygiene terms, there's not a lot of distance between smoking next to someone and pissing on them.

And I'm an ex-smoker.

Smokers are a minority. It's time to get used to the fact that society is in the process of moving on from the point where smoking was socially acceptable, and that if you want to do it, you're going to have to put up with some inconvenience.

Time was when beating your servants and keeping the missus indoors was socially acceptable, but you can't do that any more, either.

*goes to get some servants to conduct this experiment*

Post #244,897

2/16/06 7:52:46 AM

:-) ObMythbusters aside.

[link|http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/episode/episode_09.html|Mythbusters] [link|http://kwc.org/blog/archives/2004/2004-01-21.mythbusters_third_rail.html|Episode 3: Peeing on the Third Rail].

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #244,901

by boxley

2/16/06 8:35:20 AM

Thats why yer missus will be wearing a burka in 20 years

Post #244,902

by drewk

2/16/06 8:59:33 AM

Not the same

Then those people might rightly object. Now what if I want to piss on people in a private club, where the people there don't mind being pissed on? (Note: There are places in New York where you can do this.) Who are you to tell us we're not allowed to do that?

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #244,906

2/16/06 9:06:01 AM

Re: Not the same

It's also illegal to kill people with hammers in private clubs, whether they want to be killed with hammers or not.

I go to the pub to drink beer, play pool, talk bollocks and fall over. I don't see "breathing in the smog caused by stinky smokers" on that list. I don't cause people to play pool and talk bollocks just because I'm having a pint or six.

Anyway, it's not as if it's being banned outright; it's just that if you want to have a smoke, you have to go outside.

Post #244,914

by imric

2/16/06 9:13:31 AM

So go find a place that doesn't allow smoking.

don't force YOUR preferences on everybody, just because you can.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #244,938

2/16/06 11:03:36 AM

Overly simplistic answer

As Ben has stated. A non-smoking bar cannot compete with smoking bars. Almost every group will contain smokers and non-smokers. Peer pressure to be part of the group will force many, not all, non-smokers to visit the smoker's bar to be part of the group.

With a ban, business would increase because now all members of the group can attend.

A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"

Post #244,945

by imric

2/16/06 11:17:39 AM

If it doesn't go both ways, the 'reasoning' is faulty.

The peer pressure wouldn't exist to go to non-smoking bars? Gee - non-smokers have a right and a need to hang out with smokers, but smokers don't want to hang out with non-smokers? HOSRECRAP. Down here in Georgia, there are both smoking and non-smoking bars. I go to both. Non-smokers go to both. If a non-smoker doesn't want to go to a smoking bar they go to a non-smoking bar, and *shock* I *shock* have gone with them. I KNOW the arguments the anti-smokers are making are horsecrap; I KNOW non-smoking bars can and DO coexist profitably with smoking bars; I KNOW that choice works.

This 'peer pressure'/networking/whatever-forces-nonsmokers-to-congregate-where-smokers-go-to-relax is made up by those that want to force their choices on others - it's a rationalisation, pure and simple. And not even a good one.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #244,952

2/16/06 11:39:19 AM

I don't know why Georgia is different than NYC.

But in NYC I never heard about any non-smoking bars before the ban went into effect.

I don't know what the situation was in California.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #244,956

by imric

2/16/06 11:44:43 AM

Me neither.

And it makes me chuckle to think that Georgians are more reasonable and rational on this issue than others. It truly does.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #244,963

2/16/06 11:52:43 AM

I have a strong suspicion that I know the answer

And it is that non-smoking bars are forced to be non-smoking by law.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #244,968

by imric

2/16/06 11:59:14 AM

*shrug* They choose their customer base.

As it should be.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #244,986

2/16/06 1:34:35 PM

Do you have any idea how ironic this is?

Your example of businesses being reasonable and having smoking+nonsmoking establishments coexisting turned out to not be the result of businesses making a free choice. Instead it was the result of businesses being coerced into having to make that choice.

And you don't seem to have noticed that this fact completely undermines your assertion that Georgia is a counterexample to what I was saying.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #244,989

by imric

2/16/06 1:56:42 PM

Not at all - well, sort of.

