I saw the Law in New York about the TransFatty oils or something Government is telling us what we can eat now What are the limits? Rocket River
the Law of Supply and Demand says If their are enough of you a NON SMOKING Sport Bar should appear and take advantage of the situation The thing that bugs me It is not that folx want a smoke free bar. . they want THAT BAR SMOKE FREE Mind you . .they don't own THAT BAR . .and they can goto another bar Rocket RIver
Good Honest Read I don't smoke . . . . But I must admit. . .Sometimes when I drink a little .. a nice Cigar It definately added something to the night I don't do it regularly but now It is not an option . . . Heck some clubs I smell more 'TWEED' than Cigarettes Rocket River I don't think the ban will stop some places
QUESTION: Do they really have a choice OTHER THAN to be fine with it? I mean . .you goto prison for 40 yrs at 1st you were not good with the Rapes and violence but after 10 yrs. . . you fine with it Rocket River You can GET USE to anything
well, i live in new york and was pissed when the ban came out. however, unlike batman, i am not going to stop going to bars and have in fact gotten so used to it that it really isn't that big a deal. still, i am against it. for me a bar is booze and cigarettes, it's a place to let loose, to be decadent. i think compromising and letting people smoke after 10pm or so would be fine. if you are out drinking late at night, you are not engaging in a healthy activity, your choice. i also agree with those who don't see how you can ban a private business from allowing cigarettes if they and their employees all want it. i'm sorry about those who don't like smoke but they really just ought to keep their delicate constitutions out of my playground. oh and batman: And, in Manhattan at least, the city's nature does not lend itself to neighborhood pubs with regular patrons, which are my meat. The ban in New York means I no longer drink in bars there, but so what. I never enjoyed the bars there anyway and when I'm there, while I have a generally lousy time, I save a lot of money now. hmmm. methinks you need a tour guide. you just ain't hittin' the right joints. you actually can smoke in bars in new york.
are you generally of the mind that we should just default to laissez-faire economics? let the silent hand move everything in the market? that doesn't sound like you!
No it isn't but in something like these type of issue I don't rate Smoking and not Smoking up there with discrimination, etc Their is vast . .excuse me. . VVVVAAAASSSTTTT difference between allowing or not allowing smoking and allowing and not allowing minorities etc Rocket RIver
The laws of supply and demand don't always work out to the best outcome though - smoking is an externality and its costs are not appreciated by smokers and born by non-smokers so finding an optimal outcome is not necessarily going to be the default condition. Instead of finding a balance of smoking and non-smoking places, inevitably, in the absence of a background rule, smoking places dominate despite the fact that only a minority of people want to smoke.
This is what I meant, RR. Not an analogy to discrimination in any way, as I see it. The market is simply not doing what you'd suggest it should/would do. If the government believes there's a legitimate health concern, then they step in. That's the basis for all sorts of laws, including many laws designed to protect employees.
If it is a legitimate health concern, including for employees, then there shouldn't be exceptions such as cigar bars. In reality the cigar bars are such a small percentage that the anti-smoking zealots have continued to allow their existence for now. The consumers have not used their feet to affect change because its easier to give an answer in the zealots poll and have the whole thing banned than it would be to boycott establishments to force a change. But that doesn't mean the nonsmoking consumer needs government intervention. I am not against nonsmokers having more places to go without smoke. I wish they would just use the power they already have to affect change, but I guess that isn't going to happen. Alternatively I think there should be some sort of permit to allow smoking establishments. Nonsmokers don't have a right to go anywhere, IMO, and demand people not smoke. As I said earlier, if I want to open a bar called smokers, hire people who smoke, put big signs up that say we cater to smokers, I ought to be able to do that without interference from the government. And a nonsmoker ought not to be able to demand that I stop people from smoking. It's just ridiculous. I went into a cigar shop on 6th street over the summer and was told I couldn't smoke my cigarette until after 5 pm inside. That's just stupid.
I think an outright ban is unAmerican. Allow smoking as long as proper ventilation exists. The ol' if we can send somebody to the moon, then we can build a decent ventilation system that doesn't let smoke drift to other areas. If it is too expensive for most places, so be it. But at least give people a choice. Enacting an outright ban is unAmerican and it a slipperly slope to what the morality police will push for next.
I wrote anywhere and probably should have written everywhere. As in going into any possible place and demanding a smoke free environment. Right. That's what I meant.
But you do agree that there are certain places where it's "acceptable" or even "expectable" for lack of a better word, that they be smoke free, correct?
Of course there is. If fact, I didn't even have a real problem when you could only smoke in the concourse in the Galleria (you used to be able to smoke anywhere.) When they banned smoking in ALL areas of the Galleria, I felt that was excessive. When they banned restaurants from having ANY smoking section, I found that extremely excessive. When they ban smoking from every single business establishment, including bars, where you typically see people who do smoke, I find that offensive. I'm telling you, we are not far off from having non-smoking backyards, etc. And banning other things isn't far off.
In the effort to compromise there are many places I would agree to a ban. Very few of them are 'expectable.' There are many places I don't think alcohol should be consumed. More of those, in fact, that places where smoking should be banned.
....which is why having an open container will get you a ticket everywhere except for a place licensed to serve alcohol or your house. Almost the exact opposite is smoking; you're free to smoke outside as much as you please in most places or in your car - places where drinking is not permitted...anyway that's a tangent. I don't know if it is just in an effort to compromise - I mean you've got to admit that there ARE places where smoking just should not happen (refueling a jet plane, hospital operating room, etc) under any circumstances. But my point is that there is a baseline (not a costitutional or legal right mind you, but a normative-type one) to expect that some places not contain smoke or smoking, just like there are norms that prevent people from engaging in other activities in public like urinating (although that has subsequently been made illegal of course). As time progresses we draw that line in a different place.
OK. Not sure what your point is. Our standards change. Yes. A bar is not somewhere we refuel jet planes or operate on people.
