Holy smokes, the left is at it again! [Archive]

Bjorn

12th April 2003, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG
And if you really have a problem with smoking being banned in restaurants, what about the staff who works there? Should they be expected to inhale second hand smoke day after day? Or should they just quit if they don't like it?
Smoking bans were passed here mainly to protect workers. I think that makes total sense. Smoke is a pollutant. It doesn't make sense to deliberately allow a toxic substance to permeate in an public environment.Great.

Now, I'm going to start a little place called 'The Smoke'.

Nice little pub/restaurant, and everyone applying for a job there has to sign a form saying that they are smokers already, and that being a smoker is a condition to get the job, quitting smoking will put some responsibility on their side, they fully accept that working in this restaurant will be spending hours in a smoky environment.

In fact, we could do without hired people if I had a few people give me a hand.

'The Smoke' would make millions here in San Diego, but it would be illegal. Why should it be? :confused:

It's especially nice to come home after a night on the town and not have the smoke entrenched in every fibre of your clothes. Sure. So if some restaurants were marked 'WARNING: WE SMOKE' - could you just go somewhere else? :(

I don't even smoke anymore ...

NightG1

12th April 2003, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Leftists have also caused a huge drought in australia...

Yeah. And there is this damn leftist bees nest behind the Hardy plank on the back of my house. Damn leftist bees. I'll show 'em.

NightG1

12th April 2003, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
All over America there seems to be an urgent movement to ban or even make it illegal to smoke outdoors.

Oh, you mean like at stadiums and such. Thanks for the news flash. I'll keep that in mind next time I go to a leftist Astros game.

arcticpenguin

12th April 2003, 06:16 AM

I went to a baseball game in Skydome a while back and was surprised to hear that smoking was banned in the stadium, even though the roof was open.

12th April 2003, 06:35 AM

I'm happy enough with the bans in restaurants. The smell of burning cigarettes when I'm trying to enjoy food makes me gag, and puts me in a foul, foul temper. It's best for other patron's health that they can't smoke around me, in several ways.

arcticpenguin

12th April 2003, 06:40 AM

I think the current trend toward outdoor bans is caused by the "gauntlet" people must run to get into buildings. Now that smokers cannot light up in restaurants or offices, they cluster around the doorways, especially in bad weather.

In the building where I work, the air intakes are under benches in a covered walkway. I frequently smell smoke coming through the ventilation system as I sit at my desk. Ocassionally an e-mail will get sent around telling people they are supposed to smoke on the other side of the building, away from the intakes, but also not covered (this area is prone to frequent precipitation). So the e-mails get sent, but for some reason the folks in charge will not allow signs to be posted.

WMT1

12th April 2003, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG
Here in Vancouver, we've had a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants for the past few years and I think it's great. It's especially nice to come home after a night on the town and not have the smoke entrenched in every fibre of your clothes.

And some people might think it's "especially nice" to enjoy a night on the town and not have to worry about whether they can light up or not. Can you explain why every business should be compelled to cater to your preferences?

And if you really have a problem with smoking being banned in restaurants, what about the staff who works there? Should they be expected to inhale second hand smoke day after day? Or should they just quit if they don't like it?

That last thing.

Smoking bans were passed here mainly to protect workers. I think that makes total sense. Smoke is a pollutant. It doesn't make sense to deliberately allow a toxic substance to permeate in an public environment.

A privately owned "public environment".

And yes, it does make sense, to those who draw pleasure from that "toxic substance". Those who find it objectionable are free to patronize other establishments.

Originally posted by corplinx
Restaurants are private businesses.

Originally posted by KelvinG
Yes, but if it is determined that a private business is endangering it's employees, then they have a right to be protected by the law.

Please. They have a right to be made aware of any dangers, and to decide for themselves whether the benefits of working there outweigh those dangers.

If a restaurant is filled with asbestos, can they just say "well, it's a private business."

As long as they're clear about the fact that they're "filled with asbestos", why not?

arcticpenguin

12th April 2003, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

Can you explain why every business should be compelled to cater to your preferences?

Some people like to smoke. Everyone needs to breathe.

WMT1

12th April 2003, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Some people like to smoke. Everyone needs to breathe.

Since the two are not mutually exclusive, and since nobody needs to patronize an establishment that allows both, can I take it you have no problem with the existence of such establishments?

arcticpenguin

12th April 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

Since the two are not mutually exclusive, and since nobody needs to patronize an establishment that allows both, can I take it you have no problem with the existence of such establishments?
That depends. I've been to a restaurant where they had separate smoking and non-smoking sections, but the two were divided by a meter-high wall topped with plastic plants, so that there were people smoking only a few feet from me. To top it off. there was a cieling fan directly above blowing their smoke down on me.

Clancie

12th April 2003, 09:46 AM

Is there some study that shows that only conservatives like to smoke and only liberals care about their lungs?

"left"? I wish some conservatives wouldn't use that (and "PC") as a catch-all phrase for any change they oppose politically. (For example, if you wanted a non smoking ban and thought it was an important protection of your individual rights, would it become a "conservative" stand?)

You might want to smoke where you choose and others might not want to have to breathe that disgusting smoke, but its hardly a left/right issue one way or the other.

Bjorn

12th April 2003, 09:51 AM

Mel

12th April 2003, 09:54 AM

Smoking bans in private establishments are bad enough, what scared me was that case where a divorced mother was ordered by a judge to TOTALLY quit somking or she would lose visitation rights with her son. She was not even allowed to smoke outdoors because the smell of smoke on her clothes was too annoying. Yes, the smell of smoke is NOT pleasant at all.... but is it PROVEN health risk?

Next stop...... banning perfume, cologne. That's so darned annoying, I can barely choke down my food in a restaurant sometimes.

What about about hair salons? Is it fair to force people to work under THOSE conditions?

KelvinG

12th April 2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

That depends. I've been to a restaurant where they had separate smoking and non-smoking sections, but the two were divided by a meter-high wall topped with plastic plants, so that there were people smoking only a few feet from me. To top it off. there was a cieling fan directly above blowing their smoke down on me.

Actually there are several bars/restaurants here in Vancouver that has seperate areas for smokers that are totally removed from the non-smoking area. I think that is a fine solution. However, I suppose that is a diffcult solution for some businesses as it costs money to create such areas.

Nonetheless, I stick by my guns on this one. I don't buy this "If you don't like it, just don't go there argument." If laws aren't passed to ban smoking, then every bar/restaurant will allow it and there will be no place to go for non-smokers. Businesses care about economics when it comes to the smoking issue, not employee or customer safety. And many employees will work at a place regardless of whether smoking is allowed or not because they need a job. However, the lawsuits will start in the next few years by workers who claim they got cancer from working in a unsafe environment.
Check this out if you don't believe me:
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/afl/LabourNews/oct02-13.html

I'm just glad smokers are finally getting the message that their rights don't supercede the rights of everyone else. If you want to stick a toxin filled cigarette in your mouth and spew smoke all over the place, then do it outside or in your own home. No one is stopping you from doing that.
I have no sympathy for smokers who are put out by these laws.

Bjorn

12th April 2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG
If you want to stick a toxin filled cigarette in your mouth and spew smoke all over the place, then do it outside or in your own home. No one is stopping you from doing that.
Change 'your own home' to 'your own property' and I am in many cases stopped from doing that. :(

Scorpy

12th April 2003, 10:01 AM

When my father (smoker) became disgruntled with the smoking policy of his favorite restaurant, he simply stopped going there. No big deal. If you don't like the service, go someplace else.

Next thing you know vegetarians will want to use the law to force restaurants to serve them vegetarian meals. :(

Scorpy

12th April 2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG

I'm just glad smokers are finally getting the message that their rights don't supercede the rights of everyone else. If you want to stick a toxin filled cigarette in your mouth and spew smoke all over the place, then do it outside or in your own home. No one is stopping you from doing that.
I have no sympathy for smokers who are put out by these laws.

Non-smokers seem to think their rights supercede the rights of the restaurant owner.

KelvinG

12th April 2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Scorpy

Non-smokers seem to think their rights supercede the rights of the restaurant owner.

Since it is an issue of public safety, I think their rights do supercede those of the restaurant owner. Sorry if you don't agree.

WMT1

12th April 2003, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
Since the two are not mutually exclusive, and since nobody needs to patronize an establishment that allows both, can I take it you have no problem with the existence of such establishments?

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
That depends. I've been to a restaurant where they had separate smoking and non-smoking sections, but the two were divided by a meter-high wall topped with plastic plants, so that there were people smoking only a few feet from me. To top it off. there was a cieling fan directly above blowing their smoke down on me.

Do all restaurants have this problem? If not, is there something preventing you from only doing business with the ones that do not?

WMT1

12th April 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Scorpy
Non-smokers seem to think their rights supercede the rights of the restaurant owner.

Originally posted by KelvinG
Since it is an issue of public safety, I think their rights do supercede those of the restaurant owner.

:rolleyes:

Good grief. How often has the "public safety" thing been misused to interefere with freedom of choice?

Sorry, but they have the "right" to not go to the restaurant, not to force the restaurant owner to run his business in such a way that they will want to.

Scorpy

12th April 2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG

Since it is an issue of public safety, I think their rights do supercede those of the restaurant owner. Sorry if you don't agree.

Phooey!!! We're talking about a LEGAL BEHAVIOR being engaged in on PRIVATE PROPERTY with the OWNER'S CONSENT. 'Public safety' isn't at issue.

WMT1

12th April 2003, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG
Nonetheless, I stick by my guns on this one.

Hint: that's not a good thing.

I don't buy this "If you don't like it, just don't go there argument."

Translation: "I don't buy the freedom of choice argument. All restaurants must be the same."

If laws aren't passed to ban smoking, then every bar/restaurant will allow it and there will be no place to go for non-smokers.

Not if most of the non-smokers stop going to bars and restaurants. Then see how long it takes some of those businesses to change their ways.

Businesses care about economics when it comes to the smoking issue, not employee or customer safety. And many employees will work at a place regardless of whether smoking is allowed or not because they need a job.

So what? People work at all kinds of jobs that may not be particularly good for them because they need a job. And while doing so, the smarter ones usually continue to look for something that will be better for them.

However, the lawsuits will start in the next few years by workers who claim they got cancer from working in a unsafe environment.

And if they knew of the dangers at the time, they should be laughed out of the courtroom.

peptoabysmal

12th April 2003, 04:16 PM

OK, want some proof it's a leftist... , what's the word I'm searching for.... matriarchal ummmm.... Help me out here JK :D

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/GiveMeABreak/2020Friday_001215_stossel_smoking_feature.html

A little more on this bleeding heart:
http://www.gazette.net/200105/montgomerycty/county/42686-1.html

Find me a story where a conservative Republican is doing this kind of action.

And this is happening near where I live. Go to the Sacramento Zoo this summer, watch people throw bon-bons to endangered species, watch gangsta rappers yell obscenities and listen to loud music, ... basically watch the monkeys watch the monkeys. But, light up a cigarette outdoors, and get a citation.

Fade

12th April 2003, 04:52 PM

I think it's ridiculous to keep restaurant owners from allowing people to smoke in their restaurants. The decision should be left entirely up to the owner. The most they should be forced to do is put clearly marked signs on all the entrances explaining their smoking policy.

I, for one, simply won't eat in a restaurant where I can smell smoke of any sort at any time. That's my decision. However, I don't believe it is my right to force that decision onto others.

shanek

12th April 2003, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by DavidJames
Lots of cities in Colorado are making the wise decision to ban smoking in resturants.

:rolleyes:

"Wise" decision...to completely abrogate the freedom of private businesses to function as the market demands. Are you aware that due to the filtration systems the air quality indoors in most restaurants, even the ones that allow smoking, is actually superior to the outside air?

KelvinG

13th April 2003, 01:25 AM

I just got back from a night on the town and how sweet it was. I walked into a local establishment and passed all the poor suckers who were forced to smoke outside while I entered the pleasant, smoke free environment inside.
Say what you will, I think banning smoking in bars and restaurants it great. And my clothes don't smell at all.
All is right in the world. Well, at least in this part of the world!!

corplinx

13th April 2003, 01:34 AM

The most ironic thing is, if you go to a busy restaurant with a waiting list there will be people who ask for the first table available regardless of the smoking preference. Usually on a busy night, there will be very few smokers even in the smoking section.

Mind you, all those "first available" people will be voting yes on a referendum to deny the right of a restaurant owner by voting for a restaurant smoking ban.

Anyone remember people talking about these bans snowballing into bigger things and others saying they were overreacting? Now we have outdoor smoking bans.

People love to use 1984 out of context. But just remember, big brother loves you. Big Brother is not a patriarchal commanding right winger. Big Brother was paternal. The biggest lie the left has ever gotten away with was portraying the right as wanting to create Big Brother while simultaneously turning America into a paternal fascist state. Big Brother knows whats best for you, no more smoking in restaurants.

corplinx

13th April 2003, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG

Say what you will, I think banning smoking in bars and restaurants it great. And my clothes don't smell at all.

Yes. Your comfort comes before the rights of the restaurant owner. All is right in the world indeed.

Scorpy

13th April 2003, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG
I just got back from a night on the town and how sweet it was. I walked into a local establishment and passed all the poor suckers who were forced to smoke outside while I entered the pleasant, smoke free environment inside.
Say what you will, I think banning smoking in bars and restaurants it great. And my clothes don't smell at all.
All is right in the world. Well, at least in this part of the world!!

Maybe while those poor suckers are outside you would like them to move the place a few inches to the left? Anything to accomodate you.

Darat

13th April 2003, 04:21 AM

Being a non-smoker if I go to a restaurant where, even in a "non-smoking" section, I can still smell the stink from the disgusting, inconsiderate drug addicts, I either ask for another table and if that isn't available I leave.

What I don't do is ask for a legislator to make it illegal for people to stop doing something I personally don't like. :mad:

If I campaigned to make everything I don't like illegal and got my way the world would be a pretty boring place for the rest of you!

shanek

13th April 2003, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG
I just got back from a night on the town and how sweet it was. I walked into a local establishment and passed all the poor suckers who were forced to smoke outside while I entered the pleasant, smoke free environment inside.
Say what you will, I think banning smoking in bars and restaurants it great. And my clothes don't smell at all.
All is right in the world. Well, at least in this part of the world!!

What's wrong with a "no smoking" area? And what's wrong with telling a restaurant they won't get your business without one? Why should bars and restaurants be forced to conform to YOUR idea of what is proper? Why does the whole f*cking world revolve around YOU?????

Scorpy

13th April 2003, 11:57 AM

corplinx

13th April 2003, 11:59 AM

As a non-smoker who gets nosebleeds from cigarrette smoke, let me say this. Smoking bands usurp liberty and are the essence of mob rule, if I have a problem with the smoke in a restaurant I go somewhere else after letting the manager know he needs to install exhaust fans in the ceilings.

KelvinG

13th April 2003, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by shanek

What's wrong with a "no smoking" area? And what's wrong with telling a restaurant they won't get your business without one? Why should bars and restaurants be forced to conform to YOUR idea of what is proper? Why does the whole f*cking world revolve around YOU?????

The world doesn't have to revolve around me, but when it does, I'm happy. This particular rule about banning smoking I like.
I'm sure there are other rules that would anger me. If so, I would sound off against them just like you guys are.

What can I say. I'm selfish. I like when things work in my favour. That's why I'm pleased that smoking is not allowed in bars and restaurants here. It bothers me when have to inhale that crap, and I don't want to give up going to places I like because I can't breath properly when I'm there.
So, complain all you want that I'm in favour of denying people their rights, but I could care less.

Smalso

14th April 2003, 02:53 AM

A vast left wing conspiracy. Jedi Knight, where are you when we really need you?

Incitatus

14th April 2003, 05:10 AM

From'
http://www.fumento.com/washtimesscent.html

"They say the Canadian Mounties always get their man. They did this time, though their man was a 17-year-old boy. The heinous crime for which he was sought? Wearing Aqua Velva cologne and Dippity Do hair gel to his school near Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Don't get me wrong; I think any guy who wears Dippity Do should be sent down to Singapore for a good caning. And Aqua Velva? Please.

But the actual offense was violating his school's ban on anything with a fragrance. Anything. And laugh if you want at those silly Canadians, but their fragrance phobia may prove the first successful invasion of the U.S. since the War of 1812. "

there have been rumblings about this for some time. now that cigs are on the run we will all be "helped" in other areas.

jimmygun

14th April 2003, 05:36 AM

In Toronto they have a system to identify which restaurants are complying with public health standards. There is a card in the window that shows green, yellow or red, depending on how well the owner has complied with regulations.

Is this an infringement on the owner? Is it warranted?

The smoking issue has been out there for twenty years. Every attempt at protecting the health of workers and customers has been met with lip service at best and ignoring at worst. There is no attempt on the part of the owner to voluntarily look after the health of their workers and patrons so the government steps in.

Having a smoking section in a restaurant is the same as having a peeing section in a pool. The only sensible thing is to ban smoking outright. That means no store owner has an advantage or disadvantage over another.

14th April 2003, 05:46 AM

I have never smoked a cigarette in my life, prefer smoke-free environment, and oppose complete smoking bans.

Our legislation on smoking in a restaurant tries to make a compromise between "worker safety" and "smoker rights": smoking at the bar counter is not allowed anywhere, and if a restaurant is larger than 50 m^2, then there has to be a non-smoking section somewhere. According to the text of the law, the non-smoking section should be completely smoke-free. In practice, I've noticed that it is rather common to have some smoke in those areas. I don't bother complaining about it but I rarely visit such a place again.

There is one situation where I find smoking outdoors annoying: when someone lights a cigarette while I'm waiting for a bus under a canopy and it rains. Luckily, this doesn't happen very often and I wouldn't support banning smoking there.

Victor Danilchenko

14th April 2003, 06:55 AM

shanek

What's wrong with a "no smoking" area?having a "no smoking" area in a restaurant is like having a "no peeing" section in the pool.

I have no problem with smoking rooms which are constructed so as to prevent smoke escaping; I am sure some engineer would be up to the task. However, smoking areas are unacceptable.

And what's wrong with telling a restaurant they won't get your business without one?What's wrong with the town telling a business that they can't operate unless they are non-smoking? The town's voters are people too, you know.

Why should bars and restaurants be forced to conform to YOUR idea of what is proper?they are not conforming to others' ideas of propriety, but to others' idea of good sanitary practices. This is a public health issue, no different from various sanitation rules.

shanek

14th April 2003, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG
The world doesn't have to revolve around me,

By advocating laws to make people conform to what you personally want, you are saying the world has to revolve around you.

but when it does, I'm happy. This particular rule about banning smoking I like.
I'm sure there are other rules that would anger me. If so, I would sound off against them just like you guys are.

But you would lose all credibility doing so. You will already have established that the government can intrude on our personal lifestyles. To say they can do it in a way you like but can't in a way you don't like is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

So, complain all you want that I'm in favour of denying people their rights, but I could care less.

I noticed.

shanek

14th April 2003, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
having a "no smoking" area in a restaurant is like having a "no peeing" section in the pool.

This is not only cliche, it is completely inaccurate. You simply do not breathe the smoke from another section of a restaurant because it goes through a filtration system before it gets to you.

