Smoking, in an Economic Context (FINAL EDIT)

[Orsorum]

Thanks for your contributions, everyone. Please be advised that anything I have written here is my own material and will be published under my name.

FWIW.

 

[Orsorum]

I need to figure out a way to limit the usage of the word "smoking" and "smokers" in the paper.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

I have an affinity for economics Therefore, I'll think about my position (which, I am sure, will be markedly different from yours) over a smoke when I finish my lunch

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I have an affinity for economics Therefore, I'll think about my position (which, I am sure, will be markedly different from yours) over a smoke when I finish my lunch

Mmm, smoking. I've recently converted from cigars to cigarettes, though given my family's propensity (hey, it's my word of the day!) towards addiction I'm limiting myself to one cig a day, four days a week.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I have an affinity for economics Therefore, I'll think about my position (which, I am sure, will be markedly different from yours) over a smoke when I finish my lunch

Mmm, smoking. I've recently converted from cigars to cigarettes, though given my family's propensity (hey, it's my word of the day!) towards addiction I'm limiting myself to one cig a day, four days a week.

Sticking to the occasional good cigar and pipe (which has tobacco, you goofs).

 

[chess9]

The social costs of passive cigarette smoke are not "anecdotal".

I'd suggest you "infect" your paper with some facts before you try to innoculate restaurant owners from responsibility for providing a safe environment for their patrons. As long as a restaurant is a public place it should be required to meet public safety standards. If restaurant owners could do as they pleased they'd be serving food without observing fire codes, maximum occupancy, building standards, food safety, etc. Why is smoking regulation any different? Certainly not because the harm is "anecdotal".

IMHO, of course.

Aside from that issue and some clumsy syntax, it's a start.

-Robert

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Well, I was wrong; we are in agreement

" ...it remains the prerogative of individual entrepreneurs to decide the fate of their businesses."

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: chess9

If restaurant owners could do as they pleased they'd be serving food without observing fire codes, maximum occupancy, building standards, food safety, etc. Why is smoking regulation any different?

For starters, everyone derives a higher level of utility from knowing that 1.) The establishment meets/exceeds fire codes 2.) The building is within the 'maximum occupancy' requirements prescribed by law and 3.) The food they will eventually consume is safe. Not everyone, however, derives as increased level of utility from haphazard attempts to restrict behavior, in the name of "society."

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: chess9
The social costs of passive cigarette smoke are not "anecdotal".

I'd suggest you "infect" your paper with some facts before you try to innoculate restaurant owners from responsibility for providing a safe environment for their patrons. As long as a restaurant is a public place it should be required to meet public safety standards. If restaurant owners could do as they pleased they'd be serving food without observing fire codes, maximum occupancy, building standards, food safety, etc. Why is smoking regulation any different? Certainly not because the harm is "anecdotal".

IMHO, of course.

Aside from that issue and some clumsy syntax, it's a start.

-Robert

Public place? last I checked they were privately owned establishments...both employees and patrons always have the option of dining or working somewhere else if they don't agree with the policies of the owner.

 

[chess9]

Galt:

If the greater good for the greater number of people were the sole, or even partial, philosophical basis for law, we wouldn't have the United States Constitution, let alone a whole set of safety standards that protect workers, children, consumers, etc. To be acceptable a safety standard doesn't need to have uniform social utility. Seat belts, food labels, lawn mowers, bicycles, drugs, ad nauseam, do not meet any standard of "uniform social utility", but without them you'd probably be dead instead of posting your long discredited notions of social philosophy.


-Robert

 

[chess9]

Bozack:

99.99% of all restaurants are public places as defined by every state in the country. The exceptions are private supper clubs, country clubs, etc.

-Robert

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: chess9
Galt:

If the greater good for the greater number of people were the sole, or even partial, philosophical basis for law, we wouldn't have the United States Constitution, let alone a whole set of safety standards that protect workers, children, consumers, etc. To be acceptable a safety standard doesn't need to have uniform social utility. Seat belts, food labels, lawn mowers, bicycles, drugs, ad nauseam, do not meet any standard of "uniform social utility", but without them you'd probably be dead instead of posting your long discredited notions of social philosophy.


-Robert

I agree with you in part: regulating "lawn mowers, bicycles, and having mandatory seat belt laws" is ridiculous, as is telling a business owner what type of social behavior is acceptable on his private property.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I have an affinity for economics Therefore, I'll think about my position (which, I am sure, will be markedly different from yours) over a smoke when I finish my lunch

Mmm, smoking. I've recently converted from cigars to cigarettes, though given my family's propensity (hey, it's my word of the day!) towards addiction I'm limiting myself to one cig a day, four days a week.

Sticking to the occasional good cigar and pipe (which has tobacco, you goofs).

Of course it does! We all heart tobacco here, in moderation.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: chess9
The social costs of passive cigarette smoke are not "anecdotal".

I'd suggest you "infect" your paper with some facts before you try to innoculate restaurant owners from responsibility for providing a safe environment for their patrons. As long as a restaurant is a public place it should be required to meet public safety standards. If restaurant owners could do as they pleased they'd be serving food without observing fire codes, maximum occupancy, building standards, food safety, etc. Why is smoking regulation any different? Certainly not because the harm is "anecdotal".