The businesses ARE choosing freely to be a smoking or non-smoking establishment. They are choosing their customer base, they are NOT going under and the 'network effect' had basically zero effect on the success of non-smoking places. An outright ban was not necessary to give both smokers and non-smokers places they could go.

The choice itself was forced on them though - you are right about that.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #244,995

by admin

2/16/06 2:28:14 PM

The network effect WAS there.

Because those places wouldn't be non-smoking without the choice being forced on them.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #244,999

by imric

2/16/06 2:57:48 PM

So -

The effect that a non-smoking bar would be untenable (and would require a ban of smoking to exist) because the nonsmokers would want to go to the bars with the smokers in them (the smokers would not go into the bars that had a non-smoking policy even though THEIR friends were there for some reason) was negated because bars were forced to be smoking or non-smoking. Huh? A ban of smoking was NOT necessary for non-smoking bars to exist, the government didn't have to force them to choose the nonsmoking option over the smoking option (they just chose WHICH customer base they wanted to serve); and smokers DO go to non-smoking bars (even though they don't smoke inside) to hang out with their friends.

Network what?

I'll say it again - the 'network effect' in this case is a rationalisation for people that want to force their own choices on others.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #245,000

by admin

2/16/06 3:09:56 PM

Refuse to see it all you want.

The bars wouldn't have gone non-smoking without the law. YOU admitted this.

That's the network effect in action. Call it what you want, but that's what it is.

Ben has already pointed out why this works in this counter-intuitive way, regardless of demand, several times in a much clearer fashion than my initial attempts.

Rationalize all you want, that's how it works.

Sheesh.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #245,014

by imric

2/16/06 4:16:13 PM

Of course that's the ONLY explanation, right?

Flat out conservatism could NEVER be the reason. And restaurant/bars are such high-margin money machines that change isn't really a risk, right?

I point out that the so-called 'network effect', when actually tested, doesn't happen. You say that because the change had to forced proves its real.

I point out that when choice exists, the network effect doesn't.

You say the 'network effect' prevents 'choice'. The 'lack of choice' proves the 'network effect'.

IOW:
if A, ~B
if ~B, A
so -
If A, A

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #245,019

by admin

2/16/06 4:54:37 PM

Conservatism and risk are part of it.

And I'm done trying to get you to see this.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #245,026

by imric

2/16/06 5:12:35 PM

*shrug*

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #245,025

2/16/06 5:10:36 PM

I'm not interested in arguing this to the ground

You're right that it wasn't an outright ban.

You're right that something short of an outright ban gives non-smokers somewhere to go.

You're right that the compromise gives smokers somewhere to be.

I'm glad to have established so many areas of agreement. I'm willing to let the remaining areas drop.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #245,027

by imric

2/16/06 5:15:54 PM

*smile* Sounds good. Me too.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #244,918

by drewk

2/16/06 9:20:49 AM

Try again

Smoking in my house is legal.

Pissing on someone in my house is legal.

Killing someone with a hammer in my house is not legal.

I'll leave it to you to work out why your answer was bollocks.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #244,978

2/16/06 12:49:08 PM

Yes, but it SHOULD be legal!

If I want to kill someone with a hammer, and that person wants to be killed with a hammer, the "illegality" of that act is impinging on my (and their) rights, right?

Post #245,040

by drewk

2/16/06 6:15:07 PM

One thing at a time

First, let's go back to the fact that your example of something that is illegal in a club is also illegal in your home, and so doesn't say a damn thing about the smoking issue.

Then we can branch this to discuss legalizing assisted suicide, which I support.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #244,903

by imric

2/16/06 9:01:09 AM

Still avoiding it, huh.

Can't come up with a another rationalization as to why smokers can't be allowed their own places to smoke? Other than the whine "but we want to hang out with smokers whenever WE want to, and when we do, we want to force them not to smoke, and our desire to hang out with them when they are smoking is more important than their desire to smoke".

