Second Hand Smoke Scam

Fox News ^ | October 17, 2003 | Steven Milloy

[CSM]

"I don't really know why they don't compete more on these lines, but I suspect the market forces don't allow it."

By your previous anti smoking posts on this thread, I can now see you would prefer to eliminate the free market in favor of government control. Hmmmm, what side of the republic are you on?

[CSM]

"I think we'll see smoking become pretty much illegal in the next decade or so.

Thank god."

Be prepared for a major increase in the taxes that would have to be made up in state budgets. What taxes would be increased to make up for the billions of dollars taken from smokers?

[CSM]

"If I do nothing else here in The People's Republik of Kookiefornia this year, I plan to get Stan-the-Sham Glantz defunded."

I wish you luck, good sir!

[Publius6961]

Can anyone post a study where it says "secondhand smoke is healthy"?

Not to worry...
By the time you get to Jr High, you will learn more compelling debating techniques.

[DannyTN]

"By your previous anti smoking posts on this thread, I can now see you would prefer to eliminate the free market in favor of government control. Hmmmm, what side of the republic are you on? "

Not in general, but when the free market creates situations where millions of non-smoking Americans find themselves regularly subjected to unhealthy smoke in the work place and in public places. Then I say regulate it.

There are a lot of people who would like to discount concerns of non-smoker and say non-smokers have a choice. But if that's really true, then why is there so much demand for the regulation?

It's because even someone like me who owns his own business and therefore has a "non-smoking" workplace and only orders takeout from smoking restaurants, still runs into smoke so frequently that I've come to the conclusion smoke is so pervasive in society that the only way to avoid it is to regulate it.

[CSM]

Danny, You have everything reversed. The free market doesn't "create situations" it serves the preferences of its potential customers. It is these customers that create the situation that determines the market.

The non smokers do have a choice. If they do not have a restaurant that is smoke free they can chose to risk their own capitol and start one. If you think a demand exists for such a restaurant then why don't you take the chance and start one? You seem to think that the "smokers" are controlling the market and that given a choice the larger percentage of non smokers would frequent a place that doesn't allow smoking. If you really think this put your money where your mouth is. If you are not willing to do so, then you are showing the true nature of your argument.

Let me give you an example. A new restaruant opened up in my area that was actually a pretty nice place. It was doing very well and after about a month I decided to go there. I went in and requested a smoking table. They told me that they were smoke free. I said fine (choice of owner and all) and decided to give it a try anyway. About a month later some of my friends decided to meet there after work. I then found out that they changed their smoking policy to allow for it at the bar. They told me that they weren't getting an after work HH crowd that they wanted so they decided to change their policy. About a month later they changed to allow for smoking in the dining area.

They let their customers decide and eventually went from non smoking to allowing for smoking. Now imagine if they would have planned for smoking from the beginning. They would have been able to install the appropriate air cleaners at a much cheaper cost during the initial construction then by installing later.

If you are not willing to invest your own money and time into a non smoking restaurant, then you show that only the weakest of our nation require the government to do their bidding through legislation that would be enforced by the barrel of a gun.

[Clemenza]

The American colonies did it long before.

Smoking bans in colonial America were largely religious in nature. The Quakers have always banned smoking and I believe Pennsylvania had laws against smoking prior to independence.

[DannyTN]

If you believe it's that easy for non-smokers to avoid smoking environments, then why do you think so many non-smokers favor regulation?

You must think we are all just mean hearted jerks out to control your life just for the preverse joy of it, with no life of our own and nothing better to do than to mess with yours.

[Pagey]

BUMP

[qam1]

It's the nitrosoamines, folks.

Can You Please at least make an attempt to think and research for yourself instead of just repeating propaganda.

From http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/f-w00/nitrosamine.html

Nitrosamines in Food, Body Fluids, and Occupational Exposure

• Fried bacon

• Cured meats

• Beer 

• Nonfat dry milk 

• Tobacco products 

• Gastric juices 

• Rubber products 

• Rubber manufacturing 

• Metal industries 

• Pesticide production and use 

• Certain cosmetics 

• Certain chemical manufacturing

So let me get this straight you are afraid of and want to ban exposer to SHS in bars because of Nitrosamines yet beer contains Nitrosamines. HUH?

BTW are you a vegetarian? Because as you can see there are Nitrosamines in meat,

Oh wait a second that doesn't matter because YOUR OWN BODY MAKES NITROSAMINES IN YOUR STOMACH.

try again but it won't matter because

There is NOTHING, ZERO, NADA, ZIP in second hand smoke that you are not exposed to on a daily basis from other sources.

[CSM]

"If you believe it's that easy for non-smokers to avoid smoking environments, then why do you think so many non-smokers favor regulation?"

Any individual can invest their own time and capitol and start a non smoking restaurant or bar without the government legislating all private property to be smoke free. If you feel such a market exists, why don't you make the investment? Why must you have the government legislate to your way of life for your convenience?

