Posted on 09/24/2002 4:22:36 PM PDT by SheLion
I just got back from a five-day visit to Las Vegas, and I haven't seen so many smokers in one place since the 1970s. Judging by my own vissual survey, the majority of people in the casino sections are smokers, sitting with their ashtrays at their elbows (and ashtrays are EVERYWHERE).
And apparently the liberal smoking policies are not hurting Las Vegas as a tourist destination, since huge new hotels are going up everywhere and the crowds are thick even on weekdays in late September.
In fact, on Friday and Saturday night, the huge (more than 2500 guest rooms) hotel where I stayed was sold out. There were lines even for breakfast at the hotel's restaurants (all of which permit smoking). In fact, the restaurants and hotels along the Strip no longer even offer unbelievably low-priced hotel rooms on weekends or incredibly low-priced meals anytime as an inducement to travelers, as they did some years ago when I visited. Our ordinary breakfasts of bacon, eggs, oj, toast and coffee at the hotel's coffee shop ran close to $10 apiece, and steaks at the hotel's steakhouse were $25 to $40 a la carte. And this was by no means one of the really expensive hotels! Las Vegas is booming, both with tourists, and with new residents moving in at the rate of more than 6000 a MONTH. Guess all the tobacco smoke hasn't hurt LV one bit.
First, you are confused. Socialism favors OWNERSHIP by the community. Regulations are entirely consistent with good old capitalism. If fact, regulations are required as they enhance the structure of capitalism and make commerce more consistent and profitable.
He didn't have the right to violate that person just because he was smoking a cigarette. If anyone grabbed at me, I, too, would have the notion of striking back. Must have been some wimp to let this person do this and get away with it.
Paging Mister Smith, Mister Adam Smith, please pick up a white courtesy telephone.
Please remember you said that when the envir-nuts hit your state, and suddenly your SUV is the "auto of Satan" in their eyes, and you start having to pay extra for choosing to own one.
Logic error! In AS days, there were no pagers, no phones, no manufacturing as we know it. Steam engines were almost unknown.
Logic error! You have NO right to a SUV. Right now, SUV's have an economic advantage over cars. That is why we see so many of them rather than vans and station wagons. Station wagons were popular years ago and not that much different from SUV's of today. Vans are much more convenient for most families than SUV's but do not have this economic advantage. The "fight" is to bring equality to those regulations which have given SUV's an unfair advantage.
You pulled the above logic out of thin air; or maybe someplace where the sun doesn't shine. You tried to infer that I was touting socialism but I outed you on that one. Now you are trying for fascism. Give me a break. OTOH, give yourself a break and do some research.
To the larger portion of the general public it is no more than an annoyance.
If you want to nitpick, which is what you have been doing with almost everyone that has replied to you, we can do that.
Again, should we legislate an annoyance because a small minority is affected?
I think your right. This is getting tiring.
And I was making a play on your little joke to show that AS's writings were influenced by the environment he was in. If one lives in an oppressive environment, one perceives regulation as evil. If one lives in an open society and feels that he is part of that society and government, then he perceives the rules as benefiting society and his ability to partake in commerce. For example, we might perceive that the regulation to drive on the right side of the road should be left up to the individual if he feels that his enterprise capability would be enhanced. I would hate to meet such a situation going 70 mph on the freeway!
With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats? I guess we have no right to own a smoking restaurant, either?
The "fight" is to bring equality to those regulations which have given SUV's an unfair advantage.
While I would agree that federal regulations that treat automobiles and light trucks differently should be changed, we would probably differ on what change to make.
Station wagons were popular years ago and not that much different from SUV's of today. Vans are much more convenient for most families than SUV's but do not have this economic advantage.
Vans are considered light trucks and so they are roughly equivalent to the SUV in terms of mileage requirements and other regulations. Therefore, I would not say that the difference in fuel milage requirements and safety features alone explains the popularity of the sport utility vehicle. SUVs are more popular than vans not because or in spite of Congress but rather because they offer features people want which vans do not, such as more automobile-like handling.
Typical liberal strategy. When you can't fight, you start to slander the messenger! This discussion is about the RIGHT of government to regulate. Do you believe that government has NO right to regulate?
How did we get from the right of business owners to conduct their business as they see fit, to a total repudiation of traffic law? I think we're getting into apple and orange territory.
The government does not have rights. People have rights. Governments are granted the authority to do a limited number of legitimate things by the people.
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.