It's bullshit, Peter. NOWHERE do I say that smokers should be allowed to light up anywhere. Nowhere do I say that "No Smoking" signs are wrong. Just that they should not be REQUIRED BY LAW everywhere that smokers may gather.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #244,908

2/16/06 9:06:35 AM

You have a place.

It's called "your house".

Post #244,911

by imric

2/16/06 9:11:17 AM

Cr@p.

And if I made that argument for non-smokers, you'd be outraged.

Again, your rationalisations and reasoning is false, your arguments are bullshit, and your actions are bullying.

Period. Your inability to argue this issue is noted.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #244,927

2/16/06 10:14:08 AM

I'll play, briefly.

Businesses, bars, clubs, etc., usually have employees. Employees have a right to a safe work environment (consistent with their duties and the job requirements - e.g. mining has different requirements from office or restaurant work).

[link|http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602|OSHA]:

Emphasis added.

OSHA has [link|http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/indoorairquality/recognition.html|lots of information] on indoor air quality standards, as does the [link|http://www.epa.gov/iaq/index.html|EPA].

Indoor cigarette smoke is a health hazard that should be minimized. It's not a discrimination issue to insist that smokers go outside to light up.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #244,946

by imric

2/16/06 11:19:53 AM

And of course no employees smoke

And of course all of them mind.

More rationalizations.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #244,958

2/16/06 11:47:16 AM

Heath and safety rules are inconvenient.

It's not about "minding", it's about health and safety.

Not being able to run red lights and stop signs when I feel like it is inconvenient. "Hey, you're interferring with my rights! I'm not hurting anyone! If anyone is offended, well they're just discriminating against minorities! They can drive somewhere else!"

Bah.

I understand your point.

But you don't seem to accept that the best information we have indicates that 2nd hand cigarette smoke is a health hazard. If a smoker wants to kill themselves slowly, well I think it's stupid, but I won't get agitated about it. When they damage my health, or the health of others, I will get agitated about it.

I agree with laws banning smoking in indoor public places, workplaces, and even private clubs that are businesses that have employees. It's a reasonable health regulation.

I'll bow out now.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #244,962

by imric

2/16/06 11:51:40 AM

You don't mind if smokers do it in their own homes

but DO mind if they do it at work while serving other smokers?

Interesting.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #244,979

2/16/06 12:51:02 PM

Smoking is an interesting case re: the health issues

What about my severe asbestos dust habit?

Mind if I indulge that particular foible in public?

My other hobby is snorting radioactive waste. You don't mind me doing that whilst I'm stood next to you at the bar, do you?

Thought not.

Oh, wait...

Post #244,981

by imric

2/16/06 1:12:39 PM

Men of straw.

But you know what? If you want a club to go and do that stuff with others of like mind, and the substances aren't illegal in the first place, knock your socks off.

Oh, wait...

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #244,933

2/16/06 10:52:00 AM

Your ifs are wrong.

I am explicitly not saying whether it is a good idea to ban it everywhere. Because I don't know enough about the specifics of England to say whether I think it is.

In California it clearly has been good. The ban was implemented, it is very popular, people are going out and eating more, smoking is down - it is hard to find a significant downside. Even most smokers that I know are for it. (Of course smoking outside is not a problem for them in Southern California because it never gets very cold.)

In England it might not be good, I don't know.

LEARN SOME FUCKING ECONOMICS, PLEASE!

It is common with public goods that there is unmet demand and one simply cannot make money trying to meet it in the obvious way. All that I am trying to do is point this out to you. If people expect bars to be smoky places, many non-smokers will not go to bars. And there is no way for a single bar to get past the immediate assumption to communicate that they're really different.

The result is that private attempts to do what most people want done frequently fail. And their failure says little to nothing about how much untapped desire there is out there.

In such situations there is often a choice between not allocating the public good, or allocating it by coercion. Sometimes allocating it by coercion is a good idea. (Personally I like having a highway system.) Sometimes allocating it by coercion is a bad idea. (I dislike what we're doing in Iraq.) But it isn't as simple as telling people, "If you're not doing it on your own, then you can't really want it."

