Post #244,849
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
2/15/06 10:49:46 PM
|
Not my 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. 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
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.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
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
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.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
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*
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
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
2/16/06 8:35:20 AM
|
Thats why yer missus will be wearing a burka in 20 years
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #244,902
2/16/06 8:59:33 AM
|
Not the same
What if I want the right to piss on people in public? 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
What if I want the right to piss on people in public? 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?
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.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #244,914
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.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
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
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.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
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
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.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
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
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.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
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
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.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #244,995
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
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.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #245,000
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
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.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #245,019
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
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.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
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
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.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #244,918
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?
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #245,040
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
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.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #244,908
2/16/06 9:06:35 AM
|
You have a place.
It's called "your house".
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #244,911
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.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #244,927
2/16/06 10:14:08 AM
|
I'll play, briefly.
Can't come up with a another rationalization as to why smokers can't be allowed their own places to smoke? 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]: Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)
Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS. 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
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.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
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
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.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
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...
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #244,981
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.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #244,933
2/16/06 10:52:00 AM
|
Your ifs are wrong.
But it's a good idea to ban it everywhere? At least you point out that this is not a guaranteed outcome. 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. 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. 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
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.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
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
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.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
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
2/16/06 9:03:10 AM
|
<reagan>There you go again</reagan>
Therefore your argument that this change has to be bad for bars doesn't hold water. ... In other words the actions which you say there is NO REASON for can actually lead to a public good for bartenders. 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)
|
