|
|
#181
06-29-2007, 05:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
To the poster who didn't see a reason to be against consensual slaughter, I would say, listen to the quiet place in your heart and see what your heart says and what God says. Don't become totally tied to any ideology, even ACIsm, or you will become an ideologue which is to be too inflexible to be good. [/ QUOTE ] You know what?? I listened to that place deep in my heart and I didn't hear jack [censored]! So then I was confused because people such as yourself seem to derive such happiness from this voice in your head. I began researching how I too could hear this voice of clarity and moral certainty that you call god. After years of soul searching, reading, and talking I found the truth you are, in the end sadly, a deranged lunatic who talks to invisible men in the sky Btw .. im not an AC nor am I "tied to an Ideology" other than one that says leave me the hell alone. 
|
|
#182
06-30-2007, 10:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I\'ve Rethought My Position On Smoking Bans
As those who have read this thread are aware, I expressed strong favor for indoor smoking bans in places of public accomodation. I'm revising that now, conditionally.
IF I could have good confidence that, say, at least approximately 50% of the restaurants and bars would remain non-smoking due to the owner's decision/preference, I would support relaxing or removing the bans. It's just that I remember back before the bans, that it was pretty much 100% "Smoking" wherever you went. I'm sure that it wouldn't be that totally one-sided today, but...would there be a fairly good mix of Smoking and Non-Smoking establishments, absent any bans? The figure needn't be 50%, but there would still need to be a pretty good choice for Non-Smokers available in order for me to switch completely to the camp "up to the owner and the owner only to decide". I don't know if there is any way to predict this based on available data. I think it is important that there would have to be a good percentage of Non-Smoking establishments, for the sake of not only the patrons but also the workers. Can anyone convince me (well, to a good level of confidence, at least) that that's what would happen? Real-world statistics would probably be necessary to accomplish this, since I'm not buying the "well it only makes sense that it would be that way" type of argument (due to what I saw and experienced decades ago, when owners easily grabbed both types of clients and going out for the evening just always included breathing others' smoke). I want to be convinced that Non-Smoking establishments would not dwindle below, say, the 33% range at an absolute bare minimum.
|
|
#183
07-01-2007, 10:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve Rethought My Position On Smoking Bans
[ QUOTE ]
As those who have read this thread are aware, I expressed strong favor for indoor smoking bans in places of public accomodation. I'm revising that now, conditionally. IF I could have good confidence that, say, at least approximately 50% of the restaurants and bars would remain non-smoking due to the owner's decision/preference, I would support relaxing or removing the bans. [/ QUOTE ] Wow, this is magnanimous. "If Exxon will sell me gas for $1/gallon, I won't lobby for price controls." "If McDonalds will sell me a burger that is yummy (to my specifications) and only has 1 gram of fat, I will not ask for their menu to be forcibly determined by bureaucrats." "If banks will just give me the money, I won't rob them." What happens if the "50%" that are non-smoking go out of business? [ QUOTE ] I think it is important that there would have to be a good percentage of Non-Smoking establishments, for the sake of not only the patrons but also the workers. [/ QUOTE ] What? "Oh, we're so concerned about the health of the poor employees... well, not really, we're only concerned with 50% of them." [ QUOTE ] Can anyone convince me (well, to a good level of confidence, at least) that that's what would happen? [/ QUOTE ] No.
|
|
#184
07-01-2007, 11:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve Rethought My Position On Smoking Bans
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] As those who have read this thread are aware, I expressed strong favor for indoor smoking bans in places of public accomodation. I'm revising that now, conditionally. IF I could have good confidence that, say, at least approximately 50% of the restaurants and bars would remain non-smoking due to the owner's decision/preference, I would support relaxing or removing the bans. [/ QUOTE ] Wow, this is magnanimous. "If Exxon will sell me gas for $1/gallon, I won't lobby for price controls." "If McDonalds will sell me a burger that is yummy (to my specifications) and only has 1 gram of fat, I will not ask for their menu to be forcibly determined by bureaucrats." "If banks will just give me the money, I won't rob them." What happens if the "50%" that are non-smoking go out of business? [/ QUOTE ] Back to the smoking bans then, I suppose. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think it is important that there would have to be a good percentage of Non-Smoking establishments, for the sake of not only the patrons but also the workers. [/ QUOTE ] What? "Oh, we're so concerned about the health of the poor employees... well, not really, we're only concerned with 50% of them." [/ QUOTE ] No, as long as there would be a good mix of both Smoking and Non-smoking establishments, non-smoking bar and restaurant workers could work at the Non-Smoking establishments. It's important to have that option, not only for the customers but for the employees as well. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Can anyone convince me (well, to a good level of confidence, at least) that that's what would happen? [/ QUOTE ] No. [/ QUOTE ] I will assume you are speaking for yourself.