What's wrong with the town telling a business that they can't operate unless they are non-smoking?

Because a) it doesn't work, and b) it's an infringement of their rights.

The town's voters are people too, you know.

So f*cking what? They still don't have the right to force their views on a private business!

chulbert

14th April 2003, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Because a) it doesn't work, and b) it's an infringement of their rights.

Are food safety laws in violation of restaurant owner rights?

chulbert

14th April 2003, 07:31 AM

Why is it acceptable to tell non-smokers to go to a different restaurant when they don't like the smoke but not acceptable to tell a restaurant to set up business in another county if they don't like the ordinances?

Why shouldn't businesses "vote with their wallet" too? A business will not contribute tax revenue to a county in which it does not operate. :)

Victor Danilchenko

14th April 2003, 07:38 AM

shanek

This is not only cliche, it is completely inaccurate. You simply do not breathe the smoke from another section of a restaurant because it goes through a filtration system before it gets to you.As you may have noticed, I specifically stated that a smoking section separated by air filters is IMO perfectly OK; however, I personally have never seen a place thusly partitioned. I don't see any problem with simply requiring that non-smikign area be truly smoke-free, which is what this approach would amount to.

Because a) it doesn't work, and b) it's an infringement of their rights.Enforcing a public health policy is exactly within the government's (local or higher) rights, IMO.

So f*cking what? They still don't have the right to force their views on a private business!the same right they do when they mandate that the restaurant employees wash hands after going to the bathroom.

Tmy

14th April 2003, 07:53 AM

In my area you can be a smoking establishment as long as your place is regulated to 18year olds and over. I guess they were making an exception for bars. That doesnt really make sense if your argument is employee health.

I for one love teh ban. I hate coming home stinking like smoke. Smokers remind me of that young kid driving around with his stereo blasting. No one seems to mind noise ordinanaces.

Smalso

14th April 2003, 08:12 AM

One of my favorite eating places is divided into smoking and non-smoking sections as required by local laws. At the height of the dinner hours, there is usually a fairly long line waiting to get in. Many non-smokers will specify a table in the smoking section because getting a table is easier. Go figure.

I, for one, would rather there be a no-cheap-or-loud-perfume/cologne section.

Richard G

14th April 2003, 08:32 AM

Local buisness had a smoke out, sponsored by the city safety council. After a coffee shop/diner had lost over 500 dollars in buisness by 12 noon, he promptly opened his doors to smokers again.

Bans like this cost honest people their livelyhood. If your afraid of too much ozone, car exhaust, or tobacco smoke, stay home in your plastic bubble.

Tricky

14th April 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Smalso
One of my favorite eating places is divided into smoking and non-smoking sections as required by local laws. At the height of the dinner hours, there is usually a fairly long line waiting to get in. Many non-smokers will specify a table in the smoking section because getting a table is easier. Go figure.

I, for one, would rather there be a no-cheap-or-loud-perfume/cologne section.
I opt for the "no cell phone" section.

Aardvark_DK

14th April 2003, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
I opt for the "no cell phone" section.
No cell phones.
No cheap-or-loud-perfume/cologne.
No smoking.
No children.
No fat people.

I'm sure I could come up with a few more.

Valmorian

14th April 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Scorpy

I really love smoking bans in bars!! I guess non-smokers don't care what they do to their brains and livers, but their lungs are sacred!! :D

To be fair, these really aren't the same, are they? I personally do not drink or smoke, but I go to nightclubs here in Edmonton. Other people drinking doesn't really affect my liver or brain, but the cigarette smoke in the club sure affects my lungs.

Unfortunately, I don't have any choice in this matter. If I want to go to a nightclub that plays the music I like, I have to put up with the smoke, even though it aggrivates my athsma. :(

Lurker

14th April 2003, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by shanek

This is not only cliche, it is completely inaccurate. You simply do not breathe the smoke from another section of a restaurant because it goes through a filtration system before it gets to you.

So this supposed air filtration system purifies all the air from one section to another? Amazing? I can just imagine the laminar flow from one end to the other of this ficticious system. No chance of turbulence from one section to another. Nope, that doesn't happen in low velocity air flows, does it? Someone walking through the laminar flow has no effect on redirecting the flow. Nope, you are spot on, Shanek.

I have to go rewrite some HVAC manuals. Be back in a few...

Lurker

Wile E. Coyote

14th April 2003, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Richard G
Local buisness had a smoke out, sponsored by the city safety council. After a coffee shop/diner had lost over 500 dollars in buisness by 12 noon, he promptly opened his doors to smokers again.

Bans like this cost honest people their livelyhood. If your afraid of too much ozone, car exhaust, or tobacco smoke, stay home in your plastic bubble.

One day is definitely not indicative of the true result of a smoking ban. If the cafe owner provided good food and good service, in the long run, more customers would patronize that shop, as there are more non-smokers than smokers.

I think smoking bans fall under the same umbrella as food health regulations. Restaurant owners do not have the right to serve food in unsanitary conditions, so why should they have the right to make their customers breathe unhealthy air? I can feel quite sick after being in a smoky room, just as I can feel ill after eating a bad piece of meat. What is the difference?

Scorpy

14th April 2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by tjwojo

One day is definitely not indicative of the true result of a smoking ban. If the cafe owner provided good food and good service, in the long run, more customers would patronize that shop, as there are more non-smokers than smokers.

I think smoking bans fall under the same umbrella as food health regulations. Restaurant owners do not have the right to serve food in unsanitary conditions, so why should they have the right to make their customers breathe unhealthy air? I can feel quite sick after being in a smoky room, just as I can feel ill after eating a bad piece of meat. What is the difference?

The difference is that you can easily identify a smoky room and avoid it. You're NOT being forced to breathe unhealthy air. Why do you people keep claiming that?

Scorpy

14th April 2003, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Valmorian

To be fair, these really aren't the same, are they? I personally do not drink or smoke, but I go to nightclubs here in Edmonton. Other people drinking doesn't really affect my liver or brain, but the cigarette smoke in the club sure affects my lungs.

Unfortunately, I don't have any choice in this matter. If I want to go to a nightclub that plays the music I like, I have to put up with the smoke, even though it aggrivates my athsma. :(

You do have a choice. You just don't want to make it.

jimmygun

14th April 2003, 10:43 AM

Victor...I simply did breathe the smoke from the smoking section in restaurants before the complete ban because there were no filtration devises put in. I was told to sit directly beside, behind, or right over top of smokers when shown to my non-smoking table. The air was always blue and the places always stank.

Now I can go out for an expensive meal and enjoy myself without worrying about whether the owner is taking care of my health and that of its employees. I know regulations will take better care of me than the owner's bottom line.

It if means a smoker must do without for one hour in a restaurant, so be it. Their inconvenience is nothing compared to my health and the health of the general public that the restaurant serves. If it means smokers must do without for five hours in an airplane, too bad. My safety and health outweigh their right to pollute and endanger my environment.

Wile E. Coyote

14th April 2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Scorpy

The difference is that you can easily identify a smoky room and avoid it. You're NOT being forced to breathe unhealthy air. Why do you people keep claiming that?

Either way, someone is being forced to do something in this case. The smoker is being forced to hold off on a bad habit, or the non-smoker is being forced to inhale smoke. How is is right to tell non-smokers to go somewhere else if they don't like it, but not to tell smokers the same?

A smoker can still enter a non-smoking establishment without being assaulted by an unfit environment. A non-smoker cannot say the same of a smoking environment.

The difference here is a culture change, and those are incredibly difficult to bring about.

Despite my strong belief that the ban should be enacted, I do not think the government should have the power to dictate who can smoke where. However, I feel strongly enough about this to want them to do it anyway. Call me a hypocrite. I am tired of being subjected to a primitive, legal form of drug addiction that only serves to cost everyone money, health, and standard of living. Unfortunately, my position is practically indefensible.

Scorpy

14th April 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by jimygun

Now I can go out for an expensive meal and enjoy myself without worrying about whether the owner is taking care of my health and that of its employees. I know regulations will take better care of me than the owner's bottom line.

The problem with you people is that you are unwilling to take responsibility for your own well-being, preferring to shift it onto everyone else's shoulders, and then whining when they don't make it their priority. What prompts such arrogance? I certainly don't know.

Valmorian

14th April 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Scorpy

You do have a choice. You just don't want to make it.

Huh? I'm not sure where this comes from. I DO make that choice on a regular basis.

[edit]
The point I'm making is that IF I want to go to a club that plays the music I like, I MUST deal with cigarette smoke. I don't have a choice in that regard. There are no other establishments like that where I live.

chulbert

14th April 2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Scorpy
You do have a choice. You just don't want to make it.

Businesses have that same choice. They don't have to set up shop in municipalities with anti-smoking laws.

Lurker

14th April 2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Scorpy

The problem with you people is that you are unwilling to take responsibility for your own well-being, preferring to shift it onto everyone else's shoulders, and then whining when they don't make it their priority. What prompts such arrogance? I certainly don't know.

I think the interesting analogy is to the airline industry. Currently you cannot smoke on flights (domestic). Should this change? Aren't private carriers just like private restaurant owners and should be able to choose how to appeal to their customers and employees?

So those who are not in favor of this restaurant smoking ban are for repealing the ban on smoking on flights, right? After all, the customer can choose which airline to take. There can be smokig and nonsmoking carriers.

I just thought it a good comparison. Consistentcy and all...

Lurker

WMT1

14th April 2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by jimygun
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is the same as having a peeing section in a pool.

Actually, this falls into the category of bad analogies that may sound clever, as long as one doesn't think more than a second or two about it. But it fails because there is virtually no demand for a pool with a peeing section. There is a demand for restaurants and bars where people can smoke.

The only sensible thing is to ban smoking outright.

Baloney. The only sensible thing is to leave the choice to restaurant/bar owners to give their customers what they want.

That means no store owner has an advantage or disadvantage over another.

What advantage? This would only be true if one had the option of offering smoking while another did not.

WMT1

14th April 2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by KelvinG
I'm sure there are other rules that would anger me. If so, I would sound off against them just like you guys are.

No, you wouldn't. Your concerns are only for your own selfish preferences. That is not "just like" arguing for the freedom others to choose differently.

So, complain all you want that I'm in favour of denying people their rights, but I could care less.

That pretty much says it all.

WMT1

14th April 2003, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by shanek
And what's wrong with telling a restaurant they won't get your business without one?

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
What's wrong with the town telling a business that they can't operate unless they are non-smoking?

What's wrong with it is the availability of superior, more freedom-oriented options. Moreover, unless the "town" is speaking with unanimity, all you're really talking about is, yet again, the majority imposing its will on everyone.

You didn't really expect this to be a tough question, did you? Now, can you actually answer Shane's question - you know, with something other than the "peeing section" thing?

The town's voters are people too, you know.

Yes, people who are free not to do business with establishments that don't cater to their desires.

Why should bars and restaurants be forced to conform to YOUR idea of what is proper?

they are not conforming to others' ideas of propriety, but to others' idea of good sanitary practices. This is a public health issue, no different from various sanitation rules.

:rolleyes: Again with the "public health" nonsense? Yeah, this one gets trotted out whenever someone can't think of a decent argument for restricting other forms of choice too. Drugs & prostitution come to mind. I've even heard it used as an argument for laws against homosexual behavior.

WMT1

14th April 2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by chulbert
Are food safety laws in violation of restaurant owner rights?

If there was any kind of demand for unsafe food, and someone wanted to open a business to serve that need, they probably would be.

WMT1

14th April 2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
Smokers remind me of that young kid driving around with his stereo blasting. No one seems to mind noise ordinanaces.

:rolleyes:

Ten points to the first person who can tell me what's wrong with this comparison.

(Would you guys try to think through your analogies a little better before you post?)

WMT1

14th April 2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
the same right they do when they mandate that the restaurant employees wash hands after going to the bathroom.

Is there any kind of demand for restaurants that do not require employees to wash their hands after going to the bathroom? Didn't think so.

WMT1

14th April 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by tjwojo
Restaurant owners do not have the right to serve food in unsanitary conditions, so why should they have the right to make their customers breathe unhealthy air?

They don't. They could only make them breathe unhealthy air if they could make them enter the restaurant.

I can feel quite sick after being in a smoky room, just as I can feel ill after eating a bad piece of meat. What is the difference?

Well, one difference is that there is no demand for eating a bad piece of meat, or for food served in unsanitary conditions.

Good grief. You guys that keep relying on these awful analogies only help make the case for the opposition.

chulbert

14th April 2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by WMT1
Yes, people who are free not to do business with establishments that don't cater to their desires.

Just as businesses are free not to do business in counties/cities that don't cater to their business plans.

Occasional Chemist

14th April 2003, 12:50 PM

{in "answer" to "Are food safety laws in violation of restaurant owner rights?"}
Originally posted by WMT1
If there was any kind of demand for unsafe food, and someone wanted to open a business to serve that need, they probably would be.

It's a yes/no question, WMT. Either it's a violation of the owner's rights or it isn't. "Demand" for such a thing doesn't enter into ithe discussion

By the way, there is a demand for unsafe food - in particular, meats cooked (more to the point, not cooked) in certain ways being an example off the top of my head. So this doesn't have to be a theoretical argument.

WMT1

14th April 2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by chulbert
Just as businesses are free not to do business in counties/cities that don't cater to their business plans.

Uh, no. Sorry, not quite the same. You guys really don't think this stuff through at all, do you? The business does not belong to the county or city any more than it belongs to potential customers. It belongs to the owner. That's where the choice belongs.

Now, is there anyone out there who can manage to come up with a good reason why a business should not be allowed to cater to smokers?

WMT1

14th April 2003, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
It's a yes/no question, WMT. Either it's a violation of the owner's rights or it isn't. "Demand" for such a thing doesn't enter into ithe discussion

Well, inasmuch as there are many such laws, at the very least, it depends on which of the particular laws you're talking about. If you want to cite some specific examples of laws, I'll be more than happy to tell you which ones violate the business owner's rights. And for starters, prohibiting restaurant/bar owners from allowing smoking in their establishment would be among them.

By the way, there is a demand for unsafe food - in particular, meats cooked (more to the point, not cooked) in certain ways being an example off the top of my head. So this doesn't have to be a theoretical argument.

Fine. Then laws against this would be such a violation. I hope this makes my position clearer.

Scorpy

14th April 2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Valmorian

Huh? I'm not sure where this comes from. I DO make that choice on a regular basis.

[edit]
The point I'm making is that IF I want to go to a club that plays the music I like, I MUST deal with cigarette smoke. I don't have a choice in that regard. There are no other establishments like that where I live.

Why should there be?

Scorpy

14th April 2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by chulbert

Businesses have that same choice. They don't have to set up shop in municipalities with anti-smoking laws.

Why is it ALWAYS somebody else's problem with you people. It's YOU who don't want to be exposed to second-hand smoke. Live with the damn consequences of that choice. Stop trying to shift it onto other people.

Solitaire

14th April 2003, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by WMT1
There is a demand for restaurants and bars where people can smoke.

In the case of bars, perhaps. Restaurants, no.

The only sensible thing is to leave the choice to restaurant
or bar owners to give their customers what they want.

This ignors systemic inertia. If there exists a ninety five percent population
demand for a nonsmoking restaurant in this area, it might be possible that
one will open - about a fifty fifty chance. In fact only a few of the big chains,
after laws in California and New York passed that one has a personal choice
in restaurants now.

There is no demand for eating a bad piece of meat, or for food served
in unsanitary conditions. Is there any kind of demand for restaurants
that do not require employees to wash their hands after going to the
bathroom? Didn't think so.

No customer has any rights to decide that they do not want unsafe
or unclean food from any restaurant. Unless your proposing some
amazing metaphysical power to see through walls and observe
employees in the kitchen or wash room.
:D

Occasional Chemist

14th April 2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by WMT1
Well, inasmuch as there are many such laws, at the very least, it depends on which of the particular laws you're talking about.

I'm not interested in quoting the whole of the South Carolina health codes to you, but I am trying to figure out what reasoning you're using that would allow you to pick and choose which of the hundreds of health regulations violate a business owner's rights and which don't. The post I responded to seemed to indicate you'd find all such laws violating someone's rights.

Fine. Then laws against this would be such a violation. I hope this makes my position clearer.

Okay, so you think the safe handling reguations for meat are a violation of business owner's rights. Given that, do you think any health code is legitimate?

Victor Danilchenko

14th April 2003, 01:40 PM

The demand for unsanitary foods isn't the point, is it? Whether something is in demand or not, doesn't affect people's rights to do it, as I understand libertarian approach. Therefore, the fact that nobody demands foods cooked with unwashed hands, doesn't make the laws that mandate hand-washing be any less coercive.

Yes, public health considerations do exist, and are real and justifiable in a free society.

Solitaire

14th April 2003, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Scorpy
Why is it ALWAYS somebody else's problem with you people.
It's YOU who don't want to be exposed to second-hand smoke.
Live with the damn consequences of that choice.
Stop trying to shift it onto other people.

Oh, the iconic irony. :D

Imagine if you went to a restaurant and before you got served you had
to pray to some invisible god for your dinner. Is it too much to ask another
person not to smoke for thirty minutes or is it too much to ask the restaurant
owner, that if he permits smoking, to install exhaust fans? I was able to eat
a meal in a Japanese restaurant next to a smoker because the fan stove
kept the air fresh.

Valmorian

14th April 2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Scorpy

Why is it ALWAYS somebody else's problem with you people. It's YOU who don't want to be exposed to second-hand smoke. Live with the damn consequences of that choice. Stop trying to shift it onto other people.

Well for some people, the choice is something they have little real control over. I have athsma. Luckily, cigarette smoke only irritates it in large quantities. If my athsma was more severe, however, it would limit which restaurants I could go to, what bars I could enter, etc..

I have good days and bad days. On a good day, I can go to the club and never have a problem. On a bad day, I basically have to leave the nightclub every half hour and hack and cough for about 5 minutes outside.

I don't ask people in the bar to stop smoking, it's just too bad that in order to do something I enjoy (going to the club and dancing) I have to endure that.

shanek

14th April 2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by chulbert
Are food safety laws in violation of restaurant owner rights?

Actually, yes. They are unnecessary, because the customers can take action against the restaurant, and they increase the prices of the food because of the overhead the restaurant has in complying.

And actually, these regulations can stop a customer from seeking damages if the restaurant owner followed the letter of the law. "I complied with every regulation! What more can I do?"

shanek

14th April 2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by chulbert
Why is it acceptable to tell non-smokers to go to a different restaurant when they don't like the smoke but not acceptable to tell a restaurant to set up business in another county if they don't like the ordinances?

Because the county doesn't own the property; the restaurant owner does.

Why shouldn't businesses "vote with their wallet" too? A business will not contribute tax revenue to a county in which it does not operate. :)

Who says they don't?

shanek

14th April 2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
As you may have noticed, I specifically stated that a smoking section separated by air filters is IMO perfectly OK; however, I personally have never seen a place thusly partitioned.

It doesn't have to be partitioned. As long as your far enough away from individual smokers that their smoke doesn't go over directly to your table, their air will go through the filters.

the same right they do when they mandate that the restaurant employees wash hands after going to the bathroom.

