Second Hand Smoke Scam

Fox News ^ | October 17, 2003 | Steven Milloy

[CSM]

I could only laugh last April when I first heard about a study claiming that a smoking ban in Helena, Mont., cut the city

[CSM]

"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."

You are once again stating conflicting thoughts. If this statement were true, then all restaurants in every city would serve alohol and we know that isn't the case. Every city limits its liquor liscenses to a "less than majority" percentage of restaurants. If a demand existed, then the push to allow smoking wouldn't occur. If there was a demand for non smoking restaurants then they wouldn't be pushed out of business.

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

I didn't say this. My point was that by using the government to force market activity, you decrease the number of participants in the given market. Less participants drives the cost up, caused by no decrease in fixed cost over less customers. Add to that the decrease in customers causes a decrease in tax revenues and you will see a tax increase to make up for the shortfall. Therefore, higher prices for all customers, caused by government intervention in the market.

"I support the smoking ban and I support the free market."

You absolutely can not support both. If you think a market exists for non smoking bars and restaurants, invest your own time and capital and start one. Don't expect government regulation to "level the playing field".

"All restaurants are all ready regulated by health departments. Nobody calls that socialism."

I have called it socialism and another poster has called it socialism. Given the ability for free communication and the technological advances made over the past twenty or so years, any restaurant or bar not serving a quality product will go out of business very quickly. A true free market advocate does not need government protection, the market ensures quality is all that exist.

Just like your, non smoking restaurants needed gov't. intervention to survive, only the restaurants that serve poor quality products benefitted from the government regulations. If they are not smart enough to meet the demands of the market they deserve to go out of business.

[CSM]

"depending on whether the non-smoking volume is enough to offset the higher margin liquor sales."

Your theory involving liquor driving the cost is flawed. A limited number of liquor liscenses exist in any given town or city and that number is far less than the number of restaurants. The non liqour restaurants find ways to survive all the time. Coffee shops find ways to exist all the time. If these places meet the demands of the market segment they are trying to capture, then they are successfull.

[DannyTN]

"If this statement were true, then all restaurants in every city would serve alohol and we know that isn't the case. Every city limits its liquor liscenses to a "less than majority" percentage of restaurants."

The only limits I'm aware of are to locations near churches and schools. Other than that I think anyone who applies can get one.

But not all restaurants would serve alcohol. There would be some restaurants that serve the non-smoking niche, for the die-hard non-smokers who are willing to pay a large premium to eat in a smoke free environment. It's just that the liquor supplementation causes more restaurants to be smoking than would otherwise be the case if there were not liquor profits involved.

I didn't say this. My point was that by using the government to force market activity, you decrease the number of participants in the given market.

Actually the food won't go up because the liquor supplementation will continue. It's just the associated smoking that goes away. To the extent that smokers will stop eating because they can't smoke while doing so, then yess some participants may drop out.

If you and someone else called health regulations socialism, then you are just wrong. Why does every communtiy have such regulations? Because no one wants to be the test subject who died from eating at the bad restaurant for your version of the free market to work. That's why they all have health codes.

[DannyTN]

"The non liqour restaurants find ways to survive all the time. Coffee shops find ways to exist all the time. "

Of course they do. McDonalds has found a non-smoking niche. But the game is still weighted in favor of smoking.

[nmh]

Haven't heard any traditional doctors refuting it either.

[CSM]

"The only limits I'm aware of are to locations near churches and schools. Other than that I think anyone who applies can get one."

OK, this statement alone tells us that you are not at all familiar with what you are trying to address. All city councils limit the number of liquor liscences and when a bar or restaurant is sold the liscence alone can bring $100k.

"Actually the food won't go up because the liquor supplementation will continue."

Another clue you know not what you speak! Less customers (non smokers will find alternative areas to gather), the replacement customer base will drink less, they will not stay as long as the previous base (loss of regular customers that go every day to the watering hole and spend significant money). These changes in the customer profile are directly caused by government intervention and will drive the average customer spend down while fixed costs remain constant. Therefore driving everyone's prices up.

"If you and someone else called health regulations socialism, then you are just wrong. Why does every communtiy have such regulations?"

Any government intervention into the free market is socialism. The degree of acceptable socialism is the question. You find a large degree of socialism appropriate to allow the government to create markets and eliminate free trade. Imagine, if the government didn't have the health requirements, then I could start a business that would create an association and certification rating restaurants. I could charge them to be members and provide periodic inspections to ensure certification. I would be willing to bet that each of these restaurants would be inspected more often than they currently get inspected. Therefore ensuring to the patrons greater assurances of cleanliness and other standards.

