Smoking, in an Economic Context (FINAL EDIT)

[Vic]

Who cares if it's a "health benefit" or not? What's next on your list of crusades, Robert? BigMacs?

If a person voluntarily places themselves in an environment where secondhand smoke is present (i.e. a restaurant or bar), and they don't get up and leave when the smoke "offends" them (or are you trying to imply that they're chained to the table?), then you'll pardon me if I don't feel the slightest shred of pity for them.
As for myself, I get up and leave, and go someplace smoke-free. How hard is it to do such a thing for yourself? Or do you absolutely need nanny government to change your bib and nappy for you?

:disgust:

 

[Mill]

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

Regulating a product's liability and usage is a bit different than banning a product wholly from an area when there is NO evidence that the product is harmful. However, restaurants are NOT public places. They are owned by private business owners. When did the government start buying restaurants? You have no right to tell a business owner what they can do in their establishment as long as it is prudent behavior. I'm sure you are basing your view of passive smoke as being hazardous on the much vaunted EPA study or the WHO study that tooks its roots from the EPA study. Propaganda is so effective these days...

 

[chess9]

Vic:

At my age, I'll vote for nanny government. It might be cheaper than the V.A. nursing home I'll be in if I read much more of the drivel posted here.

Between the Libertarians, who can't even get one Rep elected, and the right wing apologists for the tobacco comanies, I know I've got to be dead wrong about passive smoke. Who am I to argue with such heavyweights?

Mill, DO NOT educate yourself. Wait for the nanny government to tell you about the evils of passive smoking. But, please, don't read any of the 50 or so threads on smoking on this forum, including archives. After all, your brain might start smoking if you do....

-Robert

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Vic
Who cares if it's a "health benefit" or not? What's next on your list of crusades, Robert? BigMacs?

If a person voluntarily places themselves in an environment where secondhand smoke is present (i.e. a restaurant or bar), and they don't get up and leave when the smoke "offends" them (or are you trying to imply that they're chained to the table?), then you'll pardon me if I don't feel the slightest shred of pity for them.
As for myself, I get up and leave, and go someplace smoke-free. How hard is it to do such a thing for yourself? Or do you absolutely need nanny government to change your bib and nappy for you?

:disgust:

Sorry Vic, but Uncle Robert knows what's best for us younguns.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mill
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.

LOL! Heh... I always find it the highest form of dark humorous irony that those who complain about government the most (leftist socialist liberals) are those who also always want government to do the most for them, and are also always the ones most willing to give the government more power (via our tax dollars).

Wake up, Robert, and get a clue. GW is as good and effective as government gets -- which is to say, not good at all. Heaven forbid we feed the beast more power and money.
I may be (in your words) some whacky gun-toting libertarian, but at least my politics aren't rife with denial and hypocrisy.

edit: I also forgot that other irony about liberals -- they hate the "evil" corporations so much, but then they support restrictive legislation and tort laws that regulate the small business owner right out of business with a tidal wave of compliance and frivilous lawsuits. And that leaves only the "evil" corporations in business.... without any small business competition...
Witness the upcoming destruction of the local restaurant and bar as brought upon us by anti-smoking regulations. Soon we'll have nothing but corporate chain establishments like Applebee's and Friday's to patronize... and we'll all be able to thank people like Robert for that.

 

[chess9]

Vic:

Sheezh, thanks for that. I've done a lot in my life but I had forgotten about promoting Friday's. But, now that you remind me, yes, that was me. I also invented the A bomb, the wheel, the transistor, the internet and those irritating little burrs that get under the skin of the also rans who think they aren't hypocrits. Particularly right wing wackos, although a Libertarian will do if I don't have Drudge to kick around.

If Libertarians aren't hypocrits why do they keep paying their taxes, accepting trash pickups and call the police when they're being robbed? Consistency, thou art a jewel, to paraphrase the Immortal Bard.

And that's why we all love politics, because there is plenty of dialectic elbow room to figuratively kick everyone's a**.