Oh, yes, another law that makes such good sense... :rolleyes:

shanek

14th April 2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Lurker
So this supposed air filtration system purifies all the air from one section to another? Amazing? I can just imagine the laminar flow from one end to the other of this ficticious system. No chance of turbulence from one section to another. Nope, that doesn't happen in low velocity air flows, does it? Someone walking through the laminar flow has no effect on redirecting the flow. Nope, you are spot on, Shanek.

I have to go rewrite some HVAC manuals. Be back in a few...

:rolleyes:

http://www.pmoptions.com/DisplayLevel3.asp?topic_id=458

"We don't get complaints about smoke drift or kitchen odors. Our customers are happy and our employees are happy. I'd say those are good results."
-- Chris King, owner of King Fish Market

...

"We don't get complaints about smoke drift or kitchen odors. Our customers are happy and our employees are happy," says King. "I'd say those are good results."

My prediction: The data in this article will be ignored and people will attack the source instead.

shanek

14th April 2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Lurker
I think the interesting analogy is to the airline industry. Currently you cannot smoke on flights (domestic). Should this change? Aren't private carriers just like private restaurant owners and should be able to choose how to appeal to their customers and employees?

Yes. Before this law, most airlines would let you choose a smoking or nonsmoking flight. And pretty much all flights under 2 hours were nonsmoking.

shanek

14th April 2003, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Valmorian
Well for some people, the choice is something they have little real control over. I have athsma. Luckily, cigarette smoke only irritates it in large quantities. If my athsma was more severe, however, it would limit which restaurants I could go to, what bars I could enter, etc..

I feel for you, but why should other people have to pay for your malaise?

Valmorian

14th April 2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Actually, yes. They are unnecessary, because the customers can take action against the restaurant, and they increase the prices of the food because of the overhead the restaurant has in complying.

If the restaurant owner isn't complying, they run the risk of being sued, right?

So therefore, it makes more sense for them to comply with such safety regulations, right?

So why exactly are you saying that it would increase the prices of food because of the overhead the restaurant has in complying, when you've already suggested that these same restaurant owners would be complying ANYWAY to avoid lawsuits?

And actually, these regulations can stop a customer from seeking damages if the restaurant owner followed the letter of the law. "I complied with every regulation! What more can I do?"

If the restaurant was following all the safety regulations, and such regulations were NOT forced upon them, do you think they would have a better chance of being successfully sued?

If so, how does this benefit the business owner who attempts to comply with health 'regulations' that are self-imposed?

It seems to me that you are suggesting that such sanitary requirements don't help?

Regarding washing hands after using the bathroom in the food industry, you state:

Oh, yes, another law that makes such good sense... :rolleyes:

Um, what's wrong with this exactly? Do you not support such an activity, or are you just suggesting that the law is un-enforceable?

Valmorian

14th April 2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by shanek

I feel for you, but why should other people have to pay for your malaise?

Why should I have to pay for THEIR desire to cigarette smoke? *shrug* It all depends upon your point of view, doesn't it?

Occasional Chemist

14th April 2003, 02:21 PM

Just to get some perspective from these business owners we're discussing, how many of you own a restaurant - or at the very least have someone in your immediate family who does?

roger

14th April 2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by WMT1

Well, one difference is that there is no demand for eating a bad piece of meat, or for food served in unsanitary conditions.

I'm not interested in the smoking argument, but I'll point out there is such a demand - unpasterized cheeses, for example. Legal in France, illegal to import here (U.S.).

or how about irradiated foods in the UK: http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/68301

edited to add: opps, what was I thinking, irradiation has nothing to do with unsanitary conditions, just the opposite. Sorry.

chulbert

14th April 2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Scorpy
Why is it ALWAYS somebody else's problem with you people. It's YOU who don't want to be exposed to second-hand smoke. Live with the damn consequences of that choice. Stop trying to shift it onto other people.

You've got it backwards; smoking is not the status quo. Breathable air is. Since smokers spew their stench into their air, thus disrupting the status quo, they must accept the consequences of their choice.

Scorpy

14th April 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by chulbert

You've got it backwards; smoking is not the status quo. Breathable air is. Since smokers spew their stench into their air, thus disrupting the status quo, they must accept the consequences of their choice.

Again, we're talking about a LEGAL BEHAVIOR being engaged in on PRIVATE PROPERTY with the OWNER'S CONSENT. If you're not the owner and you don't like smoke, then it is YOUR problem and only YOUR problem.

WMT1

14th April 2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by WMT1
There is a demand for restaurants and bars where people can smoke.

Originally posted by Synchronicity
In the case of bars, perhaps. Restaurants, no.

You've been getting some bad information. Just about every smoker I've ever known would prefer to be able to light up after a meal (in some cases, during), without having to leave the restaurant. I had the same preference when I smoked as well.

If there exists a ninety five percent population demand for a nonsmoking restaurant in this area, it might be possible that one will open - about a fifty fifty chance.

Just imagine how those odds would improve if all those nonsmokers would boycott the other restaurants until a lot more of them began to comply with those preferences.

No customer has any rights to decide that they do not want unsafe or unclean food from any restaurant. Unless your proposing some amazing metaphysical power to see through walls and observe employees in the kitchen or wash room.
:D

:confused:

Valmorian

14th April 2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Scorpy

Why should there be?

Again, I never said there SHOULD be. I was simply pointing out that if I want to be able to go to a club and dance to music I like, I MUST put up with cigarette smoke. I don't have the opportunity to visit a club that doesn't allow smoking.

This was because YOU stated:

You do have a choice. You just don't want to make it.

The 'choice' I have is to simply give up dancing. Hooray.

So basically, I'm restricted and inconvenienced in my activities because of the habits of smokers.

Of course you ignored the point I was making, in that IF I desire to go dancing at a nightclub that plays the music I like, I don't have the choice of frequenting one with no-smoking restrictions.

Why? It's not economically feasible to compete with a smoking establishment, since there are not enough non-smokers who have problems like I do.

WMT1

14th April 2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by WMT1
Well, inasmuch as there are many such laws, at the very least, it depends on which of the particular laws you're talking about.

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
I'm not interested in quoting the whole of the South Carolina health codes to you, but I am trying to figure out what reasoning you're using that would allow you to pick and choose which of the hundreds of health regulations violate a business owner's rights and which don't. The post I responded to seemed to indicate you'd find all such laws violating someone's rights.

Just the ones that prevent a business from choosing to provide a service that there is actually a demand for, where doing so does not violate the rights of anyone who does not want that service. Since there are people who would like to be able to smoke in a restaurant, and having that option available to them does not violate the rights of nonsmokers, that particular consideration applies in this case.

Okay, so you think the safe handling reguations for meat are a violation of business owner's rights.

Just the ones that would prevent a business owner from providing unsafe meat to anyone who actually wanted unsafe meat.

Given that, do you think any health code is legitimate?

Of course. But I don't want to quote a long list of laws any more than you do. So once again, if the effect of a law is to prohibit a business from providing a service that there is actually a demand for, and which does not violate the rights of anyone who does not want that service, then I consider it a violation of the rights of the owner.

schmdavi

14th April 2003, 02:58 PM

IMO, banning smoking in restaurants and bars is outright stupid.

Yes, I admit it, I am a smoker. But when I am in a restaurant eating, I dont smoke. Addicted as I am I can do without a smoke for a while and if the urge really overcomes me, I just excuse myself and head outside or for the bar. Like this everyone is happy, except my lungs maybe.I cant understand the need to regulate everything. Has noone ever heard anything about common sense and courtesy lately?

As for banning smoking in bars, this is asinine. Sure if a bar should adopt a non smoking policy, I will respect it. But making it a law???

If you dont want second hand smoke, dont frequent bars that allow smoking!!!!

It is your choice, you cant have everything without cutting into freedom of others.

Valmorian I'm sorry you have to fight with asthma, but limiting the freedoms of others so that you have more isnt the way to go.

Here in Switzerland, smoking policies are extremely liberal. Only a couple of months ago, my university banned smoking inside the buildings! I mean, there where ashtrays everywhere, in the elevator, in the restroom stall...
What I think is the solution is respect and consideration. One can always ask if the smoker could put out his/her cigarette and most of them i think will comply. Theres always the occasional @$$hole but the smoke on one fag wont kill you.

/rant out

WMT1

14th April 2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
The demand for unsanitary foods isn't the point, is it?

Well, actually, it is a valid point, when someone else tries to make unsanitary foods analogous to smoking in restaurants.

Whether something is in demand or not, doesn't affect people's rights to do it, as I understand libertarian approach.

True. For most of us arguing this position, it has more to do with the right of the business owner than the right of customers. If I have, at any point, mentioned the demand as a stand-alone argument, without also referencing the businessman's right to meet that demand, I humbly apologize. :D

Therefore, the fact that nobody demands foods cooked with unwashed hands, doesn't make the laws that mandate hand-washing be any less coercive.

Well, actually, if there was a demand for it, and someone wanted to start a business to meet that demand, and could not do so because of such laws, that is when such laws would become coercive.

Yes, public health considerations do exist, and are real and justifiable in a free society.

Well, I'm pretty sure nobody asked whether they exist, or whether they're "real". So, in true Victor fashion, you're answering a question that wasn't actually asked.

And in a free society, they are not justifiable if their effect is to prohibit a business from providing a service that there is actually a demand for, where doing so does not violate the rights of anyone who does not want that service.

WMT1

14th April 2003, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by chulbert
You've got it backwards; smoking is not the status quo. Breathable air is. Since smokers spew their stench into their air, thus disrupting the status quo, they must accept the consequences of their choice.

Actually, when inside an establishment that allows smoking, isn't it likely that smoking would be the "status quo"?

Valmorian

14th April 2003, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by schmdavi
If you dont want second hand smoke, dont frequent bars that allow smoking!!!!

Where I live, there are none. Nor is there enough of a demand to support one, apparently.

Valmorian I'm sorry you have to fight with asthma, but limiting the freedoms of others so that you have more isnt the way to go.

You realize how hypocritical this is, right? I'm not asking for "more" rights than anyone else, really. My freedoms are being restricted by cigarette smoke every time I have to go outside and cough up phlegm for 5 minutes, but hey, I'm not advocating that there be anti-smoking laws for bars.

I'm simply resigned to the fact that most smokers don't care that their habit causes me pain and suffering when all I wanted to do was enjoy the establishment like everyone else.

I don't drink either, but then again, people aren't making me drink alcohol in there. I happily pay cover and order virgin versions of drinks while paying the full alcoholic prices.

*shrug* oh well.

schmdavi

14th April 2003, 04:42 PM

I dont think what I said is hypocritical. After all it is your condition that does not allow you to go to places where people smoke.
I can understand your dilemma, either stay at home and bore yourself to death or fill your lungs with smoke.

But I think smoking in clubs could be regulated, meaning maybe a smoking section with good air filtering installed. This would sure improve air quality and would everyone happy. This is far more sensible than a smoking ban.

As for bars, there has to be smoke and booze in a bar, otherwise it would just be ... boring?
:D

peptoabysmal

14th April 2003, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Valmorian

Where I live, there are none. Nor is there enough of a demand to support one, apparently.

You realize how hypocritical this is, right? I'm not asking for "more" rights than anyone else, really. My freedoms are being restricted by cigarette smoke every time I have to go outside and cough up phlegm for 5 minutes, but hey, I'm not advocating that there be anti-smoking laws for bars.

I'm simply resigned to the fact that most smokers don't care that their habit causes me pain and suffering when all I wanted to do was enjoy the establishment like everyone else.

I don't drink either, but then again, people aren't making me drink alcohol in there. I happily pay cover and order virgin versions of drinks while paying the full alcoholic prices.

*shrug* oh well.

I have no desire to go back to the days of everyone smoking indoors or on planes. Much as I'd like to light up on a 4 hour flight.

Where I work, I have a long drive to work. My wife doesn't smoke and works at the same university where I work. I don't smoke in the car. When I get to work first thing I do is light up in the parking lot, then cross a busy street and traverse a long hallway to get to my office. One day my office got a call from one of the workers from an office in that hallway. This woman said that just the smell of the cigarette on me as I walk through the hallway sets off her asthma. Even though it's not my responsibility to manage her health problem, I now walk all the way around to the other side of the building to get to work, rain or shine (it is quite a brisk walk).

With this outdoors nonsense, what's next? Do I have to hire the Soviets to launch me into space so I can have a drag, since smoking is illegal on Earth?

KelvinG

14th April 2003, 10:51 PM

I'm actually in favour of sending the message that smokers shouldn't have the same rights as others. This thread is full of bleeding heart crap about how the poor smokers are having their rights taken away. I have absolutely no sympathy. For years I've had to put up with toxic smoke fumes in every damn restaurant and bar I went into, until Vancouver got smart and implemented a ban.

Smoking has potential hazardous implications for people, whether they smoke or not. By banning smoking in public restaurants/bars we are protecting everyone who doesn't smoke from the toxic fumes that shouldn't be allowed in any public building. Smokers need to learn that they don't have the same rights as others. They pose a health threat to those around them and it only makes sense that they shouldn't be allowed to smoke in bars and restaurants.

Salad Monkey

15th April 2003, 12:36 AM

I'm with you Kelvin. Smoking is such a mundane practice in our society that even with the recent bannings, it's still way too blindly accepted. It's an appeal to tradition really. Now even the cigarette makers have admitted that it's bad for you, but some people still seem to believe that it's their God-given right to harm other people, trying to pass their selfishness off as a love for freedom. Hopefully, in 50 years people will look back and wonder why the f--k people ever smoked. Look, the bottom line is smoking isn't good for you. Smoking and religion are two socially ingrained practices that have outlived their usefullness. Science has proven that neither is necessary. Just quit. If Jared can lose 3000 pounds eating subway sandwiches then you can quit smoking.

Lurker

15th April 2003, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by shanek

:rolleyes:

http://www.pmoptions.com/DisplayLevel3.asp?topic_id=458

My prediction: The data in this article will be ignored and people will attack the source instead.

Data? What data? All I saw was a single anecdote (which you quoted twice for some reason) saying the air was clear. Wow! Now why don't we put on our skeptic hat.

1. The owner saying he has not received any complaints does not make the air clean.

2. The source was Phillip Morris.

Neither of these two items leads to the conclusion that the air was impure. But I really doubt they would bother writing about the person complaining about the odor, don't you think?

Regardless, I applaud the owners dedication to trying to satisfy both sides.

Lurker

gnome

15th April 2003, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Find me a story where a conservative Republican is doing this kind of action.

How about New York City Mayor Bloomberg?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/04/15/bouncer.killed.reut/index.html

Yikes...! Some smokers mean business apparently... though personally I never quite understood why some people get so mad they'll screw up their job and life by going to jail stabbing someone over something so minor.

Agammamon

15th April 2003, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
All over America there seems to be an urgent movement to ban or even make it illegal to smoke outdoors.

Outdoors, for crissakes! Here's a newsflash: If a little smoke wafting by you in the outdoors weakens you physically, you were probably already marked for natural selection anyway.

I say the left is really pissed that they didn't get the response they had hoped for with the anti-war thing, and now they have come back home to kick their dog again.

What do you think?

I thought the antismoking laws were part of the rights war on drugs.

DrBenway

15th April 2003, 05:28 AM

I had the opinion that smoking is bad for you, like about a thousand other things are bad for you.

Then I went to medical school. That experience taught me that smoking is unbelievably bad for you.

Who's that in the ER at 3:00 am feeling sick and short of breath? Oh, a 65 year old guy with COPD. Over and over and over. Why is Mrs. So and So taking so long to recover from her surgery? Oh, she's a smoker.

It's a slow, depressing, expensive death you get from cigarettes. We all pay for it.

I have a visceral hatred of cigarettes now. I never want the world to go back to the days when cigarette smoke was everywhere.

All you smokers out there, do yourself and your loved ones a favor: quit now!

Tmy

15th April 2003, 06:14 AM

I saw this funny matchbook . It said "Even Communists are allowed to smoke."

But I still agree with a ban. Screw smokers, if they want to smoke just walk your lazy ass 20 ft and go outside.

shanek

15th April 2003, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Valmorian
If the restaurant owner isn't complying, they run the risk of being sued, right?

So therefore, it makes more sense for them to comply with such safety regulations, right?

So why exactly are you saying that it would increase the prices of food because of the overhead the restaurant has in complying, when you've already suggested that these same restaurant owners would be complying ANYWAY to avoid lawsuits?

The cost of compliance has little to do with actually making your food safe, and everything to do with the paperwork and red tape they have to go through to show they are complying with the regulations. It could greatly effect even a restaurant who never served unsafe food in its existance, and still be enough of a financial burden to force them to raise prices. Many have actually gone out of business because of the costs of compliance.

If the restaurant was following all the safety regulations, and such regulations were NOT forced upon them, do you think they would have a better chance of being successfully sued?

I honestly don't understand your question here.

It seems to me that you are suggesting that such sanitary requirements don't help?

Certainly not enough to justify the costs, not when there would already be an incentive to make the food as safe as feasible.

Um, what's wrong with this exactly? Do you not support such an activity, or are you just suggesting that the law is un-enforceable?

It's completely unenforceable, and there's no data to show that our food is any safer since this regulation went into effect.

shanek

15th April 2003, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by Valmorian
Why should I have to pay for THEIR desire to cigarette smoke?

How are you paying for it?

shanek

15th April 2003, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by roger
I'm not interested in the smoking argument, but I'll point out there is such a demand - unpasterized cheeses, for example. Legal in France, illegal to import here (U.S.).

Well, people like rare meat here. For awhile, it was actually against Federal law to get a rare cheeseburger at a restaurant. But people who order and eat asuch foods are aware of the risks, and so the responsibility is on themselves.

shanek

15th April 2003, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Valmorian
So basically, I'm restricted and inconvenienced in my activities because of the habits of smokers.

Of course you ignored the point I was making, in that IF I desire to go dancing at a nightclub that plays the music I like, I don't have the choice of frequenting one with no-smoking restrictions.

Who exactly is taking this choice away from you?

Wile E. Coyote

15th April 2003, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by shanek

How are you paying for it?

1. Personal health issues.
2. Less formal: personal suffering (inhaling smoke, dry eyes, stinky clothes, etc.)
3. Taxes which go to higher health care costs.

I think these argue well that non-smokers pay for it.

WMT1

15th April 2003, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG
I'm actually in favour of sending the message that smokers shouldn't have the same rights as others.

What a surprise.

This thread is full of bleeding heart crap about how the poor smokers are having their rights taken away.

It's also full of sound arguments in support of the rights of property owners. You seem to be ignoring those.

Moreover, the only "bleeding heart crap" in this thread is about how the poor nonsmokers won't have anywhere go unless they can impose a smoke-free environment on everyone, including those who don't want one.

I have absolutely no sympathy. For years I've had to put up with toxic smoke fumes in every damn restaurant and bar I went into

Unless someone was forcing you into those restaurants and bars, you didn't have to, you chose to. And how bothersome could it really have been (or toxic, for that matter) if you chose to continue doing so "for years"?

Smoking has potential hazardous implications for people, whether they smoke or not.

Not for the ones who don't go where the smoke is.