Think of the AAA rating of hotels and you might get an idea of how the free market could provide the same services at greater efficiency than the government.

What do you do for a living? I would guess by the tone of your responses that it has nothing to do with the business world and certainly not as a business owner yourself.

[CSM]

"But the game is still weighted in favor of smoking."

The game is not weighted, the market is. You seem to think that by being successful in meeting market demand, some business has an unfair advantage and needs the government to take that advantage away. This ensures even the normally weak business is competitive. Nothing like a back door way of getting to "from each accoreding to his ability, to each according to his need".

[DannyTN]

"You seem to think that by being successful in meeting market demand, some business has an unfair advantage and needs the government to take that advantage away. This ensures even the normally weak business is competitive. "

It's not about fair or unfair or weak versus strong. Weak restaurants will still go out of business.

Nothing like a back door way of getting to "from each accoreding to his ability, to each according to his need".

Labeling everything socialism instead of debating on the merits is the same tactic the leftists use when they label everything Nazism or McCarthism.

[CSM]

"Labeling everything socialism instead of debating on the merits is the same tactic the leftists use when they label everything Nazism or McCarthism."

I haven't labeled everything socialism. I have labeled government interference in the market, to create a "level playing field" socialism. That is what it is. Prove to me that it isn't!

The sure fire admission to losing an argument is name calling, specifically calling a fact based argument the same tactic of the left is all you seem to have left.

Why not address post #306 and 307 together, the responses were not independant of each other, just different comments supporting the same free market support arguments.

Once again, what do you do for a living? The answer to that question may help me understand the reference from which you are basing your arguments.

[DannyTN]

Once again, what do you do for a living? The answer to that question may help me understand the reference from which you are basing your arguments.

I own a medical business that was just shut down unfairly by Federal regulators. So if anyone has the right to gripe about big government and excessive regulations, it's me.

[CSM]

I have to admit that your answer is very shocking to me. I am truly perplexed at your support for gov't intervention to "level the playing field". I have no response, I guess if you still support it, even after reaping the "benefits", then there is no convincing you that the free market is the most beneficial of the two choices.

Good luck getting back on your feet.

[DannyTN]

"I have labeled government interference in the market, to create a "level playing field" socialism. That is what it is. Prove to me that it isn't! "

All governments including free capitalistic ones, define and enforce the rules of the marketplace. Defining an additional rule by itself is not socialism.

The following definition is from dictionary.com so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm) n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

The smoking ban does not change ownership nor do other health regulations. Therefore it is not socialism. And if by your definition it does, then you are already under socialism as were the original colonists. Welcome to reality. However I will admit that the combined weight of government regulations does move us closer to it.

[DannyTN]

"Good luck getting back on your feet. "

Thanks.

The reason I support it, is that it is hard to avoid smoking envirnoments. It is better, far better than it was 15 years ago, when most workplaces allowed smoking.

That changed when the federal government banned smoking from it's buildings. And many companies followed suit. Why they needed the feds to lead, I don't know. But I remember working in a smoked clog building. And it's much easy to say "just go work someplace else", than it is (or was) for people to do.

[CSM]

OK, let's put the entire definition down:

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Government regulations interfering with the market is the same as "governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" and "a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state". To add to that "a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done" is synonomous with the "level the playing field" actions taken by the government.

The government is imposing regulations on private property that severly hinders that property owner's ability to use it for the purpose for which it was purchased. By changing the law after the purchase of property, issuance of liqour liscense, retro work to improve air quality, etc. The government is controlling the productive potential of that property.

Would you recognize socialism if it bit you in the nose? We certainly have moved from capitalism closer to communism and that is covered in your definition as well.

[CSM]

"The reason I support it, is that it is hard to avoid smoking envirnoments. It is better, far better than it was 15 years ago, when most workplaces allowed smoking."

It is much harder to find a smoking environment than it is to find a smoke free environment. All places that you may be required to frequent are smoke free, via federal mandate.

"That changed when the federal government banned smoking from it's buildings. And many companies followed suit. Why they needed the feds to lead, I don't know."

