|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 07/24/2005 : 18:41:33 [Permalink]
|
I'm sorry, I thought sarcasm was an acceptable way of making a point. Somehow I think my use of sarcasm was not as bad as calling someone an "ass". But I suppose that's a matter of opinion. Sort of mute point, since I'm really not offended. Though I am sorry you think I'm an ass.
I brought up the subject because it legitimately interests me. Just because nobody has yet posed an argument that I find persuasive doens't mean I'm not interested in other peoples' opinions.
Since my sarcasm failed to get my point across, I will re-phrase my response, sarcasm-free:
"Smokers are by far the most inconvienced demographic, so you can drop that argument right now."
Society benefits from discouraging excessive smoking. There is no social incentive for public policy to accomodate smokers. (Or maybe there is - but I can't think of any. If anyone can think of any, please speak up!)
Being a "smoker" is a choice. It is the choice to regularly endulge in the recreational use of cigarrettes. A smoker who, say, smokes a pack in regularl intervals over the period of a day does not *need* to smoke every hour or so, but they experience an incredible urge to do so because they are have developed a chemical dependency. Regular cigarrette use (like a pack a day) is self-destructive, and one could argue it goes beyond recreational purposes. At that point it is really just a simple addiction, and the person needs to continue smoking regularly just to feel "normal", otherwise they'll get withdrawal symptoms (irritation, lack of focus, depression, constipation, etc.). Given all this, it is reasonable to call smoking a health hazard, for both the regular smoker and those who are regularly exposed to second-hand smoke. By inconveniencing smokers, the public is actually doing smokers a service, because they are facilitating a public environment that discourages *excessive* cigarrette smoking - which is a form of drug abuse.
In addition to that, discouraging smoking in bars is especially a health service, because when people drink more, they tend to smoke more in a small period of time, and there are studies that show that the combination of excessive smoking and drinking over short periods of time can double the liklihood of developing certain cancers later in life. Even if people are made to simply step outside the bar to smoke a ciggarette, they will smoke less, and that is better for everyone.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/24/2005 18:44:33 |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2005 : 18:57:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Being a "smoker" is a choice. It is the choice to regularly endulge in the recreational use of cigarrettes. A smoker who, say, smokes a pack in regularl intervals over the period of a day does not *need* to smoke every hour or so, but they experience an incredible urge to do so because they are have developed a chemical dependency. Regular cigarrette use (like a pack a day) is self-destructive, and one could argue it goes beyond recreational purposes. At that point it is really just a simple addiction, and the person needs to continue smoking regularly just to feel "normal", otherwise they'll get withdrawal symptoms (irritation, lack of focus, depression, constipation, etc.). Given all this, it is reasonable to call smoking a health hazard, for both the regular smoker and those who are regularly exposed to second-hand smoke. By inconveniencing smokers, the public is actually doing smokers a service, because they are facilitating a public environment that discourages *excessive* cigarrette smoking - which is a form of drug abuse.
In addition to that, discouraging smoking in bars is especially a health service, because when people drink more, they tend to smoke more in a small period of time, and there are studies that show that the combination of excessive smoking and drinking over short periods of time can double the liklihood of developing certain cancers later in life. Even if people are made to simply step outside the bar to smoke a ciggarette, they will smoke less, and that is better for everyone.
Shouldn't people be given the choice of whether to live healthy lives or not?
At the same time, smokers should not enjoy special privileges because they smoke. But is it really a special privilege to smoke in a bar?
If someone doesn't want to go to a smoke filled bar, they also have the choice to not go to a bar. And unlike smokers who have no other choice than a bar but to smoke in their own residence, a social drinker can go to a club, or get some beers at a bowling alley, or drink at a restaurant. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2005 : 19:56:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
There are even some working to ban smoking from outdoor places, like beaches...
The main reason cited for banning smoking on beaches is due to people leaving cigarette butts all over the beach. Of course, most places considering (or already having) such bans probably already have anti-littering laws on the books, so the question becomes "why don't they enforce the laws that already exist?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2005 : 20:20:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Society benefits from discouraging excessive smoking. There is no social incentive for public policy to accomodate smokers.
[sarcasm]
So, I expect next to see you advocating bans on public bungee-jumping, skiing, parachuting, etc. It's okay if people do it in their own backyards, but out in public these folks represent a risk to themselves and others. Just list every activity which doesn't benefit society as a whole, and has an above-baseline amount of risk to it, for banning.