By banning smoking in public restaurants/bars we are protecting everyone who doesn't smoke from the toxic fumes

And if everyone who objects to smoke simply chooses not to do business with establishments that allow smoking, that protects everyone who wants to be protected, with the added benefits of not protecting those who don't want to be protected, and of not violating the property rights of the restaurant/bar owners who would like to serve them. See how that works?

that shouldn't be allowed in any public building.

Do you need to be reminded that we're talking about privately owned public buildings?

Smokers need to learn that they don't have the same rights as others.

Yeah, we should all take our cues about rights from you. :rolleyes:

They pose a health threat to those around them

Sounds like a good reason for those who are concerned about such a threat to avoid places where people are allowed to smoke.

and it only makes sense that they shouldn't be allowed to smoke in bars and restaurants.

No, we've been through this before. The only thing that makes sense is to allow the owner of the establishment to decide. Pay attention!

shanek

15th April 2003, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Valmorian
You realize how hypocritical this is, right? I'm not asking for "more" rights than anyone else, really.

Yes, you are! You're saying that your desire to dance in a place smoke-free should take precendence over the rights of the business owner, who is the owner of the property!

My freedoms are being restricted by cigarette smoke every time I have to go outside

No, they aren't. You don't have any "right" to force the owners of PRIVATE PROPERTY to conform to what you want.

I'm simply resigned to the fact that most smokers don't care that their habit causes me pain and suffering when all I wanted to do was enjoy the establishment like everyone else.

But by seeking to ban smoking in such establishments, you are taking away the rights of smokers to enjoy the establishment as well as the rights of the business owner.

WMT1

15th April 2003, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Salad Monkey
It's an appeal to tradition really.

No, it's about respecting freedom of choice and property rights. Try and keep up.

Now even the cigarette makers have admitted that it's bad for you, but some people still seem to believe that it's their God-given right to harm other people, trying to pass their selfishness off as a love for freedom.

Baloney. At least some of us who support the rights of smokers are nonsmokers.

Look, the bottom line is smoking isn't good for you.

That may be the bottom line for something, but not for this discussion. Freedom of choice and property rights are at least as relevant, if not more so.

Smoking and religion are two socially ingrained practices that have outlived their usefullness.

Have we reached a point where nobody finds smoking to be pleasurable? If not, you might want to think this through a little more carefully.

WMT1

15th April 2003, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
But I still agree with a ban. Screw smokers, if they want to smoke just walk your lazy ass 20 ft and go outside.

Does that mean your position is also "screw the rights of property owners"?

shanek

15th April 2003, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG
I'm actually in favour of sending the message that smokers shouldn't have the same rights as others.

And the Constitution be damned...

For years I've had to put up with toxic smoke fumes in every damn restaurant and bar I went into,

No, you didn't have to put up with it! You chose to put up with it when you went into the restaurant or bar!

By banning smoking in public restaurants/bars we are protecting everyone who doesn't smoke from the toxic fumes that shouldn't be allowed in any public building.

THESE AREN'T PUBLIC BUILDINGS!!! THEY ARE PRIVATE BUSINESSES!!!! Why are people to pigheaded to get that???

Smokers need to learn that they don't have the same rights as others.

I don't recall reading that in the Constitution...

Tricky

15th April 2003, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

Does that mean your position is also "screw the rights of property owners"?
If a law is passed that forbids indoor smoking, then the property owner has no more "right" to break that law than they have to serve cocaine. Laws define your rights.

shanek

15th April 2003, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Lurker
Data? What data? All I saw was a single anecdote (which you quoted twice for some reason)

Where did I quote it twice?

1. The owner saying he has not received any complaints does not make the air clean.

One thing this thread has made clear is that anti-smokers aren't at all hesitant about complaining about cigarette smoke.

2. The source was Phillip Morris.

Called it! Do I get the million?

But I really doubt they would bother writing about the person complaining about the odor, don't you think?

What are you trying to pull? THEY SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT NO ONE COMPLAINED!

Wile E. Coyote

15th April 2003, 08:08 AM

We need to get to the point in our culture where smoking is considered rude and trashy.

I consider smoke to be more offensive than explosive flatulence, but one is accepted and the other is not. If I were to enter a restaurant and start letting loose, belching and farting loudly, I would be escorted from the premises. This is exactly how smokers should be treated in our culture. They take away from the quality of living of everyone else.

So I don't really care if the government should be able to affect this culture change. I just want someone - anyone - to do it, even if it means taking the rights away from one group of people and giving them to another, larger group.

Wile E. Coyote

15th April 2003, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by shanek

One thing this thread has made clear is that anti-smokers aren't at all hesitant about complaining about cigarette smoke.

What are you trying to pull? THEY SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT NO ONE COMPLAINED!

Obviously no one complained to the manager, but that does not exclude that a lot of patrons were silently dissatisfied to the point where they would never come back.

Just because no one complains about a problem does not mean that the problem is not there.

shanek

15th April 2003, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by tjwojo
1. Personal health issues.

How much has this cost you? Please present exact dollar figures with medical bills and statements from your doctor saying they are related to second hand smoke.

2. Less formal: personal suffering (inhaling smoke, dry eyes, stinky clothes, etc.)

How is that "paying" for it?

3. Taxes which go to higher health care costs.

This is actually the first legitimate point I've seen on the anti-smoker side here. But don't we also pay for the health care costs of 300-lb fat-@$$es swho can't lay off the Big Macs?

The solution here is to end government health care subsidies. make everyone responsible for their own health.

shanek

15th April 2003, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

If a law is passed that forbids indoor smoking, then the property owner has no more "right" to break that law than they have to serve cocaine. Laws define your rights.

No, they don't. Our rights don't come from government. We have these rights, regardless of what the law says.

Did the Jews have no rights under Hitler just because the Nazis said so?

shanek

15th April 2003, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by tjwojo
We need to get to the point in our culture where smoking is considered rude and trashy.

I agree with this, but since when is being rude or trashy a crime?

shanek

15th April 2003, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by tjwojo
Just because no one complains about a problem does not mean that the problem is not there.

:rolleyes:

And why is the problem there? Because you want it to be there?

Valmorian

15th April 2003, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Who exactly is taking this choice away from you?

There IS no choice other than 'don't go to a nightclub'. How many times do I have to point this out?

There's no alternative for me, no nightclub I can go to that doesn't allow smoking.

Wile E. Coyote

15th April 2003, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by shanek

How much has this cost you? Please present exact dollar figures with medical bills and statements from your doctor saying they are related to second hand smoke.

I know for a fact that it has cost my sister-in-law thousands of dollars in respiratory allergy treatments because of second-hand smoke. She is even to the point where she gets head aches if she has been away from the cloud too long (that is, she is addicted ... and she doesn't smoke).

Originally posted by shanek

How is that "paying" for it?

Like I noted. This is a less formal use of the phrase "paying for it", which was the actual connotation of the original comment.

Originally posted by shanek

This is actually the first legitimate point I've seen on the anti-smoker side here. But don't we also pay for the health care costs of 300-lb fat-@$$es swho can't lay off the Big Macs?

The solution here is to end government health care subsidies. make everyone responsible for their own health.

Aside from not being pretty to look at, and costing us in the health care system, 300-lb. people do not have all of the other annoying side-effects that smokers have.

Your last statement is sarcastic, I assume.

Valmorian

15th April 2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by shanek

How are you paying for it?

By being unable to enjoy the establishment because of their habits.

It's all a matter of perspective, Shanek. They consider a 'ban against smoking in nightclubs' a restriction on their enjoyed activity, I consider the lack of the same a restriction on mine.
*shrug*

WMT1

15th April 2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
If a law is passed that forbids indoor smoking, then the property owner has no more "right" to break that law than they have to serve cocaine. Laws define your rights.

Speak for yourself.

And along the lines of the question Shane asked, if you'd been around when slavery was legal, and someone was arguing against it, would you respond by arguing that because it was allowed by law, that slaves didn't have a right to be free?

Tricky

15th April 2003, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by shanek

No, they don't. Our rights don't come from government. We have these rights, regardless of what the law says.

Did the Jews have no rights under Hitler just because the Nazis said so?
Under the Nazi government, they did not.

Certainly you can argue that a law is a bad law and try to change it (even using civil disobedience). If your rights don't come from the government, where do they come from? Who decides if something is a "right" or not? Is it your "right" to do anything you choose, including murder? Of course, the right to kill others in certain circumstances is a part of the laws of many governments.

WMT1

15th April 2003, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Valmorian
It's all a matter of perspective, Shanek. They consider a 'ban against smoking in nightclubs' a restriction on their enjoyed activity, I consider the lack of the same a restriction on mine.
*shrug*

Hmm ... how do you suppose we could resolve such a stalemate? Hey, I know! How about letting the property owner decide?

Valmorian

15th April 2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by shanek

The cost of compliance has little to do with actually making your food safe, and everything to do with the paperwork and red tape they have to go through to show they are complying with the regulations.

Work to reduce the paperwork then. I for one am glad that there are laws requiring a minimum level of sanitation in restaurants.

It could greatly effect even a restaurant who never served unsafe food in its existance, and still be enough of a financial burden to force them to raise prices. Many have actually gone out of business because of the costs of compliance.

I'm not convinced of this. Do you have any citations to indicate that the number of restaurants going out of business because of compliance with health regulations is appreciable?

I honestly don't understand your question here.

Sorry, it was poorly worded. What I was trying to say was:
If owner A is complying with minimum health standards, and one of his clients gets sick, you seemed to suggest that this would absolve him of guilt in the eyes of the law. This may be, but if those minimum health guidelines were carefully considered, what would you have preferred? That the owner be found guilty even though the safety standards were met?

Certainly not enough to justify the costs, not when there would already be an incentive to make the food as safe as feasible.

And yet, we still see restaurants being shut down by the board of health because of unsafe food handling.

Hell, why have car licensing! No reason to prove that you are capable of driving a car, since anyone you hit with it can simply sue you.

It's completely unenforceable, and there's no data to show that our food is any safer since this regulation went into effect.

It may not be enforceable, but you can require that employees of a restaurant be exposed to safety requirements such as 'wash your hands after going to the washroom'.

I realize you'd rather not have these health laws enacted on restaurants Shanek. I'm just REALLY glad you aren't in a position to remove them where I live.

chulbert

15th April 2003, 08:31 AM

When you open yourself to the public do you lose some of your private property rights and gain an obligation to those on your premesis? Should you be responsible for the safety and well-being of those in your care?

Are you claiming that in the case of smoking an impilcit waiver of those rights to safety is signed by the act of walking into an establishment?

Tricky

15th April 2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
And along the lines of the question Shane asked, if you'd been around when slavery was legal, and someone was arguing against it, would you respond by arguing that because it was allowed by law, that slaves didn't have a right to be free?
And replying along the same lines as to Shanek, I will say that they had no "right" to be free. Slaves had virtually no rights at all under that set of laws. It was a horrible law which was so unpopular that eventually it was changed (by force in this case), but while it was the law, it defined the rights of slaves.

Here's some other cases of laws defining rights:

The US removed the right to possess alcohol. Then they restored it.

Blacks, women and people without land ownereship at one time had no right to vote. Now they do.

Children still have no right to vote. Should they?

You have the right to drive a car. You do not have the right to break traffic laws.

Now I realize that you are arguing about "inalianable human rights", which is a nice phrase, but which means nothing. Somebody or some institution decides what "human rights" means.

Valmorian

15th April 2003, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

This woman said that just the smell of the cigarette on me as I walk through the hallway sets off her asthma. Even though it's not my responsibility to manage her health problem, I now walk all the way around to the other side of the building to get to work, rain or shine (it is quite a brisk walk).

While I applaud you for your consideration in this, I'm puzzled.

You perform an activity that directly affects another person's environment. This isn't drinking coffee or alcohol, or even shooting heroin. This is causing harm to another person, and you're doing it in a place where THEY have to go out of their way because of your habit.

I really don't see a problem with requiring smokers to go out of their way to indulge their habit, since it is their desire to do so. Just like I wouldn't have a problem if, say, I was not allowed to listen to loud music except out of the way of those it bothered.

With this outdoors nonsense, what's next? Do I have to hire the Soviets to launch me into space so I can have a drag, since smoking is illegal on Earth?

With the health problems inherent in smoking, I'd not be too confident you'll need to wait that long in order to be prevented from smoking.

Valmorian

15th April 2003, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Yes, you are! You're saying that your desire to dance in a place smoke-free should take precendence over the rights of the business owner, who is the owner of the property!

No, they aren't. You don't have any "right" to force the owners of PRIVATE PROPERTY to conform to what you want.

Would you care to quote me, where I said I wanted a ban on smoking in public places?

Oh, that's right, I DIDN'T. Not only that, but I STRESSED that I didn't multiple times.

But by seeking to ban smoking in such establishments, you are taking away the rights of smokers to enjoy the establishment as well as the rights of the business owner.

Except, OOPS, I'm NOT seeking a ban.

You REALLY need to learn how to read.

Valmorian

15th April 2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

Hmm ... how do you suppose we could resolve such a stalemate? Hey, I know! How about letting the property owner decide?

Is this a libertarian trait? The inability to read, I mean?

Where have I supported a ban on smoking for businesses?

Victor Danilchenko

15th April 2003, 09:37 AM

Food safety issue...

Shane, there are many food safety problems which cannot be traced directly to the offending food; consider various agriculturally useful substances which are carcinogens for example. While the studies may show that certain food growth or preparation technique is long-term unsafe, it may be nearly impossible to prove in each specific instance of the problem whether the sickness is due to the consumption of the said food. This is a case where a purely reactive approach you advocate -- suing the manufacturer -- would be utterly ineffective, and where pre-emptive regulations do a much better job.

Remember, there are countless such possible hazards, and it's simply unreasonable to expect every consumer to be able to make an informed decision on every single one of them. There's just too much information. Much as we (yes, we) would like it to be otherwise, it's simply impossible to remain a properly informed consumer. One would have to be an expert in genetics, neurobiology, biochemistry, and a variety of other fields, in order to be able to make an informed choice; because simply listening to public experts would create a question of which conflicting expertsd to listen to, since some of them would surely be paid by the businesses who find it cheaper to conceal the hazards of their products, than to make the product be safer.

So of the libertarian solutions to the problem, neither the reactive approach (lawsuits) nor proactive approach (informed consumer choice) are practical.

And this is why we need public health codes; not to deny choice to people, but to ensure that people don't get screwed for lack of information. In many cases, the problem of limiting choice could be solved by then allowing an explicit opt-out; this is not practical in all situations, of course, but this is a case where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't: either deal with limiting some consumer choice, or deal with unavoidable consumer ignorance and its consequences.

Seat belt laws are IMO a perfect example of how the situation can be handled right -- ensuring both safety and consumer choice. All car manufacturers should be required to install seatbelts and supply the appropriate safety warning, but individuals driving the car shouldn't be required to buckle in.

KelvinG

15th April 2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

What a surprise.

It's also full of sound arguments in support of the rights of property owners. You seem to be ignoring those.

Moreover, the only "bleeding heart crap" in this thread is about how the poor nonsmokers won't have anywhere go unless they can impose a smoke-free environment on everyone, including those who don't want one.

Unless someone was forcing you into those restaurants and bars, you didn't have to, you chose to. And how bothersome could it really have been (or toxic, for that matter) if you chose to continue doing so "for years"?

Not for the ones who don't go where the smoke is.

And if everyone who objects to smoke simply chooses not to do business with establishments that allow smoking, that protects everyone who wants to be protected, with the added benefits of not protecting those who don't want to be protected, and of not violating the property rights of the restaurant/bar owners who would like to serve them. See how that works?

Do you need to be reminded that we're talking about privately owned public buildings?

Yeah, we should all take our cues about rights from you. :rolleyes:

Sounds like a good reason for those who are concerned about such a threat to avoid places where people are allowed to smoke.

No, we've been through this before. The only thing that makes sense is to allow the owner of the establishment to decide. Pay attention!

Yes, we have been through this before, and you are wrong, plain and simple. You keep saying the same old thing over and over and you're argument isn't at all convincing.

The good news is that more and more cities are adopting no smoking bans in bars and restaurants and that will continue as we becomes more and more clear that smokers don't have a right to pollute the air in "public" restaurants. That's right, they are open to the public and have to have some accountability for their actions whether they are privately owned or not.

So, WMT1, if you are a smoker enjoy your so called "freedom" while you can. The smoking ban is coming to a bar or restaurant near you very soon.

Tricky

15th April 2003, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Seat belt laws are IMO a perfect example of how the situation can be handled right -- ensuring both safety and consumer choice. All car manufacturers should be required to install seatbelts and supply the appropriate safety warning, but individuals driving the car shouldn't be required to buckle in.
Agreed, but with one addition. Persons not using their seat belts should forfeit any right to government subsidy of any medical expenses they should incur as a result of accident while not wearing seat belts.

This makes me think of a possible parallel for smokers. Suppose a smoker has to obtain a license each year before he can purchase cigarettes. The level of govenment subsidized health care a person is elegible for is tied to the number of licenses they have obtained. That way the taxpayers are not paying for smokers' slow suicides.

WMT1

15th April 2003, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by chulbert
When you open yourself to the public do you lose some of your private property rights

No.

and gain an obligation to those on your premesis?

Sure. Just not the ones being suggested by some of the participants in this thread.

Should you be responsible for the safety and well-being of those in your care?

What the hell do you mean "in your care"? They're customers, for cryin' out loud, not patients.

In any case, if someone knowingly goes into an establishment that allows unhealthy activity, then nobody else is responsible for any of the effects they might suffer as a result. Does that help?

WMT1

15th April 2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Valmorian
Is this a libertarian trait? The inability to read, I mean?

You've got to be kidding. If anything, it would seem to be a trait of libertarian critics, given the frequency with which they misrepresent libertarian views.

Where have I supported a ban on smoking for businesses?

As nearly as I can tell, you haven't. Are you asking this in response to something I said?

And now that you bring it up, do you have a position on such a ban?

Bjorn

15th April 2003, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Agreed, but with one addition. Persons not using their seat belts should forfeit any right to government subsidy of any medical expenses they should incur as a result of accident while not wearing seat belts.

This makes me think of a possible parallel for smokers. Suppose a smoker has to obtain a license each year before he can purchase cigarettes. The level of govenment subsidized health care a person is elegible for is tied to the number of licenses they have obtained. That way the taxpayers are not paying for smokers' slow suicides. ... and let's introduce the same kind of yearly licences for those who drink alcohol or eat junkfood? :p

WMT1

15th April 2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG
Yes, we have been through this before, and you are wrong, plain and simple.

Wait. Let me write that one down. :rolleyes:

You keep saying the same old thing over and over and you're argument isn't at all convincing.

Back at ya. And did you notice that only one of us is taking the other on, point by point?

The good news is that more and more cities are adopting no smoking bans in bars and restaurants and that will continue as we becomes more and more clear that smokers don't have a right to pollute the air in "public" restaurants.

Translation: The bad news is that more and more cities are adopting no smoking bans in bars and restaurants and that will continue as it becomes more and more clear that nonsmokers don't respect the rights of smokers, or of property owners.

That's right, they are open to the public and have to have some accountability for their actions whether they are privately owned or not.