Because the feds passed legislation to change their behavior, if it was such an issue the employees should have spoken up to have their voices heard and to have smoking better regulated privately. Since they didn't speak up then only one of two things is possible either 1) the issue wasn't as bad as the government wants us to believe and only the small minority was bothered by it or 2) the group of people that were bothered were either to weak or lazy to speak up and needed the government to do their bidding.

Either one of the 2 options is a frightening limit to use of private property.

[headsonpikes]

Thank you for your eloquent paraphrase.

You're welcome. ;^)

[DannyTN]

"Government regulations interfering with the market is the same as "governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" and "a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state". "

It's not the same. It might restrict your right of ownership in one regard, but that is still a long way from "government ownership". And if so, then there has never been a capitalist society anywhere.

"The government is imposing regulations on private property that severly hinders that property owner's ability to use it for the purpose for which it was purchased. By changing the law after the purchase of property, issuance of liqour liscense, retro work to improve air quality, etc. The government is controlling the productive potential of that property. "

In the case of restaurants "severly hinders" is an exageration. In the case of bars, the smoking ban might be problematic, but I suspect it won't be.

While I'm sypathetic that any new regulation can adversely impact businesses. Most of your examples are not that severe of an impact as to "control the productive potential" of the property. Impact it a little yes, but not control. And certain licenses and fees predate the constitution.

Even so, does the fact that a regulation will impact a business necessarily preclude the issuance of that regulation. Of course not. Otherwise the Do-Not-Call list would be DOA for fear of hurting the telemarketers. Regulatory risk is always going to be a risk in a capitalistic society. It's not one is a socialist system.

[SheLion]

Great photo! And I don't see ONE butt!!!

[DannyTN]

"Because the feds passed legislation to change their behavior, if it was such an issue the employees should have spoken up to have their voices heard and to have smoking better regulated privately. Since they didn't speak up then only one of two things is possible either 1) the issue wasn't as bad as the government wants us to believe and only the small minority was bothered by it or 2) the group of people that were bothered were either to weak or lazy to speak up and needed the government to do their bidding. "

No that's just it. AT that time, the feds didn't pass anything other than a ban on smoking in federal government buildings. They didn't force anything on businesses.

Prior to that, I think businesses viewed it as a person's right to smoke, since the federal government allowed it, they were immune for allowing it too, regardless of how adequate the ventilation system was.

After the Feds changed thier policies, businesses were afraid of the liability of allowing smoke in the workplace and began to go smoke free.

The feds didn't pass any laws affecting businesses, but the by their example they changed the legal landscape.

[CSM]

"It might restrict your right of ownership in one regard, but that is still a long way from "government ownership". "

The government restricting the right of ownership is the same thing as "government ownership". If you can't see that the one who controls the property owns the property then you are clearly never going to understand the impact to our economy that these regulations have. The only way for the government to enforce any of the regulations is through the force of a gun. They will only be able to enforce the smoking ban with force, therefore they have taken the use of private property with force.

"In the case of restaurants "severly hinders" is an exageration. In the case of bars, the smoking ban might be problematic, but I suspect it won't be."

Your opinion and suspicion does not define "severly hinders". The property owner gets to define it. How about the pre ban smoke free restaurants, they created a niche business and may have been doing very well. The ban eliminates their niche, therefore "severly hindering" their use of their property.

"Most of your examples are not that severe of an impact as to "control the productive potential" of the property. Impact it a little yes, but not control. And certain licenses and fees predate the constitution."

Impacting a business even a little, doesn't allow it to reach it's most profitable potential. Therefore the government regulation does "control the productive potential" even if "just a little" by your definition. Could be that the margin was very small to begin with and that "little impact" is just enough to eliminate the margin. The government has now impacted that business by eliminating it. The "potential profitibality or use" should be left to the property owner to define, they took the risk, made the investment, then they should reap the reward.

Liscences and fees didn't predate the constitution. Our country didn't exist prior to a constitution. All liscences and fees can only exist after the recognizition of private property in the constitution.

"Otherwise the Do-Not-Call list would be DOA for fear of hurting the telemarketers. Regulatory risk is always going to be a risk in a capitalistic society. It's not one is a socialist system."

I do think the "do-not-call" list is an infringement and is unconstitutional. Once again, the people to weak and lazy to handle the phone call need the government to do their work for them. Your final sentence is reversed.

Your really need to look at the big picture and understand that each incremental step hurts our nation. Soon, some of us will shrug, let's see what happens then!