Am I the only non-smoker who thinks "smoking bans" are a bunch of BS?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your arguments are all self-refuting. If this objection to secondhand smoke was really as prevalent and powerful as you claim it is, I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that there weren't numerous non-smoking establishments already.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess you're too young to have lived through it either, so it must not have occurred. Of course, the objections grew over decades as the evidence mounted that secondhand smoke does indeed pose risks and harms to others.

[ QUOTE ]
You simply cannot make an argument that a smoking ban is a solution to a real problem, if that problem is patrons who would prefer a smoke-free establishment. If this was a real problem, there would already BE a solution. Perhaps in some places there is. These bans are, by their very nature, incorrect. The only argument that isn't laughable is the health code/building code line of reasoning. I still think its wrong, for reasons that have already been explained in this thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're putting too much faith in the notion that owners would automatically widely cater to non-smoking clientele at the expense of their smoking clientele. As far as owners were concerned, for many decades, they could and did have both clienteles. I think you're also putting too much faith in the notion that the market promptly provides a solution to every chronic problem. Some chronic problems are not solved by the market for many years or many decades. The market is not an instant fix-all for everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got it backwards. You are just assuming you are correct, and then using the fact that these non-smoking places never materialized as evidence that something needed to be done. But thats not what it means at all. The fact that these places never materialized is simply evidence that your PREMISES are wrong. Non-smokers really don't care that much about being around smokers. They probably like to whine about it, but that doesn't really mean much. I whine about a lot of things, but the things I really care about are demonstrated by my actions.

I'm putting too much faith in the idea that business owners like to make as much money as they can? I doubt it. Sure, for decades they had access to both markets. But surely it isn't hard to see how I could absolutely destroy my competition if I catered to this widespread, deep and burning need that all these non-smokers have, right? I don't HAVE to do it to make a living, but why wouldn't I WANT to do it? I don't HAVE to have buffalo wings on the menu either.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're engaging in reasoning based on pure speculation to support your viewpoint. I'm relating things as they actually occurred. Perhaps strangely, my view appears to be actually less rigid than your view, because I acknowledge that we don't know what would be the outcome or balance if the bans were to be dissolved today, whereas you seem certain as to what that outcome would be.

You can't correctly guess at history or foresee the future based upon speculative reasoning alone (probably because too many variables and unknown variables are involved).

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Should we allow PRIVATE club owners to burn diesel in their clubs?

Or how about the 'easier' question...

Should we allow PRIVATE club owners to run nude in their clubs?

Hope you see the point, and can put the rest together. If not, then just do more drugs...

[/ QUOTE ]
What's wrong with private nude clubs?
I'm also confused by your use of the word "allow", it begs the question that some party has the right to impose that preference on private owners.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
This post scares me a lot.



[/ QUOTE ]

I can see how my post is scary, so allow me to take a different tact in answering ShakaZula’s question regarding why bar owners banning together and all agreeing to ban smoking would make them more money.

Because that is what the customer wants. The customer wants non smoking. I don’t understand why people are arguing that restaurants should be forced to ban smoking. They do it themselves. We don’t have smoking bans here and yet I’m not aware of a single restaurant that allows smoking. Perhaps some do, I’m just unaware of those places.

I’m only arguing ( and I think I’ve been consistent ) for bans where lazy, stupid, monopolists insist on endangering their employees. In some areas, such as poker rooms, the status quo has been breeched, but this is because poker players, as customers, are far more demanding then customers elsewhere that are subjected to the stupidity of owners that have no incentive for changing ( because they’ve been granted an artificial monopoly ). If people don’t believe me, then you simply haven’t played poker in public card rooms for the last 30 years and listened to the, some times violent, smoking wars. Casino’s should have listened to their customers 20 or so years ago, but instead, poker rooms have had little incentive to care about customers and hence the change took a long time.

Now, why would a (state granted) monopolist insist on endangering their employees and not being receptive to customers? Because they don’t have the pressure attached to them to change and adapt. If all liquor bar owners decided, because of a long ago tradition, to install fat, hairy, naked bartenders behind the bar, they would still make money, and they may even think they are making money because of this tradition. Sooner or later, these owners will adapt - I’m just saying, there is no immediate market pressure on them to do so.

Also, how do I know that liquor bar owners would make more money if some went to non-smoking? I don’t know for sure because there is no free market to determine this. This market hasn’t been free for ages. But the evidence is: 1) other non-monopolistic establishments that have traditionally allowed smoking, have now voluntarily banned it, and they are doing better than ever ( by market definition ), 2) Places where enforced smoking bans have taken place have revealed that sales in bars are actually up beginning the year after the ban took place.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Whereas I believe that indoor smoking in bars, restaurants and in office workplaces, is tyranny of the minority.

[/ QUOTE ]
No one anywhere is not consenting to being in a smoking environment when they work/go to a bar. If you want to say that government have the right to impose smoking bans that's one discussion just drop the ridiculous canard that it's an act of aggression against another.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are correct and I was mistakenly substituting "rights" for "powers".

I still think that states and local governments are entitled to utilize their powers to enact some laws and ordinances, especially when it is in keeping with the will of the majority of the people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as, e.g., slavery. Hey, the majority approved at some point, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, "some" laws and ordinances, not "all and any".

[/ QUOTE ]

So, then, which ones are up for majority rule, and which ones are not? WHat differentiates these two classes?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Powers" of the people means, what, exactly? Would it not encompass the power enact certain laws and ordinances through the state or local government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Powers, in the sense of the Constitution (at least, at the time the bill of rights was passed), means some force that needs to be restrained.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, what "powers" are reserved to the people, if those powers do not include the prerogative to make local laws?