|
|
#185
07-01-2007, 11:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve Rethought My Position On Smoking Bans
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] As those who have read this thread are aware, I expressed strong favor for indoor smoking bans in places of public accomodation. I'm revising that now, conditionally. IF I could have good confidence that, say, at least approximately 50% of the restaurants and bars would remain non-smoking due to the owner's decision/preference, I would support relaxing or removing the bans. [/ QUOTE ] Wow, this is magnanimous. "If Exxon will sell me gas for $1/gallon, I won't lobby for price controls." "If McDonalds will sell me a burger that is yummy (to my specifications) and only has 1 gram of fat, I will not ask for their menu to be forcibly determined by bureaucrats." "If banks will just give me the money, I won't rob them." What happens if the "50%" that are non-smoking go out of business? [/ QUOTE ] Back to the smoking bans then, I suppose. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think it is important that there would have to be a good percentage of Non-Smoking establishments, for the sake of not only the patrons but also the workers. [/ QUOTE ] What? "Oh, we're so concerned about the health of the poor employees... well, not really, we're only concerned with 50% of them." [/ QUOTE ] No, as long as there would be a good mix of both Smoking and Non-smoking establishments, non-smoking bar and restaurant workers could work at the Non-Smoking establishments. It's important to have that option, not only for the customers but for the employees as well. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Can anyone convince me (well, to a good level of confidence, at least) that that's what would happen? [/ QUOTE ] No. [/ QUOTE ] I will assume you are speaking for yourself. [/ QUOTE ] There will be as many non-smoking restaurants as there are customers who would prefer to go to a non-smoking restaurant. There will be as many smoking restaurants as restaranteurs are able to find employees to work at. Why isn't that good enough for you? Why is your backup plan to this "Force others to do what I want so I can eat my steak how I want to."
|
|
#186
07-01-2007, 11:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve Rethought My Position On Smoking Bans
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] As those who have read this thread are aware, I expressed strong favor for indoor smoking bans in places of public accomodation. I'm revising that now, conditionally. IF I could have good confidence that, say, at least approximately 50% of the restaurants and bars would remain non-smoking due to the owner's decision/preference, I would support relaxing or removing the bans. [/ QUOTE ] Wow, this is magnanimous. "If Exxon will sell me gas for $1/gallon, I won't lobby for price controls." "If McDonalds will sell me a burger that is yummy (to my specifications) and only has 1 gram of fat, I will not ask for their menu to be forcibly determined by bureaucrats." "If banks will just give me the money, I won't rob them." What happens if the "50%" that are non-smoking go out of business? [/ QUOTE ] Back to the smoking bans then, I suppose. [/ QUOTE ] Right. So you aren't really offering anything. "Do what I want, or I'll use force." [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think it is important that there would have to be a good percentage of Non-Smoking establishments, for the sake of not only the patrons but also the workers. [/ QUOTE ] What? "Oh, we're so concerned about the health of the poor employees... well, not really, we're only concerned with 50% of them." [/ QUOTE ] No, as long as there would be a good mix of both Smoking and Non-smoking establishments, non-smoking bar and restaurant workers could work at the Non-Smoking establishments. It's important to have that option, not only for the customers but for the employees as well. [/ QUOTE ] But what if more than X% of the employees are non-smokers? Then some of them will be "involuntarily" subjected to smoke. You can't square your willingness to compromise with your desire to use force to help these people. If they can't help themselves, and you're only using force to stop some abuse or aggression they're suffering, why would you stop after some arbitrary number? If you could get 50% of slave freed, would you be OK with the rest remaining enslaved? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Can anyone convince me (well, to a good level of confidence, at least) that that's what would happen? [/ QUOTE ] No. [/ QUOTE ] I will assume you are speaking for yourself. [/ QUOTE ] Well, unless you can be convinced by people just making stuff up, because nobody can actually predict this.
