Smoking bans...

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

Or they coud really stop pussy-footing and ban the sale, manufacture and consumption of alcohol!

Horray!

Yeah and junk food too! Why should I have to pay the bill for someone who can't control their food addiction...

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

Or they coud really stop pussy-footing and ban the sale, manufacture and consumption of alcohol!

Horray!

Yeah and junk food too! Why should I have to pay the bill for someone who can't control their food addiction...

heh... People get criticized for smoking but for being overweight which is just as bad? No, that's rude :roll:

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Pabster
<Yawn>

Excuse me while I go light up. This nanny-state "Stop Smoking" obsession really needs to stop. Stay the fuck out of my life! :|

We wouldn't need laws like this if you'd keep your filth the fuck out of out lives!

Is he smoking in your house? If not then how is he forcing his smoking habits on you? Sounds to me like you went into bars that had smoking knowing full well the consequences.

So what if I want a drink without an asthma attack? What if I want to be able to walk from the parking garage to my building without having to duck and dodge? Apparently, 61% of voters in Fargo share my concerns. Fortunately, I live in a state that has some protection for bars and restaurants. We just need it in the other places where there isn't enough space to stay 50 feet back.

I dont know of many\(any?) smoking bans that ban smoking outside. And I doubt this one will either. If you want to drink without having an asthma attack drink at home or find a bar that banned smoking. There were and are bars that do such a thing. I went to school at NDSU in fargo and while at school there was a bar that did just that(banned smoking within the bar). And you know what? The place was packed. It was called the 21st Amendment though it has since closed due to the owner being a douchebag.

By the same token, If you want to work for handicap-accessible workplace, go find one. Your argument is a fallacy, because you're assuming perfect market efficiency. Since one-time cost of a non-smoker visiting a smoke environment is minimal, most often he/she won't chose to go to a smoke-free bar. On the aggregate level, though, he/she is worse off and so are we (healthcare costs) and market will undersupply smoke-free bars.

I would suggest you google "asymmetric incentives"... fun economic therory and also the reason why all americans are paying 100-200 a year for sugar tariffs.

Uhh... What?

There were several non-smoking bars in Fargo prior to the ban and with adequate ventilation there is no risk of serious health concerns.

In the end I don't think the health concerns are even relevant. It's their own business, a private entity.

Oh I agree, except for the mountain of evidence that proves the costs of individuals smoking are bourne by all of us by the means of health care premiums, ssoc costs and taxes.

You're missing the role of policy or government though. it is supposed to step in and fix market externalities and failures and smoking is one of them.

In a perfect workld, all smokers would go to smoker bars and all non-smokers would go to non-smoker bars. But we don't live in a perfect world and it's simply not economical to run a non-smoker bars in most cases. Also as I mentioned before, most of the time it's not economical for a non-smoker to go to a non-smoker bar. Ergo the market failure and gov't stepping in.

How is this a market failure? Twenty some years ago there weren't any non-smokers bars in Fargo, but several years ago we had some pop up simply because of demand for non-smoking bars.

Right, but the market will always under supply those, since people that don't smoke don't perceive as a visit to a smoking bar as much of a cost, which in turn dampens the actual demand for non-smoking bars. How many people in any bar actually smoke? It's a definite minority compared to non-smokers.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Did I read the part where it said "the same state that bans smoking is giving subsidies to bar owners to erect smoking rooms outside." incorrectly?

Why is this a bad thing?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Pabster
<Yawn>

Excuse me while I go light up. This nanny-state "Stop Smoking" obsession really needs to stop. Stay the fuck out of my life! :|

We wouldn't need laws like this if you'd keep your filth the fuck out of out lives!

Is he smoking in your house? If not then how is he forcing his smoking habits on you? Sounds to me like you went into bars that had smoking knowing full well the consequences.

So what if I want a drink without an asthma attack? What if I want to be able to walk from the parking garage to my building without having to duck and dodge? Apparently, 61% of voters in Fargo share my concerns. Fortunately, I live in a state that has some protection for bars and restaurants. We just need it in the other places where there isn't enough space to stay 50 feet back.