If you think this means government-imposed smoking bans, then you've obviously got some pretty screwed up (and extremely selfish) ideas about "accountability".

So, WMT1, if you are a smoker enjoy your so called "freedom" while you can. The smoking ban is coming to a bar or restaurant near you very soon.

Yes, I agree, ultimately the anti-smoking fascists will win out. Is the likelihood of your side prevailing the best argument you can manage to come up with?

WMT1

15th April 2003, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
And replying along the same lines as to Shanek, I will say that they had no "right" to be free.

I'm gonna cut you some slack here, and guess that you're simply not aware that the word is often used independently of legal considerations, and that there are definitions that support this use.

Slaves had virtually no rights at all under that set of laws. It was a horrible law which was so unpopular that eventually it was changed (by force in this case), but while it was the law, it defined the rights of slaves.

No, it defined the legal rights of slaves. Their actual rights were being violated.

Here's some other cases of laws defining rights:

The US removed the right to possess alcohol. Then they restored it.

Blacks, women and people without land ownereship at one time had no right to vote. Now they do.

Children still have no right to vote. Should they?

You have the right to drive a car. You do not have the right to break traffic laws.

Again, all you're talking about with all of these examples is legal rights.

Now I realize that you are arguing about "inalianable human rights", which is a nice phrase, but which means nothing.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm fairly sure I've never used the term in this forum.

Somebody or some institution decides what "human rights" means.

And if you're so confused about such things that you need someone else to tell you what they are, I'll be more than happy to be that "somebody" for you. :D

Tricky

15th April 2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
Again, all you're talking about with all of these examples is legal rights.
All rights are "legal" rights, its just a matter of whose jurisdiction you accept. If it is "international law" then certain rights are in place. The same is true of national and local law. If there is a conflict between them, then you have to go with who is more likely to enforce the law.

I hope you aren't talking about "natural law", because all sorts of horrible (to us) things take place in nature, including murder, rape, slavery etc.

So if it comes down to "human law" then it also comes down to "which human(s) decide what is human law?", thus making it (again) a legal question.

Originally posted by WMT1
And if you're so confused about such things that you need someone else to tell you what they are, I'll be more than happy to be that "somebody" for you. :D
NO! I'll tell you what they are! :D

Ian Osborne

15th April 2003, 11:36 AM

Not everyone can choose to avoid smokey areas. I, for example, couldn't move to another womb before I was born (alas, the dangers of smoking when pregnant weren't well known then). Nor could I move out of the parental home as a kid. Instead, I had to live in a tobacco haze from the day I was born (arguably earlier) until my early teens, when my parents gave up.

While I wouldn't advocate a smoking ban in private homes, the fewer places one can smoke, the easier it is for people to give up. With smoking on the wane, maybe future generations of children will breathe more easily at home.

While we're on the subject of 'rights', what about the rights of the people who work in the restaurants and bars that exist in a near-permanent fog? What about workers who are forced to visit these places, like policemen (who might be called to an incident there), tax inspectors, deliverymen and more? Should they all put up with it or get other jobs? How many people's rights are we to tread on just to allow an ever-shrinking minority pursue their filthy, anti-social habits?

And don't forget, in a democracy, politicians can be removed. If the majority of people disagree with the restrictions, they can deal with it at the ballot box.

Salad Monkey

15th April 2003, 11:46 AM

Have we reached a point where nobody finds smoking to be pleasurable? If not, you might want to think this through a little more carefully. So what if people find it pleasurable? It's an extremely self-destructive form of deriving pleasure. Find a new way to feel good. i.e. Start masturbating with a microwaved banana peel. I bet jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is pretty exhilirating too... until you headbutt the ground. One can find better ways to enjoy the world than through reliance on cigarettes and religion, both of which are the lazy ways out. I promise you, if you quit smoking, you'll still find the world to be a pretty gnarly place.

What's with all the harping about "it's a private business?" Private property, businesses, and institutions are subject to governmental regulation, so what the fock?!

WMT1

15th April 2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by WMT1
Again, all you're talking about with all of these examples is legal rights.

Originally posted by Tricky
All rights are "legal" rights, its just a matter of whose jurisdiction you accept.

No, they're not. And in a forum like this, when you've been corrected on something, it's usually a better idea to admit it early and move on, rather than digging in your heels, if you want to be taken seriously.

If it is "international law" then certain rights are in place. The same is true of national and local law. If there is a conflict between them, then you have to go with who is more likely to enforce the law.

That's all well and good, for legal rights. But again, the word "rights" by itself can have a much broader meaning than that. Am I going to have to hunt down a dictionary definition for you?

I hope you aren't talking about "natural law", because all sorts of horrible (to us) things take place in nature, including murder, rape, slavery etc.

So if it comes down to "human law" then it also comes down to "which human(s) decide what is human law?", thus making it (again) a legal question.

Making what a legal question? You seem to be all over the map here.

I'm simply trying to point out that the term "rights" has a much broader meaning than you seem to think it does.

NO! I'll tell you what they are! :D

Why would you need to? I'm not the one who needs for something or someone else to define rights for him, remember?

WMT1

15th April 2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
While I wouldn't advocate a smoking ban in private homes, the fewer places one can smoke, the easier it is for people to give up.

Yeah, that's a great argument. :rolleyes:

While we're on the subject of 'rights', what about the rights of the people who work in the restaurants and bars that exist in a near-permanent fog?

Which of their "rights" are you asking about, and what would you like to know?

What about workers who are forced to visit these places, like policemen (who might be called to an incident there), tax inspectors, deliverymen and more? Should they all put up with it or get other jobs?

That would be a resounding Yes. You didn't expect that to be a tough one, did you?

How many people's rights are we to tread on

Other than the anti-smoking crowd, who's arguing for treading on anyone else's rights?

just to allow an ever-shrinking minority pursue their filthy, anti-social habits?

It's good to see you're approaching this whole thing with an open mind.

And don't forget, in a democracy, politicians can be removed. If the majority of people disagree with the restrictions, they can deal with it at the ballot box.

What the hell kind of argument is that? Are you under the impression that the only freedoms that are worth protecting are those supported by the majority? :confused:

WMT1

15th April 2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Salad Monkey
Smoking and religion are two socially ingrained practices that have outlived their usefullness.

Originally posted by WMT1
Have we reached a point where nobody finds smoking to be pleasurable? If not, you might want to think this through a little more carefully.

Originally posted by Salad Monkey
So what if people find it pleasurable?

Do you consider pleasure to be useless? (It might help if you would review your own statements before responding.)

What's with all the harping about "it's a private business?"

Well, for the most part, it's an attempt to remind those who seem to have trouble remembering.

Private property, businesses, and institutions are subject to governmental regulation, so what the fock?!

:confused:

Is there a point buried in there somewhere? Do you consider regulations to be exempt from criticism or opposition?

Tricky

15th April 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by WMT1
Why would you need to? I'm not the one who needs for something or someone else to define rights for him, remember?
All right, I'll drop my semantic argument about what rights are "legal" if you can show me some examples of rights which are not decided on by humans.

WMT1

15th April 2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
All right, I'll drop my semantic argument about what rights are "legal" if you can show me some examples of rights which are not decided on by humans.

Since I haven't argued for any that are not, why would I be in a position to do so? Weren't you the one who said just a couple of days ago "I think it would be a good idea if all of us, including myself, made a conscious effort to address only what people here have said, and not what we 'think' they think."?

But just to try and clear things up a bit, the meaning I've been referring to would be something along the lines of a just or moral claim, a meaning which is commonly used in ways that do not limit the term to legal status. For example, even when slavery was legal, one could believe that slaves had a just claim on (and therefore, a right to) their freedom, and that laws allowing for slavery should therefore be abolished. I hope this clears things up a bit.

Ian Osborne

15th April 2003, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by WMT1
[QUOTE]Yeah, that's a great argument.

Which you've made no attempt to address. Thanks for cutting out what I said about smoking affecting members of the smokers' household too.

Which of their "rights" are you asking about, and what would you like to know?

The right to breathe clean air?

That would be a resounding Yes. You didn't expect that to be a tough one, did you?

For someone who pursues libertarian thinking with an almost religious zeal and condemns pretty-much all government intervention on principle, I'm sure it's as simple (and simplistic) as that.

Are you under the impression that the only freedoms that are worth protecting are those supported by the majority? :confused:

Of course not, but the issue in hand is one that affects society as a whole. Can you think of a better way to decide it?

Tricky

15th April 2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by WMT1

Since I haven't argued for any that are not, why would I be in a position to do so? Weren't you the one who said just a couple of days ago "I think it would be a good idea if all of us, including myself, made a conscious effort to address only what people here have said, and not what we 'think' they think."?

But just to try and clear things up a bit, the meaning I've been referring to would be something along the lines of a just or moral claim, a meaning which is commonly used in ways that do not limit the term to legal status. For example, even when slavery was legal, one could believe that slaves had a just claim on (and therefore, a right to) their freedom, and that laws allowing for slavery should therefore be abolished. I hope this clears things up a bit.
No, it doesnt' clear things up very much. His owner could likewise "claim" his property was being taken from him. You and I agree on who has the better claim, but we have to admit that the "rights" we agree on are not universally accepted.

So how do we decide what "rights" are really right? We could use a judge. We could vote on it. We could try to interpret The Bible. There are any number of ways, but they all are simply human nuances. There are no "natural" rights. You must live under whatever laws and moral codes that your society has imposed on you, or you must face the consequence of opposing them.

If you decide to smoke in a place where the local legal and moral codes have determined that it is forbidden, regardless of the feelings of the property owner, then you must pay the consequences.

By the way, although not a smoker myself, I am not a rabid anti-smoker. I grew up in a family of smokers and I am pretty much immune to the smell. Restaurants that allow smoking don't bother me at all, and I spend a significant amount of time in smoky bars, as I am a music afficionado. However, I respect the fact that some people who love the same music I do cannot tolerate, and should not have to tolerate smoke in order to hear that music. Many of the performers have started a practice of having two shows, the first one smoke-free. I think that is a good compromise.

Now I have a question for all you "freedom" advocates. Can a factory owner, using only his private property, pollute as much as he likes, using the excuse that people can "always go somewhere else"?

Lurker

15th April 2003, 01:55 PM

Shanek:

In answer to your question, you quoted the same person saying pretty much the same thing on 4/14 at 10:05.

Aside from that triviality, what makes a restaurant or bar any different than an office? Both are privately owned. Should any and all private businesses be able to choose whether to allow smoking or not? By the logic I have seen thus far from you it would appear they can choose. Why should there be any difference between the two?

As to your contention that HVAC systems can be foolproof, I work near a smoking room and although my company has spent big $ to make it work in reality there are some days when I can smell it. And it gets strong enough that when I get home my wife smells it. Then she asks me if I have been hanging out at bars! :eek:

Lurker

Salad Monkey

15th April 2003, 02:16 PM

Do you consider pleasure to be useless? (It might help if you would review your own statements before responding.) Whatever positive effects one gets from cigarettes and religion can be achieved through healthier and/or more authentic means. Usefulness doesn't justify forms of pleasure that damage others. The pleasure Michael Jackson gets from playing with a young boy's balls is probably useful in calming down his horniness, but that doesn't justify anything. s there a point buried in there somewhere? Do you consider regulations to be exempt from criticism or opposition? You and Shanek almost come across as believing that just because a business is private it should be somehow exempt from adopting a policy meant to serve a WAY greater good. Criticize and oppose all you want, that's your right. It's also the right of non-smokers to criticize and oppose smoking in areas where it becomes a health risk to them. "Don't go anywhere there are smokers" is not a reasonable solution.

Anyway, would you be opposed if private insurance companies decided to deny any coverage to all smokers in matters of proven smoking-related illnesses? Would this be an example of the let money talk, the market decide policy you're more in favor of? How about if health coverage was denied to all smokers, and private institutions decided this all on their own (after doing the calculations) without any government or public interference? Are you cool with this?

Solitaire

15th April 2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by WMT1
You've been getting some bad information. Just about every smoker
I have ever known would prefer to be able to light up after a meal (in
some cased, during), without having to leave the restaurant. I had
the same preference when I smoked as well.

That's a shame. Why is it then pot smokers can resist the urge?

Just imagine how those odds would improve if all those nonsmokers
would boycott the other restaurants until a lot more of them began
to comply with those preferences.

Organizing takes time and with people’s schedules being out of synch
such boycotts do not spontaneously form. Even then, it’s only an instance
and not the whole class. By reducing the negative space of owner’s rights
through government we can get the job done quicker, better, cheaper.

:confused:

Since the only way a customer can learn if a particular restaurant practices
unsafe food preparation techniques is to get sick and die, nearly everyone
thinks it’s a good idea to have a third party, as in a governmental agency,
inspect and regulate these establishments.
:)

Occasional Chemist

15th April 2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by shanek
The cost of compliance has little to do with actually making your food safe, and everything to do with the paperwork and red tape they have to go through to show they are complying with the regulations. It could greatly effect even a restaurant who never served unsafe food in its existance, and still be enough of a financial burden to force them to raise prices. Many have actually gone out of business because of the costs of compliance.

Did you own and lose a restaurant because of these regulations? I ask merely because my family DID own a restaurant (we sold it when my dad wanted to retire from the business) - and I think you're VASTLY exaggerating the amount of paperwork and red tape involved with complying with health regulations.

Taxes are where the paperwork is ... :)

[edit: spelling]

Bjorn

15th April 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Salad Monkey
Anyway, would you be opposed if private insurance companies decided to deny any coverage to all smokers in matters of proven smoking-related illnesses? Would this be an example of the let money talk, the market decide policy you're more in favor of? How about if health coverage was denied to all smokers, and private institutions decided this all on their own (after doing the calculations) without any government or public interference? Are you cool with this? They do already - although they do not deny coverage for smokers (they want their money also), they certainly make them pay the extra premium.

And yes, of course they have a right to do so, just as they have a right to charge unexperienced drivers more than experienced ones.

I still imagine myself opening a brand new restaurant, called 'The Smoker', ment for the smokers only - but of course, that would be illegal now. :( Some non-smoker like me could somehow be hypnotized to enter ... :eek:

Valmorian

15th April 2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by WMT1

You've got to be kidding. If anything, it would seem to be a trait of libertarian critics, given the frequency with which they misrepresent libertarian views.

I'm not sure anyone here has ever said anything at all about libertarian views, outside of my frustration at being lumped in with people who want a universal ban of smoking.

As nearly as I can tell, you haven't. Are you asking this in response to something I said?

Just the last response. I may have overreacted, but it certainly seemed like you were implying that I don't want the business owner to decide if they want to allow smoking. This is a position I have not stated I have.

And now that you bring it up, do you have a position on such a ban?

Not really. I dislike the fact that in order to partake of my activies of choice I simply have to put up with the health problems smoking places on me. This doesn't mean I want to see the government restrict smoking in said places...

...on the other hand, I'd have a hard time feeling bad if such legislation WAS enacted here, since it would greatly benefit me.

Call me a fence sitter if you will. I recognize the right of business owners to cater to smokers. I also feel somewhat slighted that I have to put up with smoking in nightclubs. *shrug* I know the problems involved, and I choose to expose myself to it. Unfortunately, it could mean some serious consequences for me if I'm unlucky, but I enjoy going out dancing and I can hardly expect that people will be considerate enough to give up a bad habit just so that I don't have to deal with my health problems.

Bjorn

15th April 2003, 03:24 PM

A nightclub bouncer in New York was stabbed to death as he tried to enforce the city's new ban on smoking in bars, police have said. Mr Blake's family has blamed his death on Mayor Michael Bloomberg's sweeping new smoking ban, which took effect in late March. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2947467.stm

I'm NOT agreeing with Mr. Blake's family, this is taking it too far.

Salad Monkey

15th April 2003, 03:34 PM

That bouncer's brother is a twit. Anybody who'd stab and kill somebody because they were asked to put out their cigarette was bound to kill somebody sooner or later for any reason. It's interesting that courageous posse of freedom fighters had a knife on them. Seems to indicate they were looking for trouble. Did I say "trouble?" I meant to proactively protect their constitutional right to smoke inside a bar.

Also, I said "deny", nothing about making smokers pay more, which is something I was already aware of insurers doing.

Ian Osborne

15th April 2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Salad Monkey
Anybody who'd stab and kill somebody because they were asked to put out their cigarette was bound to kill somebody sooner or later for any reason. It's interesting that courageous posse of freedom fighters had a knife on them. Seems to indicate they were looking for trouble.

You hit the nail on the head there. Those guys were looking for trouble. Lighting up in breach of the law was merely their chosen means of starting it. If the smoking ban wasn't in place, they'd have done something else to provoke the bouncer.

Tricky

15th April 2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Bjorn
I still imagine myself opening a brand new restaurant, called 'The Smoker', ment for the smokers only - but of course, that would be illegal now. :( Some non-smoker like me could somehow be hypnotized to enter ... :eek:
LOL. It would be kind of hard to enforce. A person could simply say, "I'm a smoker, but I don't want a cigarrette right now". What is the management going to do, force them to smoke? Somehow, I'm guessing that would be illegal.

Bjorn

15th April 2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Salad Monkey
Also, I said "deny", nothing about making smokers pay more, which is something I was already aware of insurers doing. Yes, and then you also asked:

Would this be an example of the let money talk, the market decide policy you're more in favor of? And 'market decide policy' is exactly what it is when they charge higher premiums for customers with higher risks.

Why would an insurance company stop making money from insuring smokers? If smokers live shorter, charge them (at least) twice as much - this is a perfect free-market adjustment!

If one or more of the existing companies stop insuring smokers, others will take over that market - simple as that. Money talks.

Bjorn

15th April 2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

LOL. It would be kind of hard to enforce. A person could simply say, "I'm a smoker, but I don't want a cigarrette right now". What is the management going to do, force them to smoke? Somehow, I'm guessing that would be illegal. :p

Well, I didn't mean they'd have to smoke all the time while inside, just that the restaurant would be named and marketed as a hangout for smokers. I would hire only smokers.

How the existence of such a restaurant could be bad for non-smokers is beyond me. :(

Salad Monkey

15th April 2003, 04:27 PM

Why would an insurance company stop making money from insuring smokers? If smokers live shorter, charge them (at least) twice as much - this is a perfect free-market adjustment! Good point. Fine. Next time could you just accept my hypothetical without getting all thinky on my ass? :)

shanek

15th April 2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Valmorian
There IS no choice other than 'don't go to a nightclub'. How many times do I have to point this out?

My question was, who is taking the choice away from you?

shanek

15th April 2003, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by tjwojo
I know for a fact that it has cost my sister-in-law thousands of dollars in respiratory allergy treatments because of second-hand smoke. She is even to the point where she gets head aches if she has been away from the cloud too long (that is, she is addicted ... and she doesn't smoke).

I'd really need to see evidence of this. I have yet to hear of any nonsmoker getting addicted to second-hand smoke.

Like I noted. This is a less formal use of the phrase "paying for it",

Ah, so by "paying for it," you meant something other than "paying for it." Gotcha.

Your last statement is sarcastic, I assume.

No, I'm perfecrtly serious.

shanek

15th April 2003, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Valmorian
By being unable to enjoy the establishment because of their habits.