|
|
#187
07-02-2007, 12:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve Rethought My Position On Smoking Bans
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] As those who have read this thread are aware, I expressed strong favor for indoor smoking bans in places of public accomodation. I'm revising that now, conditionally. IF I could have good confidence that, say, at least approximately 50% of the restaurants and bars would remain non-smoking due to the owner's decision/preference, I would support relaxing or removing the bans. [/ QUOTE ] Wow, this is magnanimous. "If Exxon will sell me gas for $1/gallon, I won't lobby for price controls." "If McDonalds will sell me a burger that is yummy (to my specifications) and only has 1 gram of fat, I will not ask for their menu to be forcibly determined by bureaucrats." "If banks will just give me the money, I won't rob them." What happens if the "50%" that are non-smoking go out of business? [/ QUOTE ] Back to the smoking bans then, I suppose. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think it is important that there would have to be a good percentage of Non-Smoking establishments, for the sake of not only the patrons but also the workers. [/ QUOTE ] What? "Oh, we're so concerned about the health of the poor employees... well, not really, we're only concerned with 50% of them." [/ QUOTE ] No, as long as there would be a good mix of both Smoking and Non-smoking establishments, non-smoking bar and restaurant workers could work at the Non-Smoking establishments. It's important to have that option, not only for the customers but for the employees as well. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Can anyone convince me (well, to a good level of confidence, at least) that that's what would happen? [/ QUOTE ] No. [/ QUOTE ] I will assume you are speaking for yourself. [/ QUOTE ] There will be as many non-smoking restaurants as there are customers who would prefer to go to a non-smoking restaurant. There will be as many smoking restaurants as restaranteurs are able to find employees to work at. Why isn't that good enough for you? Why is your backup plan to this "Force others to do what I want so I can eat my steak how I want to." [/ QUOTE ] I'm not convinced there will be that many non-smoking restaurants. There well might be. You may be forgetting that the smokers are the ones forcing others in their vicinity to breathe their smoke, so the onus is NOT MORE on the non-smokers than on the smokers. They're the transgressors, really. At least, that's how I see it. I don't give two hoots about having steak the way I want it but I do care if I get poisoned while eating it.
|
|
#188
07-02-2007, 12:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve Rethought My Position On Smoking Bans
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] As those who have read this thread are aware, I expressed strong favor for indoor smoking bans in places of public accomodation. I'm revising that now, conditionally. IF I could have good confidence that, say, at least approximately 50% of the restaurants and bars would remain non-smoking due to the owner's decision/preference, I would support relaxing or removing the bans. [/ QUOTE ] Wow, this is magnanimous. "If Exxon will sell me gas for $1/gallon, I won't lobby for price controls." "If McDonalds will sell me a burger that is yummy (to my specifications) and only has 1 gram of fat, I will not ask for their menu to be forcibly determined by bureaucrats." "If banks will just give me the money, I won't rob them." What happens if the "50%" that are non-smoking go out of business? [/ QUOTE ] Back to the smoking bans then, I suppose. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think it is important that there would have to be a good percentage of Non-Smoking establishments, for the sake of not only the patrons but also the workers. [/ QUOTE ] What? "Oh, we're so concerned about the health of the poor employees... well, not really, we're only concerned with 50% of them." [/ QUOTE ] No, as long as there would be a good mix of both Smoking and Non-smoking establishments, non-smoking bar and restaurant workers could work at the Non-Smoking establishments. It's important to have that option, not only for the customers but for the employees as well. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Can anyone convince me (well, to a good level of confidence, at least) that that's what would happen? [/ QUOTE ] No. [/ QUOTE ] I will assume you are speaking for yourself. [/ QUOTE ] There will be as many non-smoking restaurants as there are customers who would prefer to go to a non-smoking restaurant. There will be as many smoking restaurants as restaranteurs are able to find employees to work at. Why isn't that good enough for you? Why is your backup plan to this "Force others to do what I want so I can eat my steak how I want to." [/ QUOTE ] I'm not convinced there will be that many non-smoking restaurants. There well might be. You may be forgetting that the smokers are the ones forcing others in their vicinity to breathe their smoke, so the onus is NOT MORE on the non-smokers than on the smokers. They're the transgressors, really. At least, that's how I see it. I don't give two hoots about having steak the way I want it but I do care if I get poisoned while eating it. [/ QUOTE ] No, they aren't. The owners who allow smokers are the ones forcing others to blah blah blah, although I think there have been many posts explaining how you can't force anyone to do anything if they are on someone else's property voluntarily and they knew the rules coming in. This is a crucial point. If there is anyone to 'blame' in this situation, it is the owners who allow smoking, not the smokers. But this isn't nearly as good as a talking point, because...well, it just isn't that persuasive blaming property owners for doing things on their own property. It seems like a much greater injustice when you can lay the blame on random smokers coming into restaurants they don't own and smoking up the joint. Its more powerful, but completely dishonest.