[/ QUOTE ]

The power to overthrow the government? I don't really know or care, since I don't put much weight into what the constitution says.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, this entire discussion is a side show, since the Constitution does not create or grant any rights at all. We don't have freedom of speech only because some words written on some piece of paper say so.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe that rights are given by God, as I do, then so. Do you believe God gives us our rights? Pragmatically speaking, though, the only reason those rights are preserved for us (are not usurped by others) is because some piece of paper does say so.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they're preserved and defended because some people value them enough to act when they are threatened. Writing something down doesn't create a magical force field.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your arguments are all self-refuting. If this objection to secondhand smoke was really as prevalent and powerful as you claim it is, I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that there weren't numerous non-smoking establishments already.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess you're too young to have lived through it either, so it must not have occurred. Of course, the objections grew over decades as the evidence mounted that secondhand smoke does indeed pose risks and harms to others.

[ QUOTE ]
You simply cannot make an argument that a smoking ban is a solution to a real problem, if that problem is patrons who would prefer a smoke-free establishment. If this was a real problem, there would already BE a solution. Perhaps in some places there is. These bans are, by their very nature, incorrect. The only argument that isn't laughable is the health code/building code line of reasoning. I still think its wrong, for reasons that have already been explained in this thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're putting too much faith in the notion that owners would automatically widely cater to non-smoking clientele at the expense of their smoking clientele. As far as owners were concerned, for many decades, they could and did have both clienteles. I think you're also putting too much faith in the notion that the market promptly provides a solution to every chronic problem. Some chronic problems are not solved by the market for many years or many decades. The market is not an instant fix-all for everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got it backwards. You are just assuming you are correct, and then using the fact that these non-smoking places never materialized as evidence that something needed to be done. But thats not what it means at all. The fact that these places never materialized is simply evidence that your PREMISES are wrong. Non-smokers really don't care that much about being around smokers. They probably like to whine about it, but that doesn't really mean much. I whine about a lot of things, but the things I really care about are demonstrated by my actions.

I'm putting too much faith in the idea that business owners like to make as much money as they can? I doubt it. Sure, for decades they had access to both markets. But surely it isn't hard to see how I could absolutely destroy my competition if I catered to this widespread, deep and burning need that all these non-smokers have, right? I don't HAVE to do it to make a living, but why wouldn't I WANT to do it? I don't HAVE to have buffalo wings on the menu either.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're engaging in reasoning based on pure speculation to support your viewpoint. I'm relating things as they actually occurred. Perhaps strangely, my view appears to be actually less rigid than your view, because I acknowledge that we don't know what would be the outcome or balance if the bans were to be dissolved today, whereas you seem certain as to what that outcome would be.

You can't correctly guess at history or foresee the future based upon speculative reasoning alone (probably because too many variables and unknown variables are involved).

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to think I'm arguing about the facts. I'm not. I agree to stipulate your personal experience. I believe you that these non-smoking places never popped up in the past.

The problem is, you are taking something from that that is completely unjustified. You are choosing to read into these facts that this indicates that government-imposed bans are necessary to create change. Thats absurd. It doesn't mean that at all. It MAY mean that, of course, if you can propose some mechanism whereby the lack of bans prevents change. But you haven't done that, and I think many have done a pretty decent job of showing the exact opposite, that this change could easily be accomplished without any government intervention.

That doesn't mean that MY interpretation of the facts is correct either. Thats why we're discussing it. But I don't really need to demonstrate mine, simply show that you have done nothing to demonstrate yours. The onus should be on the one who is proposing restricting rights.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whereas I believe that indoor smoking in bars, restaurants and in office workplaces, is tyranny of the minority.

[/ QUOTE ]
No one anywhere is not consenting to being in a smoking environment when they work/go to a bar. If you want to say that government have the right to impose smoking bans that's one discussion just drop the ridiculous canard that it's an act of aggression against another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are saying.

I do believe that smoking indoors is a direct act of aggression against others. I believe that most smokers don't fully think this through, though, and that some just don't care.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whereas I believe that indoor smoking in bars, restaurants and in office workplaces, is tyranny of the minority.

[/ QUOTE ]
No one anywhere is not consenting to being in a smoking environment when they work/go to a bar. If you want to say that government have the right to impose smoking bans that's one discussion just drop the ridiculous canard that it's an act of aggression against another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are saying.

I do believe that smoking indoors is a direct act of aggression against others.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's by definition not because any person "aggressed upon" is there under the knowledge that it's allowed by the owner.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whereas I believe that indoor smoking in bars, restaurants and in office workplaces, is tyranny of the minority.

[/ QUOTE ]
No one anywhere is not consenting to being in a smoking environment when they work/go to a bar. If you want to say that government have the right to impose smoking bans that's one discussion just drop the ridiculous canard that it's an act of aggression against another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are saying.

I do believe that smoking indoors is a direct act of aggression against others.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's by definition not because any person "aggressed upon" is there under the knowledge that it's allowed by the owner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I believe aggression is not limited to being practiced on unsuspecting or unwilling participants, but perhaps that's another (deep) discussion.

I don't consider property rights to trump absolutely everything, as ACists seem to believe. To take an extreme example, a private club owner could have a "murder raffle" where all attendants knew their name could be drawn as the victim. The fact that they all attended knowingly and that the event was sanctioned by the property owner aren't enough to make it all right, in my opinion. I realize that's an extreme example and I'm just using it to illustrate that I don't believe that consensuality and ownership make everything OK - just that they make most things OK. So the principles you cite are not enough to convince me fully, and there is also the fact that smokers (and the property owner) are essentially making the place of public accomodation off-limits to all except those who wish to injure their own health and the health of others. There's something wrong and twisted about that, and I don't think it is fair to non-smokers at all.

Thanks for your thoughtful points and participation in this discussion.

[NeBlis]

murder raffles should be legal .. DUCY?