And how is this costing you money?

It's all a matter of perspective, Shanek. They consider a 'ban against smoking in nightclubs' a restriction on their enjoyed activity, I consider the lack of the same a restriction on mine.
*shrug*

Here's a hint: If you have to take rights from others in the process, you're not protecting your rights.

shanek

15th April 2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Under the Nazi government, they did not.

So, Jews had no rights, and so the Holocaust was completely justified?

shanek

15th April 2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Valmorian
Work to reduce the paperwork then. I for one am glad that there are laws requiring a minimum level of sanitation in restaurants.

Even if none of those laws actually work?

History has shown us that the only effective way to cut down on the paperwork is to have a private, voluntary regulatory service like UL.

I'm not convinced of this. Do you have any citations to indicate that the number of restaurants going out of business because of compliance with health regulations is appreciable?

See, THIS is why I posted that other thread on the cost of regulation! (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8953) And in that thread, everyone jumped all over my @$$ because I didn't provide examples!!! :mad:

How can I possibly win here?

If owner A is complying with minimum health standards, and one of his clients gets sick, you seemed to suggest that this would absolve him of guilt in the eyes of the law.

In many cases, it does.

This may be, but if those minimum health guidelines were carefully considered, what would you have preferred?

I would prefer a system that would punish those who are harming others while leaving everyone else alone, which we can never have with regulations. Regulations assume we are all guilty and punish all of us.

That the owner be found guilty even though the safety standards were met?

Absolutely!

And yet, we still see restaurants being shut down by the board of health because of unsafe food handling.

Which usually are not the result of a proper lawsuit, where the business has a chance to defend themselves, and often happens in the complete absence of any victim at all. Who cares if you didn't actually harm anyone? You missed Sec. 418(a)(4)(C)(ii)(IV)! You're shut down!

Hell, why have car licensing! No reason to prove that you are capable of driving a car,

Have you seen some of the drivers out there? Licensing is most definitely not proof you're capable of driving!

since anyone you hit with it can simply sue you.

Or if you're driving recklessly. That really should be the only rule on the road.

It may not be enforceable, but you can require that employees of a restaurant be exposed to safety requirements such as 'wash your hands after going to the washroom'.

A completely useless act which costs taxpayer money in excahnge for making politicians and voters feel warm and fuzzy.

Tricky

15th April 2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by shanek

So, Jews had no rights, and so the Holocaust was completely justified?
By Nazi standards, it was justified. I disagree. But I was not in charge. And it is pretty obvious that they had no rights. I agree with you that they should have had rights, but their rights had been taken away. You would get no argument from me that the Nazi rules were horrible and unfair (IMO), as were the US slavery laws before the Civil War, as are the marijuana laws today. But they were the laws that were enforced, and that law defined rights. Many people in the world worked to change that law.

By analogy, a smoking ban may be (by some people's value systems) unjust, but it defines the rights of smokers in that place and time. Change the law if you can.

shanek

15th April 2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by chulbert
When you open yourself to the public do you lose some of your private property rights and gain an obligation to those on your premesis?

Surely you have an obligation not to harm any of them, but you pretty much have that obligation anywhere anyway.

Should you be responsible for the safety and well-being of those in your care?

Yes, but regulations don't do this. Quite the opposite.

shanek

15th April 2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

And replying along the same lines as to Shanek, I will say that they had no "right" to be free.

Then the word "right" has no meaning.

shanek

15th April 2003, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Valmorian
I really don't see a problem with requiring smokers to go out of their way to indulge their habit, since it is their desire to do so.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about restricting the rights of property owners to allow smoking on their own property.

Tricky

15th April 2003, 05:54 PM

Care to tackle this question Shanek?
Originally posted by Tricky
Can a factory owner, using only his private property, pollute as much as he likes, using the excuse that people can "always go somewhere else"?

shanek

15th April 2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Valmorian
Would you care to quote me, where I said I wanted a ban on smoking in public places?

Oh, that's right, I DIDN'T. Not only that, but I STRESSED that I didn't multiple times.

Ahen:

It's all a matter of perspective, Shanek. They consider a 'ban against smoking in nightclubs' a restriction on their enjoyed activity, I consider the lack of the same a restriction on mine.

Even if you can claim this does not mean you're actively seeking a ban, you are certainly supporting one.

shanek

15th April 2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Shane, there are many food safety problems which cannot be traced directly to the offending food;

So, then, you get to just assume it's the food in absence of any evidence? Sorry, that's not how America is supposed to work.

So of the libertarian solutions to the problem, neither the reactive approach (lawsuits) nor proactive approach (informed consumer choice) are practical.

As many times as WMT and I have tried to educate you about the Libertarian philosophy, the fact that you can make such a blatant strawman is a sign of willful ignorance.

Do we need government codes to make sure your hair dryer doesn't electrocute you? No; we have UL. Are you still, after all these posts in all these threads going to deny ever having heard the concept?

Seat belt laws are IMO a perfect example of how the situation can be handled right -- ensuring both safety and consumer choice.

Consumer choice? How does the consumer have a choice when the consumer is forced to wear a seatbelt? :rolleyes:

All car manufacturers should be required to install seatbelts

As I showed quite clearly awhile back, car manufacturers were putting seat belts in cars as standard equipment before the government regulations. So your example is BS, as usual.

In fact, the only car safety feature installed by mandate of the government was air bags—which ended up killing people because the government mandated too strong a force, and GM told them at the time that it would result in the deaths of children and shorter adults.

Why do I constantly have to keep repeating this over and over? Why are you people so persistently ignoring the evidence???

shanek

15th April 2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by WMT1
And in a forum like this, when you've been corrected on something, it's usually a better idea to admit it early and move on, rather than digging in your heels, if you want to be taken seriously.

Unless, of course, you're pro-war, in which case you can do it all you want, apparently...but that's getting off-topic.

shanek

15th April 2003, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
The right to breathe clean air?

You do have that right, and an easy means of exercising it: Don't patronize businesses that don't have a no smoking area.

shanek

15th April 2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Lurker
Should any and all private businesses be able to choose whether to allow smoking or not?

Yes. The only exception I can think of is if they're leasing the property, in which case the leaseholder can put conditions in the term of the lease.

[worthless anecdote deleted]

shanek

15th April 2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Salad Monkey
You and Shanek almost come across as believing that just because a business is private it should be somehow exempt from adopting a policy meant to serve a WAY greater good.

It should be. It exists as a business to make a profit while providing a service demanded by consumers. That's it.

"Don't go anywhere there are smokers" is not a reasonable solution.

Why not? Wjhy does the world revolve around what you want? Why do you get to force others into behaving the way you like?

Anyway, would you be opposed if private insurance companies decided to deny any coverage to all smokers in matters of proven smoking-related illnesses?

Not at all. It's their company; it's their right.

How about if health coverage was denied to all smokers,

So long as it's the coverage providers themselves voluntarily adopting this policy, and it's not being forced on them from the outside, sure.

shanek

15th April 2003, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
Did you own and lose a restaurant because of these regulations?

No, but it doesn't matter. I supplied evidence. Evidence which people are repeatedly ignoring, and respondibg only with worthless anecdotes.

shanek

15th April 2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Care to tackle this question Shanek?

Can a factory owner, using only his private property, pollute as much as he likes, using the excuse that people can "always go somewhere else"?

As long as he faces the consequences for any damages his pollution causes, yes.

Tricky

15th April 2003, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Can a factory owner, using only his private property, pollute as much as he likes, using the excuse that people can "always go somewhere else"?

As long as he faces the consequences for any damages his pollution causes, yes.
What consequences? Nobody was forced to stay in town? They stayed their of their own free will. If they die, it is their fault for not leaving. All he was doing was excercising his rights on his own property.

(Do you see where this is going?)

Salad Monkey

15th April 2003, 09:28 PM

Why not? Wjhy does the world revolve around what you want? Right back at you. Why do you get to force others into behaving the way you like? Right back at you.

I'm as much responsible for the smoking bans as a rusty dildo can sitting on a junk heap in Staten Island is. I'm not forcing anybody to do diddly-poop. I'm no more forcing smokers to stop smoking at restaurants as you are forcing non-smokers to avoid places frequented by smokers. You, presumably a smoker, also have a choice: don't go anyplace that prevents you from smoking whenever you feel like it, or plan around your addiction. Don't expect the whole world to revolve around your poison smoke schedule.

peptoabysmal

15th April 2003, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by tjwojo
We need to get to the point in our culture where smoking is considered rude and trashy.

I consider smoke to be more offensive than explosive flatulence, but one is accepted and the other is not. If I were to enter a restaurant and start letting loose, belching and farting loudly, I would be escorted from the premises. This is exactly how smokers should be treated in our culture. They take away from the quality of living of everyone else.

So I don't really care if the government should be able to affect this culture change. I just want someone - anyone - to do it, even if it means taking the rights away from one group of people and giving them to another, larger group.

Your culture? Mighty white of you to say so.

You think it's a good idea to spend taxpayer dollars on frivalous and unfounded laws such as smoking outdoors? Laws which are punitive by nature to a certain group which irritates you? Hell yes! you say. We've gotta teach those smokers their place.

As with most non-smokers, when you remove the feigned concern for the health of others from their statements, you end up with something that either sounds like a K.K.K. pamphlet (insert the n word for smokers) or like a communist manifest (the greatest good for the greatest number).

Nice dog kicking, comrade.

I do not advocate smoking indoors, and would never want to go back to that. However, if these draconian laws pass which are not for anyone's protection, but are obviously made to punish a certain group for a behavior deemed unacceptable, you just wait to see what these law makers will pass next.

I leave you with the words of Karl Marx:
"In order to abolish the idea of private property, the idea of communism is quite sufficient. It takes actual communist action to abolish actual private property. History will lead to it; and this movement, which in theory we already know to be a self-transcending movement, will constitute in actual fact a very rough and protracted process. But we must regard it as a real advance to have at the outset gained a consciousness of the limited character as well as of the goal of this historical movement — and a consciousness which reaches out beyond it."

Bjorn

15th April 2003, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Salad Monkey
You, presumably a smoker, also have a choice: don't go anyplace that prevents you from smoking whenever you feel like it, or plan around your addiction. Don't expect the whole world to revolve around your poison smoke schedule. But that's why I bought that downtown building, so I could decide if one could smoke in it.

And that's why I opened a restaurant there, so I and my customers could get together, enjoy some snacks and food, a little eightball, have a cigarette.

Now some people want to make it illegal for my guests and myself to choose if we want to smoke on my own property.

I don't want to go anyplace and smoke there, I don't want any part of the world to 'revolve around my poison smoke schedule', I want to go to those places where the owner says it's OK. But he's not allowed to, any more. :(

By the way, I don't smoke myself.

BillyTK

16th April 2003, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Agreed, but with one addition. Persons not using their seat belts should forfeit any right to government subsidy of any medical expenses they should incur as a result of accident while not wearing seat belts.

Interesting point. There's one of those public information campaigns in the UK at the moment about wearing seat belts in the back seats of a car. It demonstrates quite graphically the effects of a person who is unbelted in the back seat on the person who is belted in front of them during a crash. But I always wonder in stiuations like this, as to how the rights of one person can be balanced with the safety of another?

This makes me think of a possible parallel for smokers. Suppose a smoker has to obtain a license each year before he can purchase cigarettes. The level of govenment subsidized health care a person is elegible for is tied to the number of licenses they have obtained. That way the taxpayers are not paying for smokers' slow suicides.

I kind of agree--that's why I'm more happy (well not happy exactly, maybe "pragmatic" is more accurate) to pay the UKP3 (USD5-ish?) tax on a pack of cigarettes, although my suspicion is that this tax probably isn't being used to help fund the NHS.

Lurker

16th April 2003, 05:19 AM

Shanek:

While I am ambivalent regarding laws against smoking in bars/restaurants I am fine with laws against it in the workplace. I am very thankful that they exist. I think you saying that companies can do whatever they want (even polluting as they please) is ridiculous.

If it were not for the environmental laws we had i doubt we would have seen any cleanup of our environment.

You seem to advocate only post facto action. Comapnies can dump whatever toxin they want into the river as long as someone doesn't get harmed and sue. Even then, they can still do it, just pay the price of litigation. Of course, it might be problematic for he individual to prove his harm came at teh cause of Company X and specifically the chemicals they put into the river. Sorry, I don't agree with your worldview. It would be putting us back many years.

Lurker

a_unique_person

16th April 2003, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by Lurker
Shanek:

While I am ambivalent regarding laws against smoking in bars/restaurants I am fine with laws against it in the workplace. I am very thankful that they exist. I think you saying that companies can do whatever they want (even polluting as they please) is ridiculous.

If it were not for the environmental laws we had i doubt we would have seen any cleanup of our environment.

You seem to advocate only post facto action. Comapnies can dump whatever toxin they want into the river as long as someone doesn't get harmed and sue. Even then, they can still do it, just pay the price of litigation. Of course, it might be problematic for he individual to prove his harm came at teh cause of Company X and specifically the chemicals they put into the river. Sorry, I don't agree with your worldview. It would be putting us back many years.

Lurker

Which is my issue with Shanes point of view. As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Wile E. Coyote

16th April 2003, 07:58 AM

Occasional Chemist

16th April 2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by shanek

No, but it doesn't matter. I supplied evidence. Evidence which people are repeatedly ignoring, and respondibg only with worthless anecdotes.

Which evidence is this? On THIS thread, the only "evidence" of anything I've seen you provide is an anecdote from Phillip Morris about HVAC systems.

I merely called "bullsh*t" on your rather dramatic portrayal of the hardship that small business owners had to go through to meet the health codes.

I find it hard to believe that the costs of compliance force that many viable restaurants out of business. NONcompliance with basic health regulations will get a restaurant closed, but that's why the regulations exist in the first place. More of these small restaurants are forced out of business by chain stores who can get their food cheaper, poor location, landlords who let the business get started then gouging the heck out of the restaurant when the lease is up for renewal, or just good old-fashioned competition than the costs complying with health codes.

WMT1

16th April 2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
While I wouldn't advocate a smoking ban in private homes, the fewer places one can smoke, the easier it is for people to give up.

Originally posted by WMT1
Yeah, that's a great argument. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Which you've made no attempt to address.

You mean like you were so thorough at answering the questions I was asking you in the other thread a while back?

In any case, first let's clarify your position. Do you support a ban on smoking in restaurants? And if you do, was this intended as an argument in support of that view?

Thanks for cutting out what I said about smoking affecting members of the smokers' household too.

Why would I bother to include it? You also said you didn't advocate a ban on smoking in private homes, so there was nothing to disagree with on that point. Did you simply want to read that part again, or what?

:confused:

While we're on the subject of 'rights', what about the rights of the people who work in the restaurants and bars that exist in a near-permanent fog?

Which of their "rights" are you asking about, and what would you like to know?

The right to breathe clean air?

And again, what would you like to know about that right? Are you under the impression that it equates to having clean air available to you everywhere you could possibly want to go, even if others might want something different, and still others might want to serve the preferences of those who do?

For someone who pursues libertarian thinking with an almost religious zeal and condemns pretty-much all government intervention on principle, I'm sure it's as simple (and simplistic) as that.

Wow. And to think it was only yesterday, in this very thread, that I was making reference to the tendency of libertarian critics to misrepresent libertarian views. Thanks for the conveniently placed example.

Are you under the impression that the only freedoms that are worth protecting are those supported by the majority? :confused:

Of course not, but the issue in hand is one that affects society as a whole.

And some of the members of that "society as a whole" would like to be able to smoke in a bar or restaurant, and others would like to run an establishment that caters to those preferences.

Can you think of a better way to decide it?

Of course. And I've already mentioned it several times. Let business owners decide for themselves.

WMT1

16th April 2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
No, it doesnt' clear things up very much. His owner could likewise "claim" his property was being taken from him. You and I agree on who has the better claim, but we have to admit that the "rights" we agree on are not universally accepted.

So what? Very few things are. The point is that, in this case, he would be wrong.

So how do we decide what "rights" are really right? We could use a judge. We could vote on it. We could try to interpret The Bible. There are any number of ways, but they all are simply human nuances.

How about logic, reason, judgment, stuff like that?

I'm starting to wonder, though, are you capable of forming any firm conclusions about right and wrong on your own, without turning to law, religion, or something else?

You must live under whatever laws and moral codes that your society has imposed on you, or you must face the consequence of opposing them.

Sure, but that's just about who has the power to enforce, not who's actually right about what should be enforced.

If you decide to smoke in a place where the local legal and moral codes have determined that it is forbidden, regardless of the feelings of the property owner, then you must pay the consequences.

You're confusing issues when you use a term like "legal and moral codes". They're two different things.

And once again, none of this has any bearing on who has a right to do anything, only what the rules happen to be, and who gets to decide them, and enforce them.

Many of the performers have started a practice of having two shows, the first one smoke-free. I think that is a good compromise.

Sounds good to me, as long as the owner of the venue has no objections.

Now I have a question for all you "freedom" advocates. Can a factory owner, using only his private property, pollute as much as he likes, using the excuse that people can "always go somewhere else"?

Of course not. Did you expect this to be a tough question?

WMT1

16th April 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Salad Monkey
Whatever positive effects one gets from cigarettes and religion can be achieved through healthier and/or more authentic means.

Or they could get those effects from cigarettes. In a free society, that's their choice to make, not yours.

Usefulness doesn't justify forms of pleasure that cause grief to others.

:rolleyes:

Spare us the hyperbole. If the only "grief" you're talking about means having a business cater to someone else's wishes rather than yours, and nobody is forcing you to go there, then the pleasure of those being catered to needs no further justification.

The pleasure Michael Jackson gets from playing with a young boy's balls is probably useful in calming down his horniness, but that doesn't justify anything.

Enough with the God-awful analogies. Who wants to be the first to point out why this one is so far off the mark?

You and Shanek almost come across as believing that just because a business is private it should be somehow exempt from adopting a policy meant to serve a WAY greater good.

Speaking for myself, absolutely. That's not the purpose of a business. Just curious, how do you feel about strip clubs? What about prostitution?

Criticize and oppose all you want, that's your right.

How can you tell? From what I've seen from the opponents of smoking in this discussion, most of you are pretty clueless about rights.

It's also the right of non-smokers to criticize and oppose smoking in areas where it becomes a health risk to them.

Not if that opposition means using the force of law to prohibit businesses from providing something for which there is a demand, and where doing so would not violate anyone's rights.

"Don't go anywhere there are smokers" is not a reasonable solution.

Why the hell not???

(Is anyone ever going to answer this question?)

Anyway, would you be opposed if private insurance companies decided to deny any coverage to all smokers in matters of proven smoking-related illnesses?

Not in the least.

Would this be an example of the let money talk, the market decide policy you're more in favor of?

Sounds good to me.

How about if health coverage was denied to all smokers, and private institutions decided this all on their own (after doing the calculations) without any government or public interference? Are you cool with this?

Absolutely. Some of you guys almost seem to think you're asking difficult questions.

WMT1

16th April 2003, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by WMT1
You've been getting some bad information. Just about every smoker I've ever known would prefer to be able to light up after a meal (in some cases, during), without having to leave the restaurant. I had the same preference when I smoked as well.