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #244,947

by imric

2/16/06 11:30:19 AM

Your facts are wrong

I apologise for the 'good idea' comment though..

I did explicitly include the caveat that the level of demand might not be high enoug. I didn't say that could always be met.

However, down here smoking and non-smoking places coexist profitably quite nicely in a conservative place where traditional expectations are common, so your assertion is wrong. And it IS an assertion.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #244,961

2/16/06 11:51:15 AM

Your example does not refute the assertion

Some public goods can be privately provisioned. Some cannot.

Incidentally I am wondering how long Georgia has had smoking and nonsmoking bars. Because [link|http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/0505/05smokingsigned.html|the non-smoking bars may not have a choice]. By law, if you have a bar at a restaurant that allows minors, you can't have smoking. You either have to give up the restaurant or give up smoking. Which is a very different economic proposition than deciding to go non-smoking because you hope to attract non-smokers.

BTW I note that this ban had strong public support. I also note that the article I linked to shows another incentive against a restaurant implementing a non-smoking policy on its own - which is the unpleasantness of having to confront smokers about their violating the policy. If there is a ban you can just say, "Sorry, it's the law." And you'll get far less argument than if you say, "Sorry, it's management policy." (Public confrontations with customers are, of course, generally bad for business...)

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #244,966

by imric

2/16/06 11:58:13 AM

Never said that minors should be exposed.

And there was a 'stink' about it (sorry, couldn't resist) when it went into effect. One of the most vocal opponents I personally talked to was a waitress who didn't smoke at a restaurant that served minors.

It's a reasonable law, that respects smokers, non-smokers, and those without a choice. Just like I'm sure there would be a 'stink' if my suggestion of higher cost licensing for smoking clubs went into place.

It's the flat-out bans that get my goat, so to speak.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #244,987

2/16/06 1:35:59 PM

It sounds like a reasonable compromise to me as well

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #244,904

by drewk

2/16/06 9:03:10 AM

<reagan>There you go again</reagan>

So "good" = more money, "bad" = less money. But it's Libertarians making the economic argument? Or is it that everyone else frames the argument in that language? Again: I don't oppose the ban for financial reasons.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #244,934

2/16/06 10:55:08 AM

It is not just Libertarians who say that

But Libertarians often say that.

And Skip's argument on this point is a classic Libertarian argument, which is why it came to mind.

Anyways my comment about Libertarians is a tangent to the point. Which is that the inability of people to self-organize to provide themselves with non-smoking public spaces says nothing about how much untapped desire there is for such public spaces.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #244,683

by lister

2/15/06 1:57:13 PM

2/15/06 1:59:04 PM

It is about health

Ah yes *THAT* old mantra.

How would you, I presume a smoker, would like it if a group of guys with BO sat in for a pint? Not just regular BO but mutant rampant BO. The kind that clings and requires a good scrub to get rid of. I'm sure we've all encountered a person/people with this terrible olfactory problem. You wouldn't like it very much would you? Oh but it's not like anyone FORCED anyone to go there. Now put clones of those people in every single bar/club/restaurant and we'll see if you have a good time going out.

As far as competing, I don't know where you live but here in Toronto before the ban came into place there were very, very few non-smoking bars and restaurants.

lister

Edited by lister Feb. 15, 2006, 01:59:04 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #244,685

by boxley

2/15/06 2:01:05 PM

what kind of point is that?

some of the best times I ever had were in bars like that.You want to hang out with poufs go ahead.
thanx,
bill

Post #244,689

by lister

2/15/06 2:29:33 PM

It was an example

Hopefully one that most people have experienced and understand.

It could have been a city-wide ABBA tribute night instead. Whatever makes your nice time unpleasant.

lister

Post #244,701

2/15/06 3:24:10 PM

No, its not.

Its about the reduction in smokers to a percentage number below that which could swing a vote.

The rest of this is simple rationalization.

We had someone in NJ decide that smoking should be banned in cars. Personal vehicles. His thought process...lighting the cigarette was a distraction, so his law was no different than hands free cell phones.