I dont know of many\(any?) smoking bans that ban smoking outside. And I doubt this one will either. If you want to drink without having an asthma attack drink at home or find a bar that banned smoking. There were and are bars that do such a thing. I went to school at NDSU in fargo and while at school there was a bar that did just that(banned smoking within the bar). And you know what? The place was packed. It was called the 21st Amendment though it has since closed due to the owner being a douchebag.

By the same token, If you want to work for handicap-accessible workplace, go find one. Your argument is a fallacy, because you're assuming perfect market efficiency. Since one-time cost of a non-smoker visiting a smoke environment is minimal, most often he/she won't chose to go to a smoke-free bar. On the aggregate level, though, he/she is worse off and so are we (healthcare costs) and market will undersupply smoke-free bars.

I would suggest you google "asymmetric incentives"... fun economic therory and also the reason why all americans are paying 100-200 a year for sugar tariffs.

Uhh... What?

There were several non-smoking bars in Fargo prior to the ban and with adequate ventilation there is no risk of serious health concerns.

In the end I don't think the health concerns are even relevant. It's their own business, a private entity.

Oh I agree, except for the mountain of evidence that proves the costs of individuals smoking are bourne by all of us by the means of health care premiums, ssoc costs and taxes.

You're missing the role of policy or government though. it is supposed to step in and fix market externalities and failures and smoking is one of them.

In a perfect workld, all smokers would go to smoker bars and all non-smokers would go to non-smoker bars. But we don't live in a perfect world and it's simply not economical to run a non-smoker bars in most cases. Also as I mentioned before, most of the time it's not economical for a non-smoker to go to a non-smoker bar. Ergo the market failure and gov't stepping in.

How is this a market failure? Twenty some years ago there weren't any non-smokers bars in Fargo, but several years ago we had some pop up simply because of demand for non-smoking bars.

Right, but the market will always under supply those, since people that don't smoke don't perceive as a visit to a smoking bar as much of a cost, which in turn dampens the actual demand for non-smoking bars. How many people in any bar actually smoke? It's a definite minority compared to non-smokers.

I think you underestimate the popularity of smoke free bars. These places were popping up here in des moines and were really thriving but now that the smoking ban will go into effect in less than a month - they are going to be just like every other bar now. WTG gov't taking away a niche market(and not a small one at that).

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

Banning things usually creates all sort of negative outcomes including organized crime and such (see prohibition). Taxing it to shit is the right policy choice.

Same goes for all negative externalities - driving w/o seatbelt ($$ ticket), drinking ($$ taxes), being obese ($$ premiums), DUIs ($$ premiums, tickets )

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Pabster
<Yawn>

Excuse me while I go light up. This nanny-state "Stop Smoking" obsession really needs to stop. Stay the fuck out of my life! :|

We wouldn't need laws like this if you'd keep your filth the fuck out of out lives!

Is he smoking in your house? If not then how is he forcing his smoking habits on you? Sounds to me like you went into bars that had smoking knowing full well the consequences.

So what if I want a drink without an asthma attack? What if I want to be able to walk from the parking garage to my building without having to duck and dodge? Apparently, 61% of voters in Fargo share my concerns. Fortunately, I live in a state that has some protection for bars and restaurants. We just need it in the other places where there isn't enough space to stay 50 feet back.

I dont know of many\(any?) smoking bans that ban smoking outside. And I doubt this one will either. If you want to drink without having an asthma attack drink at home or find a bar that banned smoking. There were and are bars that do such a thing. I went to school at NDSU in fargo and while at school there was a bar that did just that(banned smoking within the bar). And you know what? The place was packed. It was called the 21st Amendment though it has since closed due to the owner being a douchebag.

By the same token, If you want to work for handicap-accessible workplace, go find one. Your argument is a fallacy, because you're assuming perfect market efficiency. Since one-time cost of a non-smoker visiting a smoke environment is minimal, most often he/she won't chose to go to a smoke-free bar. On the aggregate level, though, he/she is worse off and so are we (healthcare costs) and market will undersupply smoke-free bars.