Any place that requires that all members of the public must use the facility should be smoke free, non smokers would not have a choice to avoid such a place.

Explain something to me, why in a domed sports stadium, at a motorcycle race or monster truck event is smoking banned? Why would a non smoker, who is clearly concerned about their health, sit in an indoor facility that fills with vehicle exhaust? Why would that same non smoker complain about a lit cigarette and still purchase a ticket to sit in exhaust fumes? They accept the more dangerous toxin into their lungs without any question of the risk and reject a much lesser threat with all question of risk.

My theory is that the smoking demonization has created an absence of logic!

[DannyTN]

"Any individual can invest their own time and capitol and start a non smoking restaurant or bar without the government legislating all private property to be smoke free."

Yes, well there's obvious demand and evidenced by the legislative push. So why don't we see a lot of smoke free places? In fact why aren't they the norm? It appears that it's not a niche that very many can effectively compete in.

Just like the example that was stated earlier about the restaurant that added smoking to the bar and then to the restaurant. Restaurants that don't sell liquor are at a big disadvantage to those that do. A restaurant can subisidize it's food operations with liquor sales. But to compete in liquor sales, you need to allow smoking.

Apparently enough non-smokers aren't willing to pay substantially more for the smoke free environment, or more likely they don't make the association as to that's why the price is higher. There are "family" restaurants out there, but they are few.

Same thing with Grocery stores and liquor. There was a chain here in Nashville, that refused to sell liquor. My family would have shopped there, but they were too far away. Within 1 week of the founder's death, the board overrode his wishes and started selling liquor in order to be "competitive".

The free market is driven by profit and will force competitors with unprofitable practices out. Unfortunately there is more profit in allowing liquor sales and smoking than in creating a smoke-free environment. And that's why you see very few non-smoking establishments.

Don't assume an absence of logic.

[DannyTN]

See post 294 on my theory of why the market doesn't support more non-smoking restaurants.

[CSM]

"Yes, well there's obvious demand and evidenced by the legislative push. So why don't we see a lot of smoke free places? In fact why aren't they the norm? It appears that it's not a niche that very many can effectively compete in."

Read what you wrote. Demand is not equaled by legislative push. Lack of demand requires legislative push to change the market through government intervention. If you can't understand this then you should sign up with minnie for an economics course. Any government intervention into the dynamics of the market is a reduction in free trade, therefore it damages a market and moves it from free to government controlled. A government controlled market exists only in socialistic or communistic environment and it fails everytime!

"Apparently enough non-smokers aren't willing to pay substantially more for the smoke free environment, or more likely they don't make the association as to that's why the price is higher."

So by driving the prices up at all establishments, this will make the non smokers happier? I don't get that as logic, sounds more like the level the playing field to make the weak competitive argument. Socialism in practice again.

"The free market is driven by profit and will force competitors with unprofitable practices out. Unfortunately there is more profit in allowing liquor sales and smoking than in creating a smoke-free environment. And that's why you see very few non-smoking establishments."

And here you contradict your anti free market statements above. Which is it, do you support a free market or do you support legislative actions to control the market? If you support the free market, then you must oppose the smoking ban. If you support the smoking ban, then you must oppose the free market and support government control of market forces. Government control of the market is Socialism, think of your answer carefully.

[headsonpikes]

And so because cheap b*stard non-smokers have no principles, they conspire with socialist control-freaks in the legislatures and city halls to have their way.

Thank you for clearing up this matter.

[Judith Anne]

That is an absolutely wonderful post that deserves to be read and re-read. Thanks. ;-D

[DannyTN]

"Demand is not equaled by legislative push. Lack of demand requires legislative push to change the market through government intervention."

No I don't think there is a lack of demand. I think restaurants are pushed into allowing smoking to capture the higher profit liquor sales. And if you don't do it, you are pushed out of business.

But I think you are right that unbundling food and liquor sales will drive up food costs some.

I support the smoking ban and I support the free market. You can't label all government regulation as socialism. All restaurants are all ready regulated by health departments. Nobody calls that socialism. And I doubt that there is any state in the union that doesn't regulate them, although there is no federal requirement that I'm aware of that forces them to.

[DannyTN]

"And so because cheap b*stard non-smokers have no principles, they conspire with socialist control-freaks in the legislatures and city halls to have their way. Thank you for clearing up this matter. "

Thank you for your eloquent paraphrase.

But unfortunately, I think that's the case. It's a game theory scenario tilted in favor of smoking. An individual can choose to go to a non-smoking restaurant, but until the masses of non-smokers insist on non-smoking restaurants, he will have to pay a significant premium. And even if the masses insist, they may still have to pay some premium, depending on whether the non-smoking volume is enough to offset the higher margin liquor sales.