Imric is right. It is about forcing one side. There are health effects, all of these can be managed through. I disagree that the ban should apply to private clubs. Public facilities, including pubs...smokers are a minority now and should expect to be treated as such.

And while you may argue that x has a right to y...keep in mind what rights are ACTUALLY guaranteed you. A smoke-free workplace is not one of those things.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #244,705

by admin

2/15/06 3:32:41 PM

I don't disagree on truly private clubs.

But you see the loophole, don't you?

"Sir, before you enter the Main Street Pub you have to complete this short 'Member Application Form'... yes, just sign, the rest is filled out for you."

Banning smoking in cars is just plain stupidity. Although I'm torn on smoking with kids in cars, because they can't just get another ride or whatever.

It's also more complicated than a simple vote swing. The differential is in part based on who cares about the health effects and who does not.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #244,713

by drewk

2/15/06 4:00:21 PM

Works for after-hours clubs

There was an after-hours club in Indianapolis back in the mid 90s. It was technically a private club, that was the way to stay open past 2. Membership cost $1. They gave you a card for your wallet that you had to sign. You showed it with your ID.

How is it a loophole to take affitmative measures to ensure everyone there wanted to be there?

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #244,750

by admin

2/15/06 5:06:15 PM

It's a loophole if...

... the law was intended to make sure that establishments with a reasonable expectation of public use can reclassify themselves without substantially changing the nature of their business.

A walk-in is a walk-in, not a member.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #244,733

2/15/06 4:35:58 PM

That loophole can be closed

by simple requirements and registration. And you could even fix the number of private clubs to make sure that some places would have to stay non-smoking.

As I said, smokers are now a minority and should expect to be treated as such. There are good science studies that show the 2nd hand effect is overstated...but that doesn't change the fact that there are folks like you who cannot be around the stuff and should, by all measure, have establishments to frequent that don't allow smoking.

Imric's point is also valid, it should NOT require a complete ban by legal means. It can and should be accomplished within the framework we have already established. Perhaps a reduction in license fees and taxes for those places that go smoke free and a hike in those same fees for those places that don't. It would create the niche areas for each without such a broad stroke.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #244,761

by admin

2/15/06 5:20:34 PM

I don't disagree with any of that.

Skip didn't say squat about alternatives until quite a ways into the conversation. He spent all of his time disagreeing with the premise that it was necessary to do anything at all in the first place.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #244,706

2/15/06 3:33:43 PM

Please elaborate.

What on earth do you mean by that?

Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #244,722

by imric

2/15/06 4:15:37 PM

Idiotic. I'd leave. I wouldn't pass a law against BO.

Take my business elsewhere. If it was commonplace to that spot, and everybody left, I'm sure that the owners would do something - or perhaps they'd cater to congregating smelly folk. No loss to me.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #244,725

by admin

2/15/06 4:19:26 PM

You missed the point.

EVERY bar has that problem from the non-smoker's standpoint. There is no "other place" to take one's business to, unless you want to become a shut-in.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #244,728

by imric

2/15/06 4:27:55 PM

If that were true

there'd be non-smoker's bars without being forced by regulation. Established by non smokers that appreciated the problem.

There aren't.

So I disbelieve it. What next? Are you going to say that only smokers start their own bars? I KNOW that's not the case.

No - you are intentionally missing MY point, by insisting that somehow you are being forced to frequent smoking establishments. And I call bullshit.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Post #244,765

by admin

2/15/06 5:27:43 PM

You're absolutely right, I don't HAVE to go to a bar.

You don't HAVE to smoke, either. However, you can smoke in your own home, but I can't drink draft beer and play pool in mine.

And I've already pointed out why I think there aren't non-smoking bars: fear of reduced profits due to networking effects.

And please point out to me exactly where I said I was being forced to frequent smoking establishments.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #244,788

by broomberg

2/15/06 7:05:09 PM

Did you people get any work done today?

Post #244,812

by drewk

2/15/06 8:41:13 PM

Nope

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #244,840

by admin

2/15/06 9:39:57 PM

I type quickly.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #244,872

2/16/06 12:57:14 AM

Interesting way to avoid answering the question...

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #244,844