|
|
#189
07-02-2007, 12:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve Rethought My Position On Smoking Bans
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] As those who have read this thread are aware, I expressed strong favor for indoor smoking bans in places of public accomodation. I'm revising that now, conditionally. IF I could have good confidence that, say, at least approximately 50% of the restaurants and bars would remain non-smoking due to the owner's decision/preference, I would support relaxing or removing the bans. [/ QUOTE ] Wow, this is magnanimous. "If Exxon will sell me gas for $1/gallon, I won't lobby for price controls." "If McDonalds will sell me a burger that is yummy (to my specifications) and only has 1 gram of fat, I will not ask for their menu to be forcibly determined by bureaucrats." "If banks will just give me the money, I won't rob them." What happens if the "50%" that are non-smoking go out of business? [/ QUOTE ] Back to the smoking bans then, I suppose. [/ QUOTE ] Right. So you aren't really offering anything. "Do what I want, or I'll use force." [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think it is important that there would have to be a good percentage of Non-Smoking establishments, for the sake of not only the patrons but also the workers. [/ QUOTE ] What? "Oh, we're so concerned about the health of the poor employees... well, not really, we're only concerned with 50% of them." [/ QUOTE ] No, as long as there would be a good mix of both Smoking and Non-smoking establishments, non-smoking bar and restaurant workers could work at the Non-Smoking establishments. It's important to have that option, not only for the customers but for the employees as well. [/ QUOTE ] But what if more than X% of the employees are non-smokers? Then some of them will be "involuntarily" subjected to smoke. You can't square your willingness to compromise with your desire to use force to help these people. If they can't help themselves, and you're only using force to stop some abuse or aggression they're suffering, why would you stop after some arbitrary number? If you could get 50% of slave freed, would you be OK with the rest remaining enslaved? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Can anyone convince me (well, to a good level of confidence, at least) that that's what would happen? [/ QUOTE ] No. [/ QUOTE ] I will assume you are speaking for yourself. [/ QUOTE ] Well, unless you can be convinced by people just making stuff up, because nobody can actually predict this. [/ QUOTE ] If there is a good mix of both types of establishments, the workers will be OK and some percentage will retrain (much different than MOST of them having to retrain, be poisoned, or be out of a job). The 50% figure may be high or low. If the split actually mirrors ratio in the population there shouldn't be even that problem. The thing is, though, that the percentage probably won't mirror the percentage in the population and the smokers will pollute far more than their share of air, thus claiming indoor territoty far in excess of their actual representation demographically (absent smoking bans. At least, that's my fear and expectation).
|
|
#190
07-02-2007, 01:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'ve Rethought My Position On Smoking Bans
[ QUOTE ]
This is a crucial point. If there is anyone to 'blame' in this situation, it is the owners who allow smoking, not the smokers. But this isn't nearly as good as a talking point, because...well, it just isn't that persuasive blaming property owners for doing things on their own property. [/ QUOTE ] If it was their own property, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. These owners don’t own property where they are allowed to sell hard alcohol except by fiat. Their very limited licenses can and will be stripped from them for any number of reasons. Whoever has control of the licensing, makes the rules. If anyone could set up shop and sell hard alcohol, then a free market would determine smoking v. non-smoking preferences.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