IMHO, of course.

Aside from that issue and some clumsy syntax, it's a start.

-Robert

Public place? last I checked they were privately owned establishments...both employees and patrons always have the option of dining or working somewhere else if they don't agree with the policies of the owner.

What if the policy of the owner is they do not serve blacks?

 

[chess9]

Oh, that's fine, because we all know that is exactly what they deserve. And children in restaurants deserve to breathe passive smoke. Women need to get beaten regularly. And anyone still using a PCI video card should be hanged in front of ATI's headquarters.

-Robert

 

[alchemize]

The evidence to support this idea, when analyzed statistically, is scant, and the chance of a restaurant patron?s increased risk of cancer due to second-hand smoke pales in comparison to the toxins inhaled during a typical highway commute.

I believe this was disproved in the other thread.

 

[chess9]

To the contrary.

-Robert

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

What if the policy of the owner is they do not serve blacks?

...or let women enter their golf/country clubs? That is a fallacious argument, as I am sure you know...though a nice emotionally loaded one. The owners are not saying that non-smokers cannot enter the restaurants. They are not saying that African Americans cannot enter their restaurants; they are not saying that women cannot enter their restaurants. Instead, the owners are saying that they will allow a ?behavior? in their restaurants, whether that ?behavoir? is on the part of black, white, man, woman et al.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: chess9
To the contrary.

-Robert

I assume you were referring to me?

Read the post by me dated 1/30

Maybe not scientifically proven, but certainly a much more substantial evidence than the statement:

the chance of a restaurant patron?s increased risk of cancer due to second-hand smoke pales in comparison to the toxins inhaled during a typical highway commute.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: alchemize

The evidence to support this idea, when analyzed statistically, is scant, and the chance of a restaurant patron?s increased risk of cancer due to second-hand smoke pales in comparison to the toxins inhaled during a typical highway commute.

I believe this was disproved in the other thread.

Let me read through. Damn. All my arguments, torn to pieces!

Good.

 

[chess9]

Alchemize:

Vic's statement re auto pollution is sheer nonsense. Read on in the thread. Furthermore, your links do not stand for the proposition that passive smoke hasn't been proven harmful. Try again.

Or, don't bother if this is the level at which you plan to "debate". Anyway, you sound like Phillip Morris just a few years ago.

-Robert

 

[Vic]

Public parks are not owned by individuals, but by governments, hence no property rights exist to curtail. In other words, Orsorum, the analogy you used in your last paragraph doesn't work.

And Robert, if you think my statement regarding the obvious hazards of auto pollution is "sheer nonsense", I suggest you visit LA sometime so you can see the effects for yourself. The air pollution from autos there is usually thicker than the cigarette smoke in a bar with no ventilation system.
Now most people, on average, might visit a restaurant once a week, and a bar even less often, and they might stay there for a couple of hours. OTOH, people go outside and breathe that air every day, often all day (they might get some respite if they are in an environment-controlled and filtered office building).

IMO, the decision should be left with the property owner. If a property owner decides to allow smoking inside his establishment, that he has paid for and has taken all the economic risks on opening and operating, then a prominent sign should be placed at the entrance of the building so that everyone entering would know that smoking is permitted inside the establishment. Anyone who walks past that prominent sign and then complains about smoky bars should be shot (I'm sick of the crybaby whiners if you can't tell).
Non-smoking bars and restaurants are a fast-growing trend and, given half a chance, private enterprise will fix this problem faster and better than any government ever could.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: chess9
Alchemize:

Vic's statement re auto pollution is sheer nonsense. Read on in the thread. Furthermore, your links do not stand for the proposition that passive smoke hasn't been proven harmful. Try again.

Or, don't bother if this is the level at which you plan to "debate". Anyway, you sound like Phillip Morris just a few years ago.

-Robert

Huh? What are you smoking Chess9? You reading the right post? 1/30 12:38 PM post

 

[chess9]

Alchemize:

I surrender. You're right and everyone knows it. Passive smoke is a HEALTH BENEFIT. And Bush will win the Nobel Peace Prize. And Dari will vote for Kucinich.

-Robert

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: chess9
The social costs of passive cigarette smoke are not "anecdotal".

I'd suggest you "infect" your paper with some facts before you try to innoculate restaurant owners from responsibility for providing a safe environment for their patrons. As long as a restaurant is a public place it should be required to meet public safety standards. If restaurant owners could do as they pleased they'd be serving food without observing fire codes, maximum occupancy, building standards, food safety, etc. Why is smoking regulation any different? Certainly not because the harm is "anecdotal".

IMHO, of course.

Aside from that issue and some clumsy syntax, it's a start.

-Robert

Problem being it is anecdotal. Where is some hard evidence that passive smoking causes cancer or health problems in such situations? I'm not talking about living with someone who smokes 5 packs a day for 50 years. I'm talking about passive smoking as a diner or restaurant employee(which by the way you can CHOOSE if you want to work or dine there). Why should you have a right to tell a business owner what clientèle he can cater to? Because obviously your comfort supersedes his rights as a business owner. I figured you were more intelligent than that Chess, but obviously the government knows best. Why do you have a problem with Bush if the government knows best? The government is here to protect us.