I would suggest you google "asymmetric incentives"... fun economic therory and also the reason why all americans are paying 100-200 a year for sugar tariffs.

Uhh... What?

There were several non-smoking bars in Fargo prior to the ban and with adequate ventilation there is no risk of serious health concerns.

In the end I don't think the health concerns are even relevant. It's their own business, a private entity.

Oh I agree, except for the mountain of evidence that proves the costs of individuals smoking are bourne by all of us by the means of health care premiums, ssoc costs and taxes.

You're missing the role of policy or government though. it is supposed to step in and fix market externalities and failures and smoking is one of them.

In a perfect workld, all smokers would go to smoker bars and all non-smokers would go to non-smoker bars. But we don't live in a perfect world and it's simply not economical to run a non-smoker bars in most cases. Also as I mentioned before, most of the time it's not economical for a non-smoker to go to a non-smoker bar. Ergo the market failure and gov't stepping in.

How is this a market failure? Twenty some years ago there weren't any non-smokers bars in Fargo, but several years ago we had some pop up simply because of demand for non-smoking bars.

Right, but the market will always under supply those, since people that don't smoke don't perceive as a visit to a smoking bar as much of a cost, which in turn dampens the actual demand for non-smoking bars. How many people in any bar actually smoke? It's a definite minority compared to non-smokers.

Always?

Hell, Fort Know one of the nicer, non-smoking bars was thinking about remodeling and adding a second floor. With the smoking ban we've now got a level playing field and they won't be expanding!

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

Banning things usually creates all sort of negative outcomes including organized crime and such (see prohibition). Taxing it to shit is the right policy choice.

Same goes for all negative externalities - driving w/o seatbelt ($$ ticket), drinking ($$ taxes), being obese ($$ premiums), DUIs ($$ premiums, tickets )

This creates the EXACT same thing.

 

[halik]

I think you underestimate the popularity of smoke free bars. These places were popping up here in des moines and were really thriving but now that the smoking ban will go into effect in less than a month - they are going to be just like every other bar now. WTG gov't taking away a niche market(and not a small one at that).

I would still argue that the fact that non-smokers are the dominant majority in smoking-allowed bars voids your argument. I have no problem with exceptions a la NYC places whose business is smoking (scotch and cigars, hukah bars) are not subject to the ban though.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

Banning things usually creates all sort of negative outcomes including organized crime and such (see prohibition). Taxing it to shit is the right policy choice.

Same goes for all negative externalities - driving w/o seatbelt ($$ ticket), drinking ($$ taxes), being obese ($$ premiums), DUIs ($$ premiums, tickets )

This creates the EXACT same thing.

Care to elaborate how banning smoking indoors will create a black market for smoking indoors? It's banning substances/things not regulating behavior....

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

Banning things usually creates all sort of negative outcomes including organized crime and such (see prohibition). Taxing it to shit is the right policy choice.

Same goes for all negative externalities - driving w/o seatbelt ($$ ticket), drinking ($$ taxes), being obese ($$ premiums), DUIs ($$ premiums, tickets )

By the same token, if marijuana were legalized, sold by private companies and taxed similarly to tobacco and alcohol, I bet criminal organizations' profits would be cut in half. The membership of these organizations would be decimated, freeing up valuable police resources and saving money for the taxpayer.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

Banning things usually creates all sort of negative outcomes including organized crime and such (see prohibition). Taxing it to shit is the right policy choice.

Same goes for all negative externalities - driving w/o seatbelt ($$ ticket), drinking ($$ taxes), being obese ($$ premiums), DUIs ($$ premiums, tickets )

By the same token, if marijuana were legalized, sold by private companies and taxed similarly to tobacco and alcohol, I bet criminal organizations' profits would be cut in half. The membership of these organizations would be decimated, freeing up valuable police resources and saving money for the taxpayer.

100% right on, look at the Netherlands for example. Or prostitution in Germany.

I'm very Libertarian if you haven't noticed

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

Or they coud really stop pussy-footing and ban the sale, manufacture and consumption of alcohol!

