Thanks Facist Pigs!

[CFLarsen]

...you facist nazis ...

...bunch of hypocrites and dictators...

Please don't use words which you clearly don't know the meaning of.

Why you need laws to ban smoking in bars has always been beyond me. If there's a market force in favor of it, then bars would do it. Why can't it just be left up to the establishment? It makes me uncomfortable to have the government intruding on things like this.

I don't like going to certain bars only to leave smelling like a$$, but it's ultimately up to me whether I want to patronize them or not.

You would favor that faith healers and psychic surgeons are protected by law, then?

Im cool with that, Ill make a lot more on welfare than Ive made in the last few years for sure

Somehow, I believe you.

How big are Tempe and Mesa?

Who? Never heard of them.

The majority punishing minorities they don't like with funky laws.

Which form of rule is better than democracy, then?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Shouldn't this be "lefty commie nazi fascist hypocritical terrorist dictators" ?

It's easier to say "PC c**ts."

DR

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Why you need laws to ban smoking in bars has always been beyond me. If there's a market force in favor of it, then bars would do it. Why can't it just be left up to the establishment? It makes me uncomfortable to have the government intruding on things like this.

I don't like going to certain bars only to leave smelling like a$$, but it's ultimately up to me whether I want to patronize them or not.

You exactly summed up what I wanted to say.

 

[Francesca R]

You exactly summed up what I wanted to say.

So what would your response be to my answer (below)?

Markets fail when they create externalities because the parties can shove their costs onto others without compensating them. That's why governments intervene. This does not mean they have to ban it outright—they do that because it has increasing popular support with electorates.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

This is one area where I agree with the libertarians. If you don't like smoke, stay out of bars that allow it. Government should stay out of this. But because most people these days don't smoke, they have no problem telling bar owners and their customers how to live.

I don't even smoke, but the WA smoking ban in which you also have to stay 25 feet away from any door or window is even more ridiculous. Walking through downtown now I breathe in MORE smoke because people have to go to the corners and edge of the sidewalk.

I'm so glad Seattle is so crime free that the police have time to bust out their tape measures and bust people for being a mere 23 feet from a window...

 

[drkitten]

Why you need laws to ban smoking in bars has always been beyond me.

For the same reason that we need laws to make sure that people aren't putting antifreeze in wine, or dumping raw sewage into rivers to save the cost of treatment.

Market forces do not take into account public health issues (they're another classic "tragedy of the commons").

 

[Miss Anthrope]

You would favor that faith healers and psychic surgeons are protected by law, then?

What kind of out of context argument is that?? One has nothing to do with the other.

Which form of rule is better than democracy, then?

A Republic, which is what we're supposed to live in. In a Republic the Individual is protected from mob rule. Those in the minority still have the same rights.

 

[Francesca R]

I don't even smoke, but the WA smoking ban in which you also have to stay 25 feet away from any door or window is even more ridiculous. Walking through downtown now I breathe in MORE smoke because people have to go to the corners and edge of the sidewalk.

I agree that that's bananas. But I think that it's partly at the behest of businesses who grow tired of having clients arriving at their office entrances and getting confronted by a barrage of smokers. I don't believe that this rule has any benefit to the public (and so would not be voted in) so it amounts to privatisation of public space.

 

[Francesca R]

Those in the minority still have the same rights.

Not necessarily if exercising those rights impose uncompensated costs on others. But anyway this does not discriminate against any minority. Non smokers are also banned from smoking in bars . . .

 

[Darat]

Why you need laws to ban smoking in bars has always been beyond me. If there's a market force in favor of it, then bars would do it. Why can't it just be left up to the establishment? It makes me uncomfortable to have the government intruding on things like this.

I don't like going to certain bars only to leave smelling like a$$, but it's ultimately up to me whether I want to patronize them or not.

I would say this is "market forces" in play. Could they have passed these types of law say 50 years ago? I would say no, they can pass it today precisely because "market forces" have forced this.

(I put quotes around "market forces" since it is a rather vague term and I know people do ascribe different meanings to it.)

 

[billydkid]

I'm with ya

Not only do I have to deal with the financial situation of most of my customers having lost their jobs to illegal mexican invaders, now we got a statewide no smoking policy in bars

No more bands

When tempe and mesa passed these laws, their clubs dried up and their music scenes died

Now its statewide, I may as well just go on welfare. SInce you facist nazis love to tell me how to live my life, you may as well pay for my food

I'm with you Pipe. People seem to adore a nanny state. Or at least they adore it until it starts to interfere with something they care about. and believe me, it will sooner or later.

 

[Francesca R]

I would say this is "market forces" in play. Could they have passed these types of law say 50 years ago? I would say no, they can pass it today precisely because "market forces" have forced this.

(I put quotes around "market forces" since it is a rather vague term and I know people do ascribe different meanings to it.)

"Market forces" is "one currency unit = one vote". This is quite different—one person = one vote. In other words, democracy.

ETA: To elaborate . . .

If there were no restrictions on advertising. If there were no taxes on cigarettes. If there were no restrictions on where people could smoke. If the state did not pass any laws on smoking at all except by allowing itself to be bought off by the highest bidder (market forces). What do you think would be the smoking message and the smoking situation? The market would clear but the air wouldn't because cigarette smoke would be everywhere.

 

[Francesca R]

People seem to adore a nanny state. Or at least they adore it until it starts to interfere with something they care about. and believe me, it will sooner or later.