Originally posted by Synchronicity
That's a shame. Why is it then pot smokers can resist the urge?

Who the hell cares? I never said anyone could not "resist the urge", I only mentioned preferences. Try and keep up.

Organizing takes time and with people’s schedules being out of synch such boycotts do not spontaneously form. Even then, it’s only an instance and not the whole class.

Who gives a rat's ass? Life is full of choices. If there are enough people to whom it is important to have smoke-free restaurants available, they can damn well make the sacrifices necessary to get some of these places to comply with their wishes, rather than using the bullying force of law to make all of them do so, which removes any options for those with other preferences. But whether they get what they want or not, their inconvenience does not trump a business owner's right to cater to whichever preferences he wants to cater to. And this would also be true if it were the other way around, where smokers were in the majority, and were having trouble getting restaurants to let them smoke.

By reducing the negative space of owner’s rights through government

:rolleyes: Whatever the hell that means.

we can get the job done quicker, better, cheaper.

Bzzzz! Wrong! Definitely not better or cheaper, because the cost is one of freedom. The more precedents there are that disregard it, the more endangered it becomes. And that is no less true just because those whose rights are being violated are in the minority. All you're arguing for here is the tyranny of the majority, whether you realize it or not.

Since the only way a customer can learn if a particular restaurant practices unsafe food preparation techniques is to get sick and die, nearly everyone thinks it’s a good idea to have a third party, as in a governmental agency, inspect and regulate these establishments.

Then you should have no trouble seeing why the unsafe food thing is not analogous to allowing smoking in restaurants.

WMT1

16th April 2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Valmorian
I'm not sure anyone here has ever said anything at all about libertarian views, outside of my frustration at being lumped in with people who want a universal ban of smoking.

Well, you did ask whether the inability to read was a libertarian trait, so it seemed like a good opportunity to point out that, if anything, it is a trait far more common among their critics. In fact, one of those critics has even been kind enough to provide an example of it here, in this thread, since my last response to you.

WMT1

16th April 2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Bjorn
How the existence of such a restaurant could be bad for non-smokers is beyond me.

What he said.

WMT1

16th April 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Salad Monkey
"Don't go anywhere there are smokers" is not a reasonable solution.

Originally posted by shanek
Why not? Why does the world revolve around what you want?

Originally posted by Salad Monkey
Right back at you.

You're "Right back at you" is misplaced here, and suggests you may be having some trouble following what people are actually arguing for. Unless you know him to be a smoker, he's not arguing for what he wants. He's arguing for people being able to do what they want with their own property.

Why do you get to force others into behaving the way you like?

Right back at you.

I hate to say it, but you kind of suck in the department of critical thinking. And your attempt to be clever here isn't hiding that as well as you might think.

Try and follow this: He isn't arguing for the use of force, he's arguing against it. And since you are among those who are arguing for force, do you suppose you actually try to answer the questions being asked?

I'm not forcing anybody to do diddly-poop. I'm no more forcing smokers to stop smoking at restaurants as you are forcing non-smokers to avoid places frequented by smokers.

You are if you support a smoking ban, because you are forcing smokers to stop smoking at restaurants, where he is not forcing non-smokers to avoid places frequented by smokers. They still have the choice to avoid them or not.

You, presumably a smoker, also have a choice: don't go anyplace that prevents you from smoking whenever you feel like it, or plan around your addiction.

Except that, with a ban in place, it isn't the "anyplace" that's preventing him from smoking, it's government. The choice you're removing is that of the business owner, to cater to whatever preferences he wants to cater to. This has been covered. Pay attention, will ya?

Don't expect the whole world to revolve around your poison smoke schedule.'

:rolleyes:

Damn, you people are slow. Please read the following very carefully, or maybe have someone else read it to you:

He doesn't expect "the whole world" to do so, just the businesses that actually want to.

WMT1

16th April 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I do not advocate smoking indoors, and would never want to go back to that. However, if these draconian laws pass which are not for anyone's protection, but are obviously made to punish a certain group for a behavior deemed unacceptable, you just wait to see what these law makers will pass next.

Originally posted by tjwojo
This ridiculous argument is a last-ditch desperation plea.

Not as desperate as using an expression like "last-ditch desperation plea" to foster the impression that a decent argument against your position is something less.

Whenever a freedom is taken away, something which has been ingrained in the culture, the affected parties always cry "communism!".

And in some cases, it might even be a valid comparison, especially when you support having the state impose a common approach on everyone about what ought to be privately made decisions.

What they fail to see, however, is that certain removed freedoms over the course of our history have actually increased the standard of living.

Not to those whose freedoms are abridged.

Should I have the right to own slaves?

No. Do I need to explain why?

Should I have the right to discriminate against certain people?

Yes. Freedom of association.

Should I have the right to put a poison moat around my house?

If it's on your property, and poses no threat to anyone not on your property, possibly so. Can't say for sure, though, as you've left out too many variables.

How about dumping my garbage in my back yard?

Probably not, as this might create a health issue for those in the vicinity - those who are not on your property.

So I should be able to put trash on my lawn and let it blow into everyone else's yards?

No. Did you think these would be tough questions? Moreover, rather than focusing on all these things that are not analogous to what is being discussed here, do you think you could come up with any that are about a business owner wanting to serve the preferences of a segment of a population, and where doing so does not violate anyone's rights?

Hey, if they don't like it, they can move, right?

Yeah, I've always hated this argument, and it's amazing how many people will actually use it to try to justify the very kind of government-imposed crap you guys are arguing for. The reason it has no relevance to the position you're trying to attribute it to is that nobody has to move (i.e. from their own property) to avoid the smoke in a restaurant (someone else's property). They can simply choose not to enter that restaurant. Does this help clear things up for you?

I believe the government should have the right to protect the health of its people.

Even those who don't want its "protection"? And if so, does that mean you would support a ban on refined sugar and fatty foods?

Smoking in public places should be the exception, not the standard.

Not when you're talking about privately owned "public places". There is no need for any "standard" beyond what the individual owners want.

shanek

16th April 2003, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

What consequences?

Damage to his own property, damage to others' property, bodily damage to others...

They stayed their of their own free will. If they die, it is their fault for not leaving.

That would only be the case if they were on his property. They would be on their own property, and that is what would be invaded by the polluter.

All he was doing was excercising his rights on his own property.

Not if he affects people on other properties.

(Do you see where this is going?)

Yes; you're desperately reaching for a justification.

shanek

16th April 2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Salad Monkey
Right back at you. Right back at you.

Is that the best you can do? "I know you are, but what am I?"

The difference is, I'm not forcing my own lifestyle choice on anyone; I'm just defending their rights to their own lifestyle choices. So either point out how I am forcing my own lifestyle on others, how I'm being selfish, and how I'm forcing others into a certain type of behavor, or apologize immediately for being an insulting little brat.

You, presumably a smoker,

Isn't it odd how people like this always make these assumptions? "Oh, you're against smoking bans, so you must be a smoker!"

For the record: Not only am I a complete nonsmoker, I am very, very allergic to cigarette smoke.

My prediction: Your sad little mind will not allow you to believe this and conclude I'm lying.

don't go anyplace that prevents you from smoking whenever you feel like it, or plan around your addiction.

But the law would make all businesses fit this model! So if I were a smoker, I would not have the choice you say I would!

Don't expect the whole world to revolve around your poison smoke schedule.

:rolleyes:

YOU'RE the one expecting the whole world to revolve around you. I'm defending the rights of PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNERS TO MAKE THE DECISION FOR THEMSELVES!

shanek

16th April 2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Lurker
If it were not for the environmental laws we had i doubt we would have seen any cleanup of our environment.

The environmental laws are responsible for most of the pollution in our environment! It places the jurisdiction and even the property in the hands of the one entity that has absolutely no incentive to reduce pollution (the government)! As I have shown on this forum repeatedly, companies simply do not pollute their own land!

shanek

16th April 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Which is my issue with Shanes point of view. As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

But in this case, it's a ton of prevention that is worse than any cure.

shanek

16th April 2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by tjwojo
What they fail to see, however, is that certain removed freedoms over the course of our history have actually increased the standard of living.

Name ONE.

Should I have the right to own slaves?

Slavery is hardly a freedom.

Should I have the right to discriminate against certain people?

If it affects no one but yourself, yes. People have every right to decide who they associate or do business with, for whatever reason they want.

Should I have the right to put a poison moat around my house?

No, because that directly threatens others.

How about dumping my garbage in my back yard?

Yes, but you'll quickly find the loss of property values being an incentive to clean it up.

So I should be able to put trash on my lawn and let it blow into everyone else's yards? Hey, if they don't like it, they can move, right?

No, because it's NOT YOUR PROPERTY!!!! This is a very simple concept! Why don't you people get that?

shanek

16th April 2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
Which evidence is this?

Well, for starters, the evidence on the other thread which I linked here that everyone seems bent on ignoring.

I find it hard to believe that the costs of compliance force that many viable restaurants out of business.

You say "that many," meaning that you do acknowledge that some are forced out of business. How, then, is the policy justified?

NONcompliance with basic health regulations will get a restaurant closed, but that's why the regulations exist in the first place.

Even if the noncompliance poses no threat to anyone, as is often the case?

More of these small restaurants are forced out of business by chain stores who can get their food cheaper, poor location, landlords who let the business get started then gouging the heck out of the restaurant when the lease is up for renewal, or just good old-fashioned competition than the costs complying with health codes.

Man....the economic ignorance of many in this forum is simply astounding.... :rolleyes:

Salad Monkey

16th April 2003, 11:38 PM

Shanek and WMT1, believe it or not I'm against the smoking ban in NYC. But I couldn't help but think the supporters on this thread had much better points. I come here to get spanked, to learn something, to have fun. No hard feelings.

edit: due to the fact I no longer have a broadband connection at my house, I'm deliberately trying to leave things in a neutral place. so I won't give a **** or not if I check up on this thread

Lurker

17th April 2003, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by shanek

The environmental laws are responsible for most of the pollution in our environment! It places the jurisdiction and even the property in the hands of the one entity that has absolutely no incentive to reduce pollution (the government)! As I have shown on this forum repeatedly, companies simply do not pollute their own land!

I am sorry, Shanek, I am late to looking through the threads. Could you point me to where you have shown this? The evidence you posted on this thread on HVAC systems was almost worthless so you will have to forgive my skepticism.

Thanks!

Lurker

Victor Danilchenko

17th April 2003, 05:55 AM

shanek

So, then, you get to just assume it's the food in absence of any evidence? Sorry, that's not how America is supposed to work.i suppose yuou couldn't be bothered to finish reading that passage, where i explained that many food problems cannot be provably traced to their causes in specific instances. We may know that cigarettes weaken immune system based on medical research, but it may be impossible to prove a link in each specific case -- that old guy who got emphysema, is it due to cigarettes or not? Things like that are nearly impossible to prove in each specific case, precisely because they are probabilistic and leave plenty of room for reasonable doubt.

This is why, in domains such as this, proactive approach of legislation is far superior.

As many times as WMT and I have tried to educate you about the Libertarian philosophy,WMT1 is about as suited to educate anyone about any philosophy, as I am suited to teach belly-dancing.

Do we need government codes to make sure your hair dryer doesn't electrocute you? No; we have UL. Are you still, after all these posts in all these threads going to deny ever having heard the concept?Don't be an ass. Obviously I realize that there is a way by which market could supply a sanitary standard. My question, dude, is what market forces would force this standard to come into being, if neither proactive consumer choice nor reactive lawsuits are a viable option?

Consumer choice? How does the consumer have a choice when the consumer is forced to wear a seatbelt? :rolleyes:You again couldn't finish reading my paragraph, where I explicitly said that individuals shouldn't be forced tto wear setabelts.

Recall my concluding sentence from the very paragraph from which you quoted the first sentence only: "All car manufacturers should be required to install seatbelts and supply the appropriate safety warning, but individuals driving the car shouldn't be required to buckle in". I wonder what conclusion to draw from your bizarre failure to merely finish reading what you were responding to...

As I showed quite clearly awhile back, car manufacturers were putting seat belts in cars as standard equipment before the government regulations. So your example is BS, as usual.Well, since you apparently didn't finish reading it, you are hardly qualified to judge its validity...

Why do I constantly have to keep repeating this over and over? Why are you people so persistently ignoring the evidence???Why do you so persistently misrepresent facts and your opponents' arguments?

Victor Danilchenko

17th April 2003, 06:00 AM

shanek

You do have that right, and an easy means of exercising it: Don't patronize businesses that don't have a no smoking area.Here we again run into a free-rider problem, which sort of issue the market is rather unsuited to dealing with. For each individual, not patronizing a smoking establishment is a significant personal loss which guarantees absolutely no compensation except for not having to breathe smoke -- it has many minuses (not being able to patronize as many establishments) and few pluses; it has so few pluses because each individual citizen's such act is very unlikely to result in the achievement of the goal -- the change of smoking policy in the establishment. And so everyone says "don't go to smoking restaurants", but much fewer people actually do it. This is Prisoner's Dilemma all over again, and this is exactly the sort of task for which government legislation is best suited.

Wile E. Coyote

17th April 2003, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
shanek

Here we again run into a free-rider problem, which sort of issue the market is rather unsuited to dealing with. For each individual, not patronizing a smoking establishment is a significant personal loss which guarantees absolutely no compensation except for not having to breathe smoke -- it has many minuses (not being able to patronize as many establishments) and few pluses; it has so few pluses because each individual citizen's such act is very unlikely to result in the achievement of the goal -- the change of smoking policy in the establishment. And so everyone says "don't go to smoking restaurants", but much fewer people actually do it. This is Prisoner's Dilemma all over again, and this is exactly the sort of task for which government legislation is best suited.

Thank you. You said it much better than I could. When the majority of the population would like to see the smoke dissipate, but there is no reasonable way to bring about the change, the government is welcome to step in and solve the problem.

Maybe offering significant tax breaks to non-smoking restaurants, or implementing a heavy smoking tax on smoking establishments, would be a better way to handle the situation. That way the private owners have a choice.

Ian Osborne

17th April 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by tjwojo
Thank you. You said it much better than I could. When the majority of the population would like to see the smoke dissipate, but there is no reasonable way to bring about the change, the government is welcome to step in and solve the problem.

And remember, the rules are set by elected politicians who must answer to the voters. If enough people don't like the new rules on smoking, they can deal with it at the ballot box.

Bjorn

17th April 2003, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Ian Osborne

And remember, the rules are set by elected politicians who must answer to the voters. If enough people don't like the new rules on smoking, they can deal with it at the ballot box. And the 70% that won't smoke can stop the minority that will from doing so, even if this minority wanted to do it inside their own property - if there is a 'restaurant' on the property. How democratic of them.

Could membership be a way to get around the moral majority? Smoker's Club NY?

This is not a restaurant, we serve food and drinks but to members only. Become an instant member by signing the dotted line. I confirm that I smoke. I like to smoke. I go in here because I want to smoke.

.....................................

shanek

17th April 2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Lurker
I am sorry, Shanek, I am late to looking through the threads. Could you point me to where you have shown this?

Try this thread:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7260

There have been other times, but I don't have time to go digging, either. Most of the big points are in that thread, though.

WMT1

17th April 2003, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Salad Monkey
Shanek and WMT1, believe it or not I'm against the smoking ban in NYC. But I couldn't help but think the supporters on this thread had much better points.

Given the muddled thinking reflected in some of your own posts, I'm not the least bit surprised.

WMT1

17th April 2003, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
WMT1 is about as suited to educate anyone about any philosophy, as I am suited to teach belly-dancing.

:rolleyes:

Sour grapes from someone who's got a bug up his ass about having his own precious philosophical arguments repeatedly trounced by yours truly.

shanek

17th April 2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Don't be an ass. Obviously I realize that there is a way by which market could supply a sanitary standard.

Then why didn't you mention it? Why did you state that the Libertarian solutions were limited to lawsuits and informed consumers?

My question, dude, is what market forces would force this standard to come into being, if neither proactive consumer choice nor reactive lawsuits are a viable option?

The same ones that caused UL to come into existence: People want safe products. Whenever someone starts going on about how we need this government program or that because it's something everyone wants, you know they're wrong because if even a small fraction of the population want it the free market will provide it. That's what the free market does best. This is something else that has been pointed out to you countless times.

Why do you so persistently misrepresent facts and your opponents' arguments?

Let's look at the part of my post that YOU IGNORED:

As I showed quite clearly awhile back, car manufacturers were putting seat belts in cars as standard equipment before the government regulations. So your example is BS, as usual.

In fact, the only car safety feature installed by mandate of the government was air bags—which ended up killing people because the government mandated too strong a force, and GM told them at the time that it would result in the deaths of children and shorter adults.

What is your answer, sir?

WMT1

17th April 2003, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by tjwojo
Thank you. You said it much better than I could. When the majority of the population would like to see the smoke dissipate, but there is no reasonable way to bring about the change, the government is welcome to step in and solve the problem.

It speaks volumes that you thought it was well said. I also find it revealing that your own follow-up commentary was about something as simplistic as majority rule, since Victor doesn't like to admit that that's really all his philosophy boils down to when he can't think of any other way to defend his position on an issue.

shanek

17th April 2003, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by tjwojo
You said it much better than I could. When the majority of the population would like to see the smoke dissipate, but there is no reasonable way to bring about the change, the government is welcome to step in and solve the problem.

1) No, it isn't; you can't take away someone's rights just because a majority agrees with you. 2) This is BS, because if even a small minority wants it the free market will provide it. Plain and simple.

WMT1

17th April 2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
And remember, the rules are set by elected politicians who must answer to the voters. If enough people don't like the new rules on smoking, they can deal with it at the ballot box..

And whaddaya know? Another "majority rule" argument. That's pretty much all you guys have got, isn't it?

(What were you saying earlier about being "simplistic"? :D)

Ian Osborne

17th April 2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
And whaddaya know? Another "majority rule" argument. That's pretty much all you guys have got, isn't it?

Why is, 'if you don't like it, use your vote' any more simplistic and less valid than 'if you don't like it, go elsewhere'?

WMT1

17th April 2003, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Why is, 'if you don't like it, use your vote' any more simplistic and less valid than 'if you don't like it, go elsewhere'?

First, I didn't say it was any more simplistic. And I was not the first to use the term. My comment was in response to your use of it, remember? So now that we've cleared that up, do you now agree that my views on this matter are no more simplistic than yours?

Second, "if you don't like it, use your vote" is less valid because, in this case at least, it violates property rights and freedom of association. "If you don't like it, go elsewhere" does not. Does this help make things a little clearer?

Victor Danilchenko

17th April 2003, 09:23 AM

shanek

What is your answer, sir?My answer, dude, is that I gave seat belts not as an example of a case where government intervention saved lives, but as an example of a case where government regulation can co-exist with individual freedom of choice. This is why I said that your objection, based as it was on not understanding my point, is irrelevant.

I don't care whether seatbelts existed without government regulation or not; what I do care about is that in the seatbelt case, government mandating a safety standard does not strip consumers of choice. This was the point -- to offer an example where the two can both exist. Remember, this example was offered in the context of me stating that safety regulations can often me combined with explicit customer opt-out so as to permit one to have the cake and eat it too -- to have a meaningful safety standard yet to not force individual consumers to be subject to it.