-Robert

 

[chess9]

My sincere apologies to Alchemize. I misinterpreted his post. I forgot he agrees with me.

<Bows low to the superior intellect and argumentation of Alchemize.>

Hey, I'm an old guy and very, very slow. Sometimes I just can't do multiple simultaneous differential equations the way I once could.

-Robert

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: 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.

Of course it is emotionally loaded, and obvious. If I wanted to trick or bait, I could have been more subtle. It is true though that his precise argument was used to exclude blacks from every level of society where they were not wanted. Now I was curious as to how far he feels private ownership rights extend. You know that there are people who WOULD argue that business ought to have absolute rights, at least enough to still exclude minorities. What does Bozack feel are reasonable limits?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: chess9
Vic:

Sheezh, thanks for that. I've done a lot in my life but I had forgotten about promoting Friday's. But, now that you remind me, yes, that was me. I also invented the A bomb, the wheel, the transistor, the internet and those irritating little burrs that get under the skin of the also rans who think they aren't hypocrits. Particularly right wing wackos, although a Libertarian will do if I don't have Drudge to kick around.

If Libertarians aren't hypocrits why do they keep paying their taxes, accepting trash pickups and call the police when they're being robbed? Consistency, thou art a jewel, to paraphrase the Immortal Bard.

And that's why we all love politics, because there is plenty of dialectic elbow room to figuratively kick everyone's a**.

-Robert

So it is hypocritical to follow the law if you are Libertarian?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: chess9
Vic:

Sheezh, thanks for that. I've done a lot in my life but I had forgotten about promoting Friday's. But, now that you remind me, yes, that was me. I also invented the A bomb, the wheel, the transistor, the internet and those irritating little burrs that get under the skin of the also rans who think they aren't hypocrits. Particularly right wing wackos, although a Libertarian will do if I don't have Drudge to kick around.

If Libertarians aren't hypocrits why do they keep paying their taxes, accepting trash pickups and call the police when they're being robbed? Consistency, thou art a jewel, to paraphrase the Immortal Bard.

And that's why we all love politics, because there is plenty of dialectic elbow room to figuratively kick everyone's a**.

-Robert

So it is hypocritical to follow the law if you are Libertarian?

Apparently Robert thinks so.

It seems he wasn't intelligent enough to understand my previous post so he felt the need to make unjustified insults at me.

Just because I don't agree with a law doesn't mean that I won't follow it. I give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. And whoever said that Libertarians are opposed to law enforcement? And my trash pickup is handled by a private company (Waste Management).

 

[chess9]

So you aren't a hypocrit?

Ok. I trust you on this one.

I feel so accommodating tonight I'll even give the house Libertarian In Residence a pass.

-Robert

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: chess9
So you aren't a hypocrit?

Ok. I trust you on this one.

I feel so accommodating tonight I'll even give the house Libertarian In Residence a pass.

-Robert

Well, point out what is hypocritical then. Surely you are talking about some type of extremist Libertarian branch in Idaho are you? I might be forced to compare you to Dave if that is the case.

 

[chess9]

Mill:

Hey! Dave is my buddy.

I like Dave. He raises a lot of great issues.

And if you don't think the sky is falling, well, go stand outside.

Anyway, Libertarians are full of hypocrisy. I'm too lazy to write a full length diatribe here, but liberals and conservatives hold no corner on the hypocrisy market. And, Vic sidestepped the issue. He didn't address the nub of the issue because he knows he must make accomodations every day to liberal and conservative notions that are part of our daily lives.


-Robert

 

[BugsBunny1078]

I guess I am a hypocritical libertarian. I support legalizing drugs but yet I don't use drugs.

 

[chess9]

Bugs:

No, supporting enforcement of the drug laws while smoking pot is hypocrisy. Sort of like Clinton and Bush.

-Robert

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: chess9
Mill:

Hey! Dave is my buddy.

I like Dave. He raises a lot of great issues.

And if you don't think the sky is falling, well, go stand outside.