After all, reducing the convenience of these activities would reduce the cost of health insurance for everyone.
[/sarcasm]
Seriously, passing laws in order to protect people from themselves doesn't often work. A public-smoking ban is fine if it's for the benefit of those who choose to not smoke. Banning it to "protect" the people who do smoke won't work much better than prohibition did.
On top of that, there generally is no public policy to accomodate smokers, just as there is no public policy to accomodate sky divers. Instead, these bans represent public policy (sometimes the first of its kind) to disaccomodate smokers.
In other words, rare is the law which states that bars must allow smoking - instead bars have allowed it because it's not illegal, and not inconveniencing enough to affect the bottom-line profits or their ability to hire. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2005 : 21:49:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I'm sorry, I thought sarcasm was an acceptable way of making a point. Somehow I think my use of sarcasm was not as bad as calling someone an "ass". But I suppose that's a matter of opinion. Sort of mute point, since I'm really not offended. Though I am sorry you think I'm an ass.
It is an effective tool, when it is not used to evoke an emotional response from another individual. In that case, it is a logical fallacy.
fyi: it's moot, not mute (this means unable to speak or be heard)
quote:
I brought up the subject because it legitimately interests me. Just because nobody has yet posed an argument that I find persuasive doens't mean I'm not interested in other peoples' opinions.
Since my sarcasm failed to get my point across, I will re-phrase my response, sarcasm-free:
"Smokers are by far the most inconvienced demographic, so you can drop that argument right now."
Society benefits from discouraging excessive smoking. There is no social incentive for public policy to accomodate smokers. (Or maybe there is - but I can't think of any. If anyone can think of any, please speak up!)
Interesting, exactly how does society benefit from discouraging 'excessive' smoking? Yes, I am going to ask you to define excessive. If society trully benefited from this, would it not then make more sense to devote some of those multiple millions of dollars to aiding those who wish to quit smoking, rather than where it is going? It definitely is not going to public programs that directly affect smokers attempting to quit. Yes, some of it actually finds its way into the stop smoking campaigns. But CO recently increased sales taxes on cigarettes to fund children's healthcare and schools, on the basis that the sales tax is a never ending funding source. Hmm, take advantage of the addiction, but don't give a damn about the people? Nice way to benefit society by 'discouraging' smoking, don't you think?
quote:
Being a "smoker" is a choice. It is the choice to regularly endulge in the recreational use of cigarrettes. A smoker who, say, smokes a pack in regularl intervals over the period of a day does not *need* to smoke every hour or so, but they experience an incredible urge to do so because they are have developed a chemical dependency.
A choice. In some sense, yes. However, as with any addiction, it ceases to be a 'choice' and becomes rather a necessity. Oh, and yes, a smoker does 'need' to smoke every hour or so. Without the cigarettes, the get fidgety, can't focus, can't think, become irratible, etc. It is a withdrawl symptom from an addictive substance. They very much 'need' to smoke.
Hmm, the addiction to cigarettes goes far beyond a chemical dependancy. The dependance is also psychological. You see, nicotine triggers a release of dopamine. The feel good chemical. If an individual is stressed, this dopamine release helps to calm them, if they are depressed, it can actually pick up their mood.
quote:
Regular cigarrette use (like a pack a day) is self-destructive, and one could argue it goes beyond recreational purposes. At that point it is really just a simple addiction, and the person needs to continue smoking regularly just to feel "normal", otherwise they'll get withdrawal symptoms (irritation, lack of focus, depression, constipation, etc.).
Well, yes these withdrawl symptoms are linked to the loss of nicotine in the system. But the addiction itself is far from 'simple'. The functionality of the addiction is such that inconjunction with nicotine replacement options other methods may be required to help alleviate the addiction. These other methods have more to do with the 'head shrinking' type than the chemical type.
quote:
Given all this, it is reasonable to call smoking a health hazard, for both the regular smoker and those who are regularly exposed to second-hand smoke. By inconveniencing smokers, the public is actually doing smokers a service, because they are facilitating a public environment that discourages *excessive* cigarrette smoking - which is a form of drug abuse.