What's needed is a framework off regulatory parity for tobacco, alcohol and marijuana. Tax them, keep them out of the hands of children, keep them off the streets.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Tab
heh... People get criticized for smoking but for being overweight which is just as bad? No, that's rude :roll:

I agree. Fatties deserve our scorn as well.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

But that means they'd lose the taxes gained by it's sale. but these bans are for "health"....:roll: The only way I'll ever believe that is if they ban the sale of it. If it's really so bad that we have to protect people who choose to go to places where it is used then it should just be plain banned. But that assume consistency....something the anti-smoking nazis and local/state gov'ts seem to lack

I dunno, it seems like a fair compromise to me. Protect the health of non-smokers by minimally infringing on the rights of smokers without the outright banning of cigarettes.

If smokers cared so much about it, they should have voted against it. They lost. Democracy Inaction (a [bad]joke, not a typo)

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

Or they coud really stop pussy-footing and ban the sale, manufacture and consumption of alcohol!

What's needed is a framework off regulatory parity for tobacco, alcohol and marijuana. Tax them, keep them out of the hands of children, keep them off the streets.

I would fully support this, but I'm kind of afraid to buy corporate weed. Somehow, I think we'd end up with something that is more processed and full of dangerous chemicals and preservatives. If legalizing means I can't grown my own organic weed, then I'll just settle for being a lawbreaker.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Tab
heh... People get criticized for smoking but for being overweight which is just as bad? No, that's rude :roll:

I agree. Fatties deserve our scorn as well.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

But that means they'd lose the taxes gained by it's sale. but these bans are for "health"....:roll: The only way I'll ever believe that is if they ban the sale of it. If it's really so bad that we have to protect people who choose to go to places where it is used then it should just be plain banned. But that assume consistency....something the anti-smoking nazis and local/state gov'ts seem to lack

I dunno, it seems like a fair compromise to me. Protect the health of non-smokers by minimally infringing on the rights of smokers without the outright banning of cigarettes.

If smokers cared so much about it, they should have voted against it. They lost. Democracy Inaction (a [bad]joke, not a typo)

Here in Iowa, we had no voice in the soon to be active smoking ban. It was rammed through by the leftists in charge here in iowa...oh wait... except they exempted casinos which are state run. But they keep trying to say it was a "heath" issue which is pure BS. If it were, they wouldn't have exempted the STATE run business of gambling.
BTW, the "health" of non-smokers can be protected by their own choices of patronage.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

Banning things usually creates all sort of negative outcomes including organized crime and such (see prohibition). Taxing it to shit is the right policy choice.

Same goes for all negative externalities - driving w/o seatbelt ($$ ticket), drinking ($$ taxes), being obese ($$ premiums), DUIs ($$ premiums, tickets )

By the same token, if marijuana were legalized, sold by private companies and taxed similarly to tobacco and alcohol, I bet criminal organizations' profits would be cut in half. The membership of these organizations would be decimated, freeing up valuable police resources and saving money for the taxpayer.

The price of marijuana and many other drugs would drop dramatically however I am rather nervous that we'll get stuck with decriminalization.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

Or they coud really stop pussy-footing and ban the sale, manufacture and consumption of alcohol!

What's needed is a framework off regulatory parity for tobacco, alcohol and marijuana. Tax them, keep them out of the hands of children, keep them off the streets.

I would fully support this, but I'm kind of afraid to buy corporate weed. Somehow, I think we'd end up with something that is more processed and full of dangerous chemicals and preservatives. If legalizing means I can't grown my own organic weed, then I'll just settle for being a lawbreaker.

The way it is now you have absolutely no idea or effective method of recourse if you're getting a bad product.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

Or they coud really stop pussy-footing and ban the sale, manufacture and consumption of alcohol!

What's needed is a framework off regulatory parity for tobacco, alcohol and marijuana. Tax them, keep them out of the hands of children, keep them off the streets.

I would fully support this, but I'm kind of afraid to buy corporate weed. Somehow, I think we'd end up with something that is more processed and full of dangerous chemicals and preservatives. If legalizing means I can't grown my own organic weed, then I'll just settle for being a lawbreaker.