Anyway, Libertarians are full of hypocrisy. I'm too lazy to write a full length diatribe here, but liberals and conservatives hold no corner on the hypocrisy market. And, Vic sidestepped the issue. He didn't address the nub of the issue because he knows he must make accomodations every day to liberal and conservative notions that are part of our daily lives.


-Robert

What issue are you referring to? You say hypocritical, but I am asking you to explicitly say what you thought was hypocritical. And there are better ways to prove your point than posting lies(in Dave's case).

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Vic
Who cares if it's a "health benefit" or not? What's next on your list of crusades, Robert? BigMacs?

Nice Isn't that what it's all about? ...projecting what you perceive as "good for everyone, thus good for society" on others? "I drive a hybrid car and you should, too....I no longer eat animals and you shouldn't, either...I don't shop at Wal-Mart and neither should you...I don't smoke and neither should you."

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: chess9
Vic:

At my age, I'll vote for nanny government.

I rest my case...

 

[chess9]

Galt:

I'm accepting donations from PRIVATE sources as well as government sources. Feel free to mail your monthly check for $100. I know how interested you are in private sources of charity.

Let's see: 100,000 member times $100 per month = $10 million monthly. I could probably squeek by on that. Might have to keep last year's racing bike, but....

-Robert

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: chess9
Galt:

I'm accepting donations from PRIVATE sources as well as government sources. Feel free to mail your monthly check for $100. I know how interested you are in private sources of charity.

Let's see: 100,000 member times $100 per month = $10 million monthly. I could probably squeek by on that. Might have to keep last year's racing bike, but....

-Robert

Spoken like a true Democrat...'Please send me YOUR monthly check'...'accepting donations'...

 

[Orsorum]

I am honestly surprised that this degenerated this quickly. Perhaps my writing was vitriolic enough to bring it up right away!

 

[LunarRay]

Smoking in any of its forms is simply exercising planned obsolescence. The problem from a social (Economics is a social science) POV is that not all folks share the same obsolescence desires. In a confined space consistent with a restaurant this variance is exponentially more apparent. If ventilation is adequate and segregation is appropriate and possible the impact is reduced but not eliminated.
The ownership ought to determine who she desires as clients based on what ever criteria she deems fit to include in her business plan. The customer then decides to eat there or not based on his criteria for dining. The government need not legislate our shower schedule nor our choice of toothpaste.


edit... Orsorum, I'd determine plaural or singular in the first para of your propoundation.

 

[chess9]

LunarRay:

Do you actually know a restaurant owner who wants to advertise his restaurant as for "Smokers Only"? Many restaurant owners want it BOTH WAYS. And that is the nub of the problem. They want NO restrictions, including no ventilation requirements if they are going to serve non-smokers.

FWIW, my brother owned a restaurant for 15 years and the last thing he wanted was to lose ANY customer.

-Robert

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: chess9
LunarRay:

Do you actually know a restaurant owner who wants to advertise his restaurant as for "Smokers Only"? Many restaurant owners want it BOTH WAYS.
-Robert

Why would someone want to advertise as "Smokers Only?" Instead, the owners of the property want to advertise "Smoking is Permitted in my establishment, so enter if 1.) you smoke 2.) If smoking does not bother you and you are willing to accept the perceived risks of secondhand smoke." You are right; "many restaurant owners want it BOTH WAYS," which is completely logical/rational. Non-smokers want it ONE way--their way.

As many said, it is really a simple choice--you can choose whether or not to enter a restaurant based on their smoking policy; if some find it profitable to offer an alternative to traditional smoking establishments, then we would expect more non-smoking restaurants to appear in the not-too-distant future. I am sure you are a staunch advocate of "choice." Both the owners and the potential patrons should both have a choice...the market will take care of itself.

In short, your post makes no sense; of course owners want it both ways. You, however, do not--you, as you already stated, want the government to wipe your ass when you are finished dropping a load of chit in threads like these. (Maybe I can get elite membership now...took that last one straight out of your play book).

 

[Red Dawn]

I can understand not allowing smoking in a Resturuant that is frequented by children but not bars.