Given all this then, don't you think it is the responsibility of the 'public,' with whom's health we are so concerned, to offer every assistance to the smoker to help them quit? Telling them you are a 'bad' only leads to increased depression which in turn leads to really wanting another cigarette, which leads to more feelings of being defined as 'bad' which leads to more smoking.
quote:
In addition to that, discouraging smoking in bars is especially a health service, because when people drink more, they tend to smoke more in a small period of time, and there are studies that show that the combination of excessive smoking and drinking over short periods of time can double the liklihood of developing certain cancers later in life. Even if people are made to simply step outside the bar to smoke a ciggarette, they will smoke less, and that is better for everyone.
Are these findings correllary or are the causal? From what source does this information come? Are we dealing with individuals who are genetically predisposed to these forms of cancer, or were these individuals ruled out? Does stopping smoking decrease the likelihood of these cancers or is the damage already done? If the damage is already done, how is this a health service?
Oh, and a sidenote: on the prohibition issue, yes it did actually work in large part, however, those who were alcoholics, like my grandmother, continued to drink regardless. It was the addiction you see. And there was nothing done during prohibition to ensure that the addicted were given every assistance to 'overcome' their addiction. Additionally, drinking during prohibition actually invited many more health problems than we think. Blindness being cheif among the health problems caused by drinking alcohol of questionalbe origin.
edited because I just remember one word I was looking for... and something else that really bothered me |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
| Edited by - Trish on 07/24/2005 21:52:25 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2005 : 22:01:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
In other words, rare is the law which states that bars must allow smoking - instead bars have allowed it because it's not illegal, and not inconveniencing enough to affect the bottom-line profits or their ability to hire.
Interesting tidbit here, South Dakota, requires an establishment to have a liquor license to allow smoking. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2005 : 22:01:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I'm sorry, I thought sarcasm was an acceptable way of making a point. Somehow I think my use of sarcasm was not as bad as calling someone an "ass". But I suppose that's a matter of opinion. Sort of mute point, since I'm really not offended. Though I am sorry you think I'm an ass.
Referring to smokers as cry babies was your idea of sarcasm lol? I suppose as was your equivocating smoking to your husband nailing you on a sidewalk? I admit, when someone resorts to base name calling and absurd arguments I usually take it as a sign they have no intention of conducting a reasonable debate. Since you protest otherwise, I'll retract my comment. Perhaps I'll chalk it up to a fit of sarcasm, though that judgement is certainly moot.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/24/2005 22:05:10 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2005 : 23:10:24 [Permalink]
|
The corrolation between bungee-jumping, skiing, parachuting, etc, is just changing the subject, and here's why: Does the government regulate certain activities without outright banning them? Yes. (Such as my earlier example about having sex on a public sidewalk.) Does anybody here have a problem with that fundamental concept? If not, I suggest sticking to specific arguments as to why a ban on smoking in bars has more qualities of being bad public policy than it has of being good public policy.
However, I want to respond to this line about the banning of sky-diving, etc: "After all, reducing the convenience of these activities would reduce the cost of health insurance for everyone."
Can you first explain to me how those activities are convenient, and second, can you back up the claim that they cause a rise in the cost of health insurance with numbers? The health hazards of smoking actually do have a demonstratable and widespread affect on public health.
Oh, and the campaign to make smoking less convenient via price hikes and banning of smoking in various public places HAS had an affect on behavior. Since the start of those campaigns, the numbers of smokers in America has fallen from 37% to the low 20's.
There was a question as to if we really needed a law to fill the "need" for nonsmoking bars, and the suggestion that if there was that "need", such businesses would open. But I don't think we "need" smoke-free bars. They'd just be nice. And I could just as well argue that if smoking is banned in bars, and smokers "need" a public place to socially smoke, specially recreational smoking businesses have and will continue to open to fill that market.
The comparison to prohibition and slippery slope arguments have already been covered - we are not talking about criminalization of smoking.
"these bans represent public policy (sometimes the first of its kind) to disaccomodate smokers."
Actually, they were designed to accomodate nonsmoking employees and customers. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/24/2005 23:13:00 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 00:00:52 [Permalink]
|
In response to Trish:
“Interesting, exactly how does society benefit from discouraging 'excessive' smoking?”
I already answered that. (Employees – particular those who don't have much practical choice of where to work - at such establishments not being exposed to second-hand smoke, additional social facilitation for those trying to quit.)
“I am going to ask you to define excessive.”
I already gave a rather descriptive example of excessive smoking (pack a day, withdrawal symptoms, cravings every couple hours.)
What does how states spend the money on cigarette taxes have to do with banning smoking in bars? Certainly that's another interesting issue, but it's not really what we're debating here.