Paranoia much ?
If you legalize weed, FDA would be involved as well

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

Or they coud really stop pussy-footing and ban the sale, manufacture and consumption of alcohol!

What's needed is a framework off regulatory parity for tobacco, alcohol and marijuana. Tax them, keep them out of the hands of children, keep them off the streets.

I would fully support this, but I'm kind of afraid to buy corporate weed. Somehow, I think we'd end up with something that is more processed and full of dangerous chemicals and preservatives. If legalizing means I can't grown my own organic weed, then I'll just settle for being a lawbreaker.

They have organic tobacco. I fail to see why there wouldn't be a market for organic weed :stoned:

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Here in Iowa, we had no voice in the soon to be active smoking ban. It was rammed through by the leftists in charge here in iowa...oh wait... except they exempted casinos which are state run. But they keep trying to say it was a "heath" issue which is pure BS. If it were, they wouldn't have exempted the STATE run business of gambling.
BTW, the "health" of non-smokers can be protected by their own choices of patronage.

That sucks.

At least here in california these things go up for a vote. Despite being a non-smoker, I'm actually against smoking bans. It's not one of the things that I think government should be telling you what you can and cannot do, but I also feel that if it was chosen in a local election then that is what the people of that city want. I forget that not all city/states use direct votes like that though, my bad.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

Or they coud really stop pussy-footing and ban the sale, manufacture and consumption of alcohol!

What's needed is a framework off regulatory parity for tobacco, alcohol and marijuana. Tax them, keep them out of the hands of children, keep them off the streets.

I would fully support this, but I'm kind of afraid to buy corporate weed. Somehow, I think we'd end up with something that is more processed and full of dangerous chemicals and preservatives. If legalizing means I can't grown my own organic weed, then I'll just settle for being a lawbreaker.

With the right kind of regulation, I don't see how that would be a problem.

During prohibition, people concocted moonshine, some of it so potent that people went blind. Now governments have regulated the alcohol content in different types of booze. People can enjoy a drink and know exactly how much they are consuming. The consumer has the option to be informed, and can trust the source.

I think similar measures could work for marijuana - regulate the THC content for example. The main thing is that legal weed would be guaranteed not to be laced with other substances such as crystal meth, speed, etc., as often happens in the black market that exists today.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Or they could just quit pussy-footing around and ban the sale of cigarettes entirely.

Or they coud really stop pussy-footing and ban the sale, manufacture and consumption of alcohol!

What's needed is a framework off regulatory parity for tobacco, alcohol and marijuana. Tax them, keep them out of the hands of children, keep them off the streets.

I would fully support this, but I'm kind of afraid to buy corporate weed. Somehow, I think we'd end up with something that is more processed and full of dangerous chemicals and preservatives. If legalizing means I can't grown my own organic weed, then I'll just settle for being a lawbreaker.

The way it is now you have absolutely no idea or effective method of recourse if you're getting a bad product.

sure I do. If someone sells me something I don't like, I don't by from them anymore.

If all of a sudden all that is available is Government Approved Marijuana from brand X,Y or Z, then where do I turn when I'm not satisfied?

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
[The main thing is that legal weed would be guaranteed not to be laced with other substances such as crystal meth, speed, etc., as often happens in the black market that exists today.

This does not ever happen.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

They have organic tobacco. I fail to see why there wouldn't be a market for organic weed :stoned:

You're probably right. I'll just be more expensive.. I would still prefer to grow my own in that case.

I'm ignorant, what's the legality of growing your own tobacco or making your own alcohol right now?

 

[fskimospy]

This has been debated to death. I understand the argument for not interfering with people's businesses... but I have to be honest. I love the shit out of the smoking ban here in CA. Being able to go to the bar and come home not smelling like disgusting cigarettes is amazing. Even my friends who smoke love the smoking ban. The bars here have changed things around and even the bartenders and bar owners that I know down here in OB love it. Everyone has won.

People who are against the smoking ban have a reasonable argument, but still guys... I bet when it actually happens a lot of people will change their minds.