Posted on 10/17/2003 9:51:26 AM PDT by CSM
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:37:24 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I could only laugh last April when I first heard about a study claiming that a smoking ban in Helena, Mont., cut the city
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I'm sure you were.
I rest my case.
You've got some issues, apparently, that lead you to your preposterous position on child-raising. But even for a guy with issues, this is just plain idiotic.
No it is not. Most of the world runs on this defacto standard. For purely pragmatic people, the question should be: Does giving the government the power to prevent parents from starving and torturing their children produce better or worse results for the society?
Every policy has costs, and the costs of making the government powerful enough to do this have been huge, and horrible for a huge number of children, probably more than the tiny number who are starved and tortured by their parents.
After all, the social workers have to be paid and must justify their jobs. They do not have any genetic investment in the children. Taking perfectly healthy children from good homes and placing them into the hands of molesters has happened a number of times. It is pretty clear that people who are not related by blood to children statisticly do not treat them as well. The old evil stepmother cliches have a shadow of reality about them.
Does this happen more times than the number of children tortured and starved by their parents, who have a genetic predisposition to care for them? No one keeps the statistics.
Using huge amounts of resources to solve tiny problems is a bad idea. Most of the nanny state is based on emotional appeals to instinct (the desire to care for children, for example) rather than on fact and logic.
As a matter of fact I have and I think it is a disgrace what the airport is providing for smokers.
Ever been to the Denver airport Popeye? The biggest money making establishment there is the "smoking" bar........Go figure!
So what's your point?
What do you think it was?
I'll ask you these things to ponder, and then leave you to yourself.
Look around you on this thread.
Who here really cares for your welfare and life?
Who on here is only after their own agenda and could really care less what happens to you?
When you develop lung cancer and are terminal, which of these people will look back and be able to tell you they cared for you?
Have a nice life. I hope you do okay.
So smokers smoke in enclosed places where they know there are people who are greatly bothered by the smoke, because the owner doesn't like the non-smokers???
No, I think it's harmful as well. "I personally don't care what "bothers" you any more than you care what "bothers" me."
What makes you think I don't care what bothers you? If my children are crying in a restaurant, I get up and take them outside so the other patrons can enjoy their meal. If I know something bothers you and it's within my power to fix it, generally I will.
The only one here who really cares what happens to me is me! I certainly don't need your government to tell me what is right and what is wrong for my health.
I am 53 years old and have pretty much figured out what is right for me.
When you develop lung cancer and are terminal, which of these people will look back and be able to tell you they cared for you?
When I die from the gunshot wound of a jealous husband tomorrow night, will you grieve for me?
If I am attacked and killed by an enraged elephant next weekend will you grieve for me?
If I am hit head on by a drunk driver next month will you grieve for me?
If I am skiing in Austria this winter and collide with an unforgiving tree and kill myself, will you grieve for me?
Will you grieve for me once your government has successfully removed every possible mode of danger from my life which then renders my life totally useless?
Have a nice life. I hope you do okay.
I will if I can figure out a legitimate way to keep you and your government out of it.......
Do you really care for me or are you just saying that......
If my children were crying in a restaurant, I'd do the same thing.
Unless, of course, there were a sign posted that said, "Crying Children Allowed."
If there were a sign posted that said "Smoking Allowed," and I didn't wish to be there under the conditions of the owner, I wouldn't enter the establishment.
Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp for some?
Unfortunately restaurants don't advertise whether they allow smoking or not. If they did and if the economics allowed both to exist, I would probably be fine with that and only visit the non-smoking restaurants. However, you typically don't know whether a restaurant allows smoking until you go there and most do.
I suspect it's sort of like grocery stores with alcohol. If you aren't willing to sell alcohol, you won't have enough profit to stay in business. Therefore once one store in your area starts, all of the grocery stores have to carry it to compete.
I've been in many restaurants that seemed clean and was halfway through a meal only to have a chain smoker light up behind me and ruin the experience. I've turned around and walked out of many restaurants without ever sitting down because their was too much smoke in the air.
Our favorite pizza place allows smoking. It doesn't stop us from going there. But we have often changed our minds about eating in and switched to carry out because of the smoke. Once in the middle of the meal.
I don't really know why they don't compete more on these lines, but I suspect the market forces don't allow it.
Again, like I said, there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants a right to smoke- The 9th Amendment just punts anything not in the Constitution to the States.
Again, like I said, there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants a right to smoke- The 9th Amendment just punts anything not in the Constitution to the States.
Sigh... I wonder how many times I can repeat this point before it sinks through peoples' heads: There is nothing in the US Constitution addressing this issue. Therefore, it is a local/state issue. The US Constitution does not enumerate all rights held by the people.
Given that smoking is forbidden in most places people are "required" to be, why don't people who can't stand smoke leave places they find objectionable?
Owners of bars, restaurants, etc. divide their potential clientelle into five categories:
I would expect that for many bars, the breakdown of the four groups is probably something like 60-10-15-10-5. Bar owners may decide that installing and maintaining smoke eaters is a worthwhile investment to capture the people in group (3), but setting up a separate bar for the 10% of people in group (4) isn't worth the effort. As for the people in group (5), a bar owner isn't going to want to give up 60% of his clientelle in an effort to win 5%.
It's important to note something, though. In a free market, majority does not 100% rule. Suppose that there are five bars, all of whom draw from a similar clientelle which has the 60-10-15-10-5 breakdown and none of which have smoking sections. If things split equally, bar's share of the total clientelle would be 12-2-3-0-0; unserved patrons split 0-0-0-10-10. A bar which puts in a non-smoking section would not merely see a 12% increase in business (going from being able to serve 85% of the market to 95%) but would see a 66% increase in business (going from actually serving 15% of the market to 25%. Suddenly it starts looking attractive for someone to put in a non-smoking section.
This doesn't mean other bars will follow suit. To the contrary, once the first bar puts in a non-smoking section, the next bar to do so would only see a 5 percentage-point (about 33%) increase in business (those 5 percentage points being customers won over from the other bar with a non-smoking section). Perhaps that's still enough to make the costs of a non-smoking section worthwhile; perhaps not. But people who want a bar with a non-smoking section would have at least one they could go to in an area with five.
As for those who can't stand smoke at all, in an area with enough bars, even they would probably be in luck. After all, if there are twelve bars, there must be at least one that has no more than 1/12 of the smokers; there's likely to be a bar owner who decides he just can't compete effectively with the other bars for smoking customers (who for him would be less than 5% of the total potential clientelle). Such a bar owner may decide that rather than struggle to win maybe five percentage points of smokers over whom the other bars are competing, it's easier to go non-smoking entirely and win over the 5% of the potential clientelle whom everyone else is ignoring.
Or course, the numbers are somewhat simplified and I suspect that, among potential bar clients, the percentage that can't stand smoke is probably closer to 1%. But there are a few watering holes which forbid smoking (likely as part of some other non-smoking facility).
The real problem for smokers is that all the fun places allow smoking. What they don't realize is that maybe that's because many of the fun people smoke.
They sure do! The remaining three in my area that still accomodate smokers have a sign posted right outside their doors: "This is a smoking establishment."
If smoking bothers you, I would suggest you use the yellow pages and telephone to find a restaurant that will be to your liking.
I'm a mature woman who enjoys a legal product. Why do you have a problem with this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.