So remove all government intervention in private decisions regardless of their effects on society, because it's a slippery slope to totalitarianism and total control?

 

[pipelineaudio]

Did you buy the road too? Bad analogy

Isn't it terrible when people tell us how to live our lives?

I mean, I bought a Mazda 6 that is capable of 160 mph, but the fascist pigs only allow me to drive it at 30 mph in towns and cities; the fastest I'm ever allowed to drive it is a pathetic 70 mph. This sucks big time. I mean, these fascists are just plain mean: if people don't like us fast drivers, then they should neither drive on the roads nor cross them as we speed through. Health and safety be damned! If I get caught going any faster, I'll be given a fine and possibly even lose my licence! Gaargh! What's this world coming to? I mean, I pay £20,000 for a car, and some jumped up little nobody wants to tell me how to drive it. I'm going nuts over this!!!

And you'll never guess what else: people dare to actually cross these roads I want to drive on! How dare they: roads is roads! They ain't paths, they have paths for people to walk on! Why do they insist on setting foot on my goddam road???!!! I even pay taxes for this road, so it's mine!!! The fascist pigs have even installed devices that can make my car stop if somebody wants to cross MY road. It makes me want to puke. Look, if somebody is dumb enough to set foot on MY road and they get hit by an innocent driver trying to enjoy himself by racing around Ayrton Senna style, then it's their stupid fault! Just like it's the stupid fault of non-smokers who breathe in MY smoke when I'm enjoying MY cigarettes in MY bar. Pah! I mean, those bar staff who don't smoke don't have to work there, do they? They can go on welfare and make just as much money! Maybe we should get some illegal immigrants in to work in these bars, then everyone will be happy!

 

[pipelineaudio]

So what would your response be to my answer (below)?

Thats ridiculous, we already HAD the market and now the rules are being changed

I like how much fun you pigs are having with this when you are talking about a place that is already suffering terribly under the weight of illegal aliens, now will be taking another big hit

Note I said "illegal" , NOT immigrant, for you lying scum that try to tie the two together

Pipelineaudio, keep the debate civil and don't resort to name calling.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Patricio Elicer

 

[Francesca R]

Thats ridiculous, we already HAD the market and now the rules are being changed

Because the market does not deal with externalities. As has been said. There's the answer to your quibble.

 

[Beerina]

Why you need laws to ban smoking in bars has always been beyond me. If there's a market force in favor of it, then bars would do it. Why can't it just be left up to the establishment? It makes me uncomfortable to have the government intruding on things like this.

Because the people's outrage can be wielded as a sword by people seeking power, and they're not gonna let this one go unused. Even many skeptics around here fall apart when it comes to politics -- if the politician is beating on the heads of certain groups just so, that sounds good to them! The concept of not picking up a club and threatening your neighbor remains, sadly, foreign to most people. "Oh," they say, "but the group picked up clubs, which legitimizes it."

But only so long as it's for things they believe in. If they don't want the government outlawing or regulating it, suddenly it has constitutional protection, they're sure of it. It must.

 

[pgwenthold]

Why you need laws to ban smoking in bars has always been beyond me. If there's a market force in favor of it, then bars would do it. Why can't it just be left up to the establishment? It makes me uncomfortable to have the government intruding on things like this.

I am very mixed on smoking bans. Before reading this group, I was totally opposed to them on the same grounds as Katana. In fact, if you will look over previous threads on the matter, you will see that I have typiferously opposed them.

However, my thinking has changed lately. Smoking bans are not needed for so that customers can sit in clean air. They are, however, justified on the grounds of worker health and safety.

Should an employee be forced to work in an unhealthy environment? Loggers do, but then, that risk is inherent in the profession. A logger who can't cut down a tree is not a logger. On the other hand, bar owners do not have to allow smoking to be bar owners. Therefore, the government can outlaw smoking to protect the workers.

We all get upset when there are deaths in coalmines, and everyone asks, should the government do more to require the employers to protect the health and safety of their employees? This is the same deal.

I agree with most of the comments here. Outlawing smoking on the grounds that it is annoying to customers unjustified. If you don't like smoke, don't go. It is my personal approach, and I will dispute anyone who thinks we should have a smoking ban because they, as customers, don't like smoke. Don't go.

However, the worker's rights issue is more difficult to argue against. Personally, my position has been swayed significantly because of it.

 

[Francesca R]

Because the people's outrage can be wielded as a sword by people seeking power, and they're not gonna let this one go unused. Even many skeptics around here fall apart when it comes to politics -- if the politician is beating on the heads of certain groups just so, that sounds good to them! The concept of not picking up a club and threatening your neighbor remains, sadly, foreign to most people.

Blowing smoke in the face of someone who doesn't want it is closer to the analogy of picking up a club than is enforcing against the activity. It's even closer to using the club on your neighbour.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Please don't use words which you clearly don't know the meaning of.

please

Somehow, I believe you.

so what clause? Whether someone is good or bad depends on how much money they make? Nice

Who? Never heard of them.

Well sorry that in your little pinner of a country you never heard of my little pinner towns. However just to help your musical education a bit: During the 90's whatever "alternative" wasn't coming from bands like Pearl-Garden-Pilots in Seattle, was coming from the "other scene" which was Tempe, including Gin Blossoms, Linkin Park, and the like

Just as in Seattle noone was from there but many made their mark there.

The town has no music scene or any significant contribution bandwise since that smoking ban.

Which form of rule is better than democracy, then?

Our system is supposed to protect the minority from the majority somewhat