Yes, chemical addiction and withdrawal symptoms makes quitting very difficulty for many people (as I, again, already dealt with), but if it were not a choice, then exactly how did I quit? You're using the words “choice” and “need” differently than I did in a previous post, and that isn't an argument against what I was saying. Just difference of semantics.
I definitely agree with you about the dependency on cigarettes being psychological as well as chemical. That's one of the reasons I strongly support smoking bans in bars. A lot of people want to quit, but can't keep their will power in a social environment. Thus, they have to often choose between giving in to their addiction and not hanging out in their neighborhood bar with their buddies.
I did say that regularly smoking was a simple addiction, but I never said addictions were simple. Again, you and I don't seem to be really disagreeing on that point, just using different wording.
Smoking bans in bars are not about telling smokers that they are bad. As I've said before, it is about accommodating nonsmokers and people trying to quit.
Indeed, it is sometimes difficult to find objective studies on the effects of smoking bans, but at least keep in mind that there are unethical, extremists on both sides.
Retrictions on smoking have been a cultural movement for over twenty years now, and it has been spurred on by success in dramatically lowering the percentage of smokers in America. More recently, the ban in NYC bars was so generally successful that the number of bar bans across the country more than doubled in just two years after NYC.
I guess I'll throw a personal experience out there, just to dispel the myth that only non-smokers like bans on smoking in bars. My aforementioned brother and his girlfriend – they smoke. The thing is, they know it's awful for their health, and they have tried, obviously unsuccessfully so far, to quit. They are both happy that they do not have to breath in even more second-hand smoke at their jobs, and they are also glad that when they go out they have to step outside to smoke, because it encourages them to smoke less.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/25/2005 00:22:02 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 00:15:16 [Permalink]
|
"Referring to smokers as cry babies was your idea of sarcasm lol?"
I didn't refer to smokers as cry babies. I referred to people who call smokers "the most inconvenienced demographic" cry babies. Tell you what, I retract the words "poor" and "Boo hoo". That was over the top.
"I suppose as was your equivocating smoking to your husband nailing you on a sidewalk?"
I didn't do that either. I was illustrating the absurdity of your statement: "confining people to their homes for engaging in a lawful activity due to personal preference is an abuse of civil rights". You didn't say "for engaging in smoking". You said "for engaging in a lawful activity".
I'm glad some of you guys are having fun with my spelling mistake of "moot" instead of "mute". Certainly it's not the first time I've made such a silly mistake, and probably won't be the last. But we al kno bad speling and pronunsiation is a sine of inteligens, rite? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/25/2005 00:26:01 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 02:27:33 [Permalink]
|
I've never been much of a smoker so my problem is that bars no longer put out cuspidors. On the plus side, about the time the Dixie cup sitting on the bar next to my beer gets about 1/3 full, smokers tend to avoid me. Alas, so do the barmaids.....
In spite of the pitiful howls of agony put forth each time a smoking ban goes into effect, not smoking has never harmed anyone. I think that if smoking is to be allowed in an establishment catering to the public, it should meet certain venelation standards. If I have to put up with the stench of cigaretts in an enclosed space, I will find myself another gin mill. If the venelation is decent, I don't mind it. I think that the laws should go in that direction.
I am an occasional smoker of cigars, although I'm as likely to chew a good portion of one as I am to smoke it.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 05:12:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
The corrolation between bungee-jumping, skiing, parachuting, etc, is just changing the subject, and here's why: Does the government regulate certain activities without outright banning them? Yes. (Such as my earlier example about having sex on a public sidewalk.) Does anybody here have a problem with that fundamental concept?
Perhaps you do. After all, public sex is effectively banned through bans on public nudity, against lewd conduct, and against disturbing the peace. Unless your idea of a "ban" requires prison time, whereas regulation might just entail fines and/or a few days in jail (in which case, running red lights isn't "banned," but just "regulated"). Of course, all that would be just a semantic argument, and thus pretty weak.quote:
If not, I suggest sticking to specific arguments as to why a ban on smoking in bars has more qualities of being bad public policy than it has of being good public policy.
Perhaps I wasn't clear: I wasn't arguing against smoking bans, I was arguing against bad arguments for smoking bans, such as the "protect smokers from themselves" arguments you put forward.quote:
However, I want to respond to this line about the banning of sky-diving, etc: "After all, reducing the convenience of these activities would reduce the cost of health insurance for everyone."