You instead mis-percveived in my words what you regard as a typical assault on libertarian position ('government saved lives by mandating seatbelts'), and went off on an irrelevant tangent. You are knee-jerking again.

P.S. BTW, I disagree with Tricky's suggestion that not wearing seatbelts should automatically imply waiver of government medical assistance. IMO, government medical assistance is needed exactly to cover those who don't have coverage otherwise, as a fallback position in case other forms of coverage fail; so nobody should be excluded from it, even if they come to need government help through their own bad judgement.

Lurker

17th April 2003, 09:29 AM

Shanek:

Thanks for the links to the pollution info. Very informative and I learned by going there.

One item of note though was from what I saw, they were not advocating that the federal government not be involved at all like you seem to be doing. They seemed to advocate a different way of legislating against pollution.

Your thoughts?

Lurker

Lurker

17th April 2003, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
shanek

P.S. BTW, I disagree with Tricky's suggestion that not wearing seatbelts should automatically imply waiver of government medical assistance. IMO, government medical assistance is needed exactly to cover those who don't have coverage otherwise, as a fallback position in case other forms of coverage fail; so nobody should be excluded from it, even if they come to need government help through their own bad judgement.

A friend of mine in the Air Force said that if he died in his car adn his seatbelt was not fastened the Air Force would not pay his life insurance to his family. From that day on he said he started wearing his seat belt.

Lurker

Victor Danilchenko

17th April 2003, 09:34 AM

shanek

The same ones that caused UL to come into existence: People want safe products. Whenever someone starts going on about how we need this government program or that because it's something everyone wants, you know they're wrong because if even a small fraction of the population want it the free market will provide it. That's what the free market does best. This is something else that has been pointed out to you countless times.And it was pointed out to you countless times that there are plenty of situations where the market does not have an incentive to provide the service, because the cost of providing the service exceeds the direct profit, even if the cost of non-providing the service to society is much higher.

Recall your own credit report problems for example -- your problems stem not from government meddling, but from the fact that it's cheaper for credit report companies to make a few false positives on 'bad credit' match (and thus deprive the banks of a chance to make a few good loans), than it is to correct all those errors, and in the process possibly introduce a few false negatives. The banks want it that way too -- it's better for them to fail to provide a good loan, than to provide a bad loan. And so cases like yours are not, and will not, be correctly handled by the market, simply because it's not worth it to the market. So no, market is not anywhere near the perfect state you like to imagine it as being.

Valmorian

17th April 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Even if you can claim this does not mean you're actively seeking a ban, you are certainly supporting one.

No, I'm not supporting one. Anyone who wants to put a non-smoking ban into effect in my city will have to do so without any support at all from me. I just simply won't fight against it.

It's a false dilemma to presume I support it simply because I won't fight it.

I don't support a lot of things, but that doesn't mean I would fight against their implementation.

Valmorian

17th April 2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Even if none of those laws actually work?

Are you saying that NO restaurant has ever been closed because of a failed health inspection?

I LIKE the idea that restaurants are required to meet a minimum level of sanitation. I also recognize that you can't expect these regulations to catch every case.

History has shown us that the only effective way to cut down on the paperwork is to have a private, voluntary regulatory service like UL.

Whether it's private or public makes no difference to me, but I DO want to see it:
1. Independant of the businesses it polices.
2. Taking a proactive approach to this, as opposed to reacting to businesses that fail to meet the regulations.

See, THIS is why I posted that other thread on the cost of regulation! (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8953) And in that thread, everyone jumped all over my @$$ because I didn't provide examples!!! :mad:

How can I possibly win here?

Calm down boyo, I didn't see your other thread. I don't scour these boards looking for your posts alone.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If owner A is complying with minimum health standards, and one of his clients gets sick, you seemed to suggest that this would absolve him of guilt in the eyes of the law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In many cases, it does.

The question is, if complying with health regulations apparently ISN'T enough to absolve the owner of responsibility, what WOULD be?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That the owner be found guilty even though the safety standards were met?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely!

You'd find the owner guilty even though they followed all the regulations DESIGNED to reduce the chance of contaminated food? Wow Shane, I really have no idea what to say to that.. we're in two different worlds on this it appears.

I would prefer a system that would punish those who are harming others while leaving everyone else alone, which we can never have with regulations. Regulations assume we are all guilty and punish all of us.

It's policing a level of risk. Many businesses need to undergo safety inspections. I don't see a problem with this.

Which usually are not the result of a proper lawsuit, where the business has a chance to defend themselves, and often happens in the complete absence of any victim at all. Who cares if you didn't actually harm anyone? You missed Sec. 418(a)(4)(C)(ii)(IV)! You're shut down!

I'd rather a business be shut down for exposing people to a high risk of contaminated food than wait until someone pays the price for that negligence. I guess we just differ in opinion on this.

Have you seen some of the drivers out there? Licensing is most definitely not proof you're capable of driving!

No testing is 100%. Presumably, if the testing is performed properly, anyone with a drivers license is CAPABLE of driving properly. Whether they choose to do so after that point is a different matter.

Or if you're driving recklessly. That really should be the only rule on the road.

Who defines 'recklessly'?

A completely useless act which costs taxpayer money in excahnge for making politicians and voters feel warm and fuzzy.

I disagree. When I worked in food preparation, the management was very strict about us obeying the sanitation rules they were required to post in the restaurant.

I realize it's an anecdote, but I was exposed to the majority of the sanitation safety requirements in that job because of health regulations.

A person who goes to a restaurant cannot expect to be aware of how clean the food preparation environment is in the establishment. They're taking a risk every time they eat. I'm glad there are organizations to help reduce that risk through policing.

Whether those oganizations are government controlled or not is of no concern to me, provided they are able to maintain a level of objectivity that is adequate.

Ian Osborne

17th April 2003, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
First, I didn't say it was any more simplistic. And I was not the first to use the term. My comment was in response to your use of it, remember? So now that we've cleared that up, do you now agree that my views on this matter are no more simplistic than yours?

Is there any hair too fine for you to split it into several strands? When I said your argument was simplistic, you denied it - you didn't accept that it was simplistic. You later said that I was being simplistic. Putting those two clear points together, it's fair to infer that you feel my point is more simplistic than yours. True, you didn't state this directly (and I never said you did), but the inference is a fair one. Talking to you is often a very tedious exercise.

Pick this apart if you wish, but don't expect a reply - I have no intention of going any further down the 'word games' path.

Second, "if you don't like it, use your vote" is less valid because, in this case at least, it violates property rights and freedom of association. "If you don't like it, go elsewhere" does not.

That's exactly what I don't accept. Victor Danilchenko has already shown why issues of health and safety are not always best left to the market, and how government intervention is the only way of clearing the air. I think the right to breathe easily supercedes the right to smoke, and where the majority agree, I see nothing wrong with imposing restrictions on smoking.

Besides, there are plenty of countries that have no restrictions at all on smoking. Why don't you emigrate to one?

Does this help make things a little clearer?

Stick your sarcasm up your arse.

WMT1

17th April 2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Why is, 'if you don't like it, use your vote' any more simplistic and less valid than 'if you don't like it, go elsewhere'?

Originally posted by WMT1
First, I didn't say it was any more simplistic. And I was not the first to use the term. My comment was in response to your use of it, remember? So now that we've cleared that up, do you now agree that my views on this matter are no more simplistic than yours?

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Is there any hair too fine for you to split it into several strands?

:confused:

Please explain.

When I said your argument was simplistic, you denied it - you didn't accept that it was simplistic.

No, I did not deny it. Don't try to pin your trouble comprehending what you read on me.

You later said that I was being simplistic.

Well, my exact words were "What were you saying earlier about being 'simplistic'?"

Putting those two clear points together, it's fair to infer that you feel my point is more simplistic than yours.

You mean the "clear" points, one of which you got wrong, and the other of which is as least somewhat imprecise?

True, you didn't state this directly (and I never said you did), but the inference is a fair one.

Based on what? Just looks to me like you know you've been caught in your own hypocrisy, and are trying to wiggle out of it by attributing something to me that I neither said, nor implied.

Talking to you is often a very tedious exercise.

I get that a lot from people whose views are poorly thought out.

Pick this apart if you wish, but don't expect a reply - I have no intention of going any further down the 'word games' path.

Then why did you start down that path yourself by falsely attributing a view to me that I do not hold, and suggesting it was "simplistic"? Maybe the "can-dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it" forum would be more to your liking?

Second, "if you don't like it, use your vote" is less valid because, in this case at least, it violates property rights and freedom of association. "If you don't like it, go elsewhere" does not. Does this help make things a little clearer?

That's exactly what I don't accept.

You don't accept that the "if you don't like it, use your vote" approach violates property rights and freedom of association in this case, or that the "if you don't like it, go elsewhere" approach does not?

:confused:

Victor Danilchenko has already shown why issues of health and safety are not always best left to the market, and how government intervention is the only way of clearing the air.

What neither he, nor anyone else around here, has shown is why imposing that clear air on everyone, everywhere, whether they want it or not, is a valid objective.

I think the right to breathe easily supercedes the right to smoke,

This presumes they need to be in conflict. They do not, unless either side insists that their preference be imposed on everyone, everywhere, whether they want it or not.

and where the majority agree, I see nothing wrong with imposing restrictions on smoking.

Yes, you've made your disregard for property rights and freedom of association quite clear. Moreover, you're trying to make your position sound more reasonable than it is. You don't just want such restrictions "where the majority agree", you want for the majority's wishes to prevail everywhere.

Besides, there are plenty of countries that have no restrictions at all on smoking. Why don't you emigrate to one?

Good grief. Do you guys really have no sense of embarrassment about trotting out these awful arguments? Is support for any form of government bullying acceptable just because someone can "emigrate" to avoid it? No wonder you're impressed with Victor. Looks like you use the same ridiculous arguments to fall back on when you can't think of anything else.

Moreover, your question exposes a severe lack an understanding of freedom, and those who value it, because it is based on the same absurd assumption that someone else made earlier about Shane - that if I support the choice of smokers, it must be because I want to be able to do so myself.

Stick your sarcasm up your arse.

And feel free to do likewise with your awful arguments.

Smalso

17th April 2003, 01:26 PM

Do I have the right to purchase and use cigarettes, a legal product, if i choose to do so?

Yup.

Do I have to right to subject others to the effects of my cigarette smoke?

Nope.

Do I have the right to open a place of business where the smoking of cigarettes is allowed?

Uh-huh.

Do those who do not smoke have the right to refuse to do business with me?

You bet.

Do my customers have the right to eat at my establishment and expect me to do all in my power to ensure the sanitation of my food, employees and storage and preparation areas?

Absolutely.

That's my position in a nutshell.

shanek

17th April 2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Why is, 'if you don't like it, use your vote' any more simplistic and less valid than 'if you don't like it, go elsewhere'?

Because the former restricts people no matter where they are and the latter preserves the rights of private property owners! They are as different as night and day! Why can't you see that?

shanek

17th April 2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
My answer, dude, is that I gave seat belts not as an example of a case where government intervention saved lives, but as an example of a case where government regulation can co-exist with individual freedom of choice.

Only because the government regulated what the free market had already chosen!

Answer me this: What if some big thinker came up with an auto safety device that was much safer than, but precluded, seatbelts. How much would the auto makers have to go through to implement it?

P.S. BTW, I disagree with Tricky's suggestion that not wearing seatbelts should automatically imply waiver of government medical assistance. IMO, government medical assistance is needed exactly to cover those who don't have coverage otherwise, as a fallback position in case other forms of coverage fail; so nobody should be excluded from it, even if they come to need government help through their own bad judgement.

Why should other people be forced to pay for their own bad judgement?

shanek

17th April 2003, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
And it was pointed out to you countless times that there are plenty of situations where the market does not have an incentive to provide the service, because the cost of providing the service exceeds the direct profit, even if the cost of non-providing the service to society is much higher.

The only examples of which anyone could come up with are ones where government interference is what's preventing the free market providing it, by driving up the cost!

Recall your own credit report problems for example -- your problems stem not from government meddling,

Yes, they do! Government meddling is all over the place in credit reporting! If not, I could have gotten it cleared years ago! Why would a creditor want to rely on such an untrustworthy system? Absent these regulations, they would have every incentive to fix things.

And so cases like yours are not, and will not, be correctly handled by the market,

They were before your precious government started meddling in it.

simply because it's not worth it to the market.

But it is worth it! I've had several private entities trying to work with me on it, only to run into government red tape each and every time! They want to clear it up! I want to clear it up! Stop babbling with these pathetic excuses!

And you STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE QUESTION!!!!

shanek

17th April 2003, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Valmorian
No, I'm not supporting one.

Explain, please, the context in which your statement I quoted above cannot be construed as support for a smoking ban.

shanek

17th April 2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by Valmorian
Are you saying that NO restaurant has ever been closed because of a failed health inspection?

No; are you saying ALL such restaurants deserved it?

I LIKE the idea that restaurants are required to meet a minimum level of sanitation. I also recognize that you can't expect these regulations to catch every case.

When was the last time your hair dryer blew up in your face? Or your Toaster caught your house on fire? Private agencies have a much better track record than government, and no innocent people get punished in the meantime.

Whether it's private or public makes no difference to me, but I DO want to see it:
1. Independant of the businesses it polices.
2. Taking a proactive approach to this, as opposed to reacting to businesses that fail to meet the regulations.

It makes sense, but historically private entities have had a much better track record at this than government. Government simply does not have the incentive to do the job properly, and every incentive to abuse its authority.

The question is, if complying with health regulations apparently ISN'T enough to absolve the owner of responsibility, what WOULD be?

The owner shouldn't be absolved of his own responsibility. That's the point. He just shouldn't be held responsible because other people aren't doing a good job.

You'd find the owner guilty even though they followed all the regulations DESIGNED to reduce the chance of contaminated food?

It would depend on the details of the situation; but I wouldn't give him an acquittal just on the basis of regulatory compliance. If it were proved beyond reasonable doubt that he caused it, and it meant the other legal requirements for a conviction, you're d*mn right I'd convict him!

It's policing a level of risk. Many businesses need to undergo safety inspections. I don't see a problem with this.

The problem is who's doing the inspecting and under whose authority, and how effective it is.

I'd rather a business be shut down for exposing people to a high risk of contaminated food than wait until someone pays the price for that negligence.

And I'd rather a business not being shut down for violating Ambiguous Rule 90210§802.14628½ of the Way Too Poorly Worded Act.

No testing is 100%.

This isn't even close. Take a look at some of the idiots they give drivers licenses to. The fact of the matter is, the government has every incentive to give a license to as many people as possible because that's an effective means of identification and tracking.

I disagree. When I worked in food preparation, the management was very strict about us obeying the sanitation rules they were required to post in the restaurant.

When did I say they wouldn't be?

A person who goes to a restaurant cannot expect to be aware of how clean the food preparation environment is in the establishment. They're taking a risk every time they eat. I'm glad there are organizations to help reduce that risk through policing.

Why not, though, turn it over to more effective private organizations?

I submit that these government regulations actually make you more vulnerable. Take the somewhat recent contaminated meat that bore the USDA label. How many people ate that feeling it was perfectly safe? And that wouldn't have been as bad if government inspectors hadn't delayed telling ConAgra about the bad meat for TWO MONTHS during which time the meat continued to be shipped!

This process gives both consumers and companies a false sense of security about the products being bought and sold, and leaves companies with little money or incentive to do independent testing on their own. With private entities managing this, there would be pressure for each of them to compete to obtain the highest safety record, something the government monopoly does not have.

shanek

17th April 2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Smalso
Do I have the right to purchase and use cigarettes, a legal product, if i choose to do so?

Yup.

Do I have to right to subject others to the effects of my cigarette smoke?

Nope.

Do I have the right to open a place of business where the smoking of cigarettes is allowed?

Uh-huh.

Do those who do not smoke have the right to refuse to do business with me?

You bet.

Do my customers have the right to eat at my establishment and expect me to do all in my power to ensure the sanitation of my food, employees and storage and preparation areas?

Absolutely.

That's my position in a nutshell.

Sounds good to me...

Victor Danilchenko

18th April 2003, 10:26 AM

shanek

Only because the government regulated what the free market had already chosen!So? had the market not chosen seatbelts, government regulations could still co-exist with individual freedom of choice. it's a very simple point, shane: regulating something does not necessarily remove individuals' choice.

Answer me this: What if some big thinker came up with an auto safety device that was much safer than, but precluded, seatbelts. How much would the auto makers have to go through to implement it?Hopefully only enough to prove that the new device is indeed superior to the seatbelts. however, the inertia of the legislature has no bearing on the fact that regulations can co-exist with freedom of choice.

Why should other people be forced to pay for their own bad judgement?I don't think you meant to say what you said, here...

Yes, they do! Government meddling is all over the place in credit reporting! If not, I could have gotten it cleared years ago!So tell me, Shane, what government regulations prevent the credit report companies from correcting your erroneous info?

Why would a creditor want to rely on such an untrustworthy system?because it's much cheaper than a more trustworthy system; because ensuring the level of trustworthiness that would allow you to correct the credit error, is more expensive that simply leaving the error on the books; both more expensive to implement, and more expensive because it would let slip in a few more false negatives -- and as I said before, it's much worse for the banks to extend a bad loan, than to fail to extend a good loan; and so the credit report companies, in response to market pressure, err on the side of caution -- they would rather blacklist a few creditworthy individuals, than clear them but in the process also clear a few individuals with bad credit.

Your problem, Shane, is that you assume, axiomatically, that the market can do no wrong. Therefore, any data that shows market doing wrong must be either bad or misinterpreted. the conclusion is staring you in teh face -- it's not cost-effective for the credit-reporrt companies to achieve 100% correctness (think "99/1" rule as an extrapolation of the "80/20" rule). It's simply cheaper for them to be wrong on the safe side occasionally, than to eliminate those errors, especially if those few false positives cannot be eliminated without increasing a number of false negatives in the process.

You sound like a religious fanatic. To a xian fundy, anything that contradicts the bible is wrong -- and to you, anything is wrong that contradicts your cherished faith in the supreme power of markets.

Yes, market is imperfect. Fscking deal with it. it's great at some things, merely adequate at others, and outright sucky at other still. Face reality, Shane -- just like all human institutions, it has its limitations and drawbacks, and it's not the single answer to every socioeconomic question.

But it is worth it! I've had several private entities trying to work with me on it, only to run into government red tape each and every time!And what red tape would that be? What does the government do to prevent the credit report companies from clearing it up? or do you simply trust the word of the companies who claim that the goivernment doesn't let them -- surely not as a way of simply shifting the blame away from themselves!

And you STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE QUESTION!!!!You mean the question about seatbelt history, the topic which sprung forth from your imagination rather than from my posts? I will not answer your question that I didn't lead up to in the first place. I already explained how your question has no relationship to what I wrote -- my point was not about who caused seatbelts to be implemented, but rather to show how government regulation can co-exist with customer choice. If you insist I answer an irrelevant question, I will insist that you tell me when you have stopped beating your wife.

Oh, and dude -- watch the blood pressure.