Can you first explain to me how those activities are convenient...
Is it more convenient to go to a publicly-offered bungee-jumping facility than it is to set up your own bungee-jumping equipment in your own backyard? Is it more convenient to go to a well-maintained ski resort than it is to try to convince your neighborhood that they should close the road for your local skiing pleasure? Yes, to all.quote:
...and second, can you back up the claim that they cause a rise in the cost of health insurance with numbers?
Considering the way that insurance companies pass on the cost of claims to all of their customers, it should be obvious that if fewer people had accidents due to recreational risk-taking (like my cousin's broken back while parasailing), insurance costs would be somewhat lower.quote:
The health hazards of smoking actually do have a demonstratable and widespread affect on public health.
All I'm claiming is "at least a penny." Why should I have to pay any more for health insurance because an idiot decided to try skateboarding and busted his ankle? It's not my fault that he did so.quote:
Oh, and the campaign to make smoking less convenient via price hikes and banning of smoking in various public places HAS had an affect on behavior. Since the start of those campaigns, the numbers of smokers in America has fallen from 37% to the low 20's.
Okay, do unto others... Can you support (with numbers or other evidence) the implied assertions that (A) many of the bans and tax hikes have been put into place in order to discourage smoking as a health hazard to smokers, and (B) that any person has actually quit smoking due to a ban on smoking in bars?quote:
The comparison to prohibition and slippery slope arguments have already been covered - we are not talking about criminalization of smoking.
No, we aren't. We're talking about banning smoking in bars and other public places, and you brought up the argument that doing so protects smokers from their own self-destructive behaviour. Prohibition also attempted to protect people from themselves, and it failed. Criminalizing other drugs has also failed, as you know.
So, while you'd like to decriminalize drugs, what sorts of "regulation" would you put on drug users, in order to actively discourage the practice to keep users from harming themselves and others?quote:
"these bans represent public policy (sometimes the first of its kind) to disaccomodate smokers."
Actually, they were designed to accomodate nonsmoking employees and customers.
Perfect! Then there's no reason to talk as though they were implemented in order to save the lives of smokers. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 05:38:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I referred to people who call smokers "the most inconvenienced demographic" cry babies.
Who would be more inconvenienced by a bar smoking ban than smokers? After all, not all bar patrons who don't smoke find smokers to be inconveniencing to them. Not all bar staff are non-smokers. Where are the numbers to back up the assertion (implied by your scorn) that some other demographic is more inconvenienced by smoking in bars than smokers would be if smoking is banned from bars?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 09:06:29 [Permalink]
|
I have been a smoker, but quit many years ago, so I'm not defending anyone's "right to smoke", but...quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert...
Because as I pointed out, it [a bar] is the smoker's last refuge.
No, um, that would be their private property.
You acknowledge that it is acceptable to smoke, or allow other people to smoke, on one's private property. So how about a prohibition on smoking only in bars that are publicly owned? If I own a bar where I allow smoking, and if my profits are acceptable to me even without your patronage, why would it be any of your business at all to insist I make my bar a more pleasant place for you?
Let's say I own a bar, a generally pleasant bar, except that I hire loud rock-n-roll bands, or even strippers as entertainment. Let's say you don't like loud rock-n-roll music or watching women disrobe. How would you handle this situation? (a) Just don't come to my bar? (b) Insist that my bar should be a comfortable place for you to attend, and support legislation that would prevent me providing these types of entertainment?quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
That fails to address my comment about people who have little choice over whether to work in a bar or not. For students, artists and other in certain areas of the country (usually big cities - which are exactly the type of places doing these smoking bans) the service industry is the only way to make enough money to pay for rent, and most money is in bartending.
There are unpleasant aspects to any career one might choose. It's dangerously hot at the foundry, policemen get shot at, doctors have to serve ridiculous hours as interns, linemen occasionally get electrocuted, fishermen fall off boats and drown. Those people usually go into those careers with some notion of the risks and discomforts. Maybe if working at bars is mandatory for budding actors, someone should have better informed them of the risks and unpleasantness. It seems that they chose this path, then (you) decided to advocate social change to make their options more comfortable.quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
I suggest sticking to specific arguments as to why a ban on smoking in bars has more qualities of being bad public policy than it has of being good public policy.
More regulations don't make people more free. Prohibition is bad public policy. You can open your own bar and prohibit smoking in it. This is America. That has always been your right.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
