Posted on 01/06/2008 7:23:28 AM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
Either you didn’t read what I wrote or you didn’t understand it. No worries. I believe I’ve made it quite clear I would prefer the free market to create any de facto ban, not government.
Again, I’ve already illustrated the differences between alcohol and tobacco, especially as far as bans are concerned.
“The vast majority of people participating in such a thread are not here because they are primarily concerned with overreaching government; they are here because they fear losing their ability to smoke as they please.”
And how do you know this?
I don’t, but it is a logical conclusion. Many of these threads get quite emotional, and many of the people involved are smokers.
Smokers are the new lepers——and I’m a long time smoker.
Reading your posts makes me think you are very young.
Be patient——wisdom will come(along with the wrinkles).
There are many groups who oppose government intrusion, smokers are just one. Helmet laws, regulations as to what we can use for heat, light bulbs, what kind of oils we can or can’t eat, what portions we are served in restaurants, you name it.
However, I may just sit back and watch the show when they start coming after skiers, bikers, rock climbers, motor cyclist, weight, alcohol, anything they deem to be a health or safety risk, and lest I forget, your salt shakers! It will happen, and when it does, it won’t be pretty.
When health organization stop hyping junk science to inflate risks, and start exposing REAL SERIOUS risks that anyone with common sense know about but isn’t PC for them to say, we just might pay the slightest bit of attention to them. Until then, they come off, especially to young people, as the hypocrites they are.
I hear what you are saying Ditter, but I disagree. Restaurants that chose to go totally non-smoking have been hurt by these bans because the market niche they creatd for themselves was taken away from them.
There are 2 old fashioned luncheonette/sandwich shop/ice cream parlor type places that I like going to in a small town a cuple miles from me. One allows smoking and serves alcohol, the other doesn’t do either. They are across the main road from each other. Both places do a great business. The owners of both opposed the proposed smoking ban last year and the year before.
They both have their clientele and don’t want to infringe on the clientele of the other guy. When another place sought a license, neither opposed it and so the town had 3 great places to eat and everyone was happy and 2 of the 3 were non-smoking.
Well then the 3rd place decided to seek an alcohol license, remember this is a non-smoking establishment, and all heck broke loose. The other 2 owners supported the application and actually spoke in favor of it....but the busybodies got involved. That town now has a vacant building with a For Rent sign on it and the owners are doing a booming business, with an alcohol license and still non-smoking, outside of the town.
Government imposed bans on legal activities DO HURT businesses.
Why do you insist on coming onto such a thread and immediately find a need to be insulting to others?
Hmmmmm...... I wasn’t aware the wheee wheee one had been banned. Wonder what the offense was????
You’re a good woman!!!!!!
ping
When a lot of people started complaining about the smoke “most” restaurants, in an attempt to please everyone, and keep “ALL” their customers, (as I have said before) drew that invisible line on the floor and declared one side of the line was smoking and the other side was non smoking. The only customers that pleased was the smokers because the smoke was still there.
I know a few people here are, in fact, smokers. That doesn’t make them necessarily wrong, but it does open then up to criticism as to their motivation. Perhaps it isn’t deserved. There are many very good arguments against such bans, to me the most important of which is that it could potentially set precedent.
You bring up an interesting list. Many of your points I agree with (salt, light bulbs, trans fats, and so on). One, at least, I don’t - at least not entirely. My wife and I have both been hit by people talking on cell phones and apparently in a totally different world. Certainly, there are people who can’t drive worth a lick even if they’re totally focused, and there are people who can drive just fine while on a cell phone. However, the people I notice driving like idiots (and there are a ton in this area) have about a 95% chance of talking on a cell phone. I think that people talking on cell phones while driving can be far more dangerous than smokers.
This goes back to an earlier point I made about the people deciding rather than the government. Ask the voters a question about salt and trans fats, and most people are going to tell the government to stick it and get out of my kitchen. Ask the voters if they want to punish people for talking on cell phones while driving, I’d bet about 95% of the people who drive will immediately think of people who cut them off or almost hit them while talking on cell phones. I don’t necessarily have a problem with most “bans” on things like this at nothing bigger than state level (I’d prefer local) if a supermajority voted for it and there is a compelling reason to do so (that’s the tricky part). Most of the things here fall under those rules - there’s no chance 67% of people would vote to ban trans fats. (This does require the presupposition that people are generally intelligent.)
I hope I don’t come off as being so young, since people tend to take you less seriously if they can write off their disagreements with you as a product of your relative youth.
Did you ever think that it pleased the owners? Forget the smokers and the non-smokers — neither group which owns the business. Neither group put up the money and the sweat equity to open and keep going the business. What about what pleases THAT person.....the ONLY prson that counts in this equation.
We come right back to the main point here — I own the business, you do not have to come into my business, so why do you feel you have the right to tell me who my clientele should be even if you never intend to set foot in my business to begin with?
Actually, you don't, unless you know them personally. I personally know many of the people on this thread and know whether they are smokers or not. I have also known many anti-smokers (a different breed than non-smokers) who have gotten on message boards and forums and posted as "smokers" in order to discredit the smokers by being absolutely over the top jerks.
You make many good points, but once again I must ask you a question in regard to this type comment:
This goes back to an earlier point I made about the people deciding rather than the government.
What right do you, as a potential patron, have to determine the clientele of a business you do not own?
You seem to agree with voter referendum on how a business is conducted, would you agree with a referendum that determined seafood could not be served in restaurants, after all thee are many people with (possibly life threatening) allergies to seafood?
Do we need a new law for each and every little thing someone might do behind the wheel
that will cause them to break an already in existence law? Do we really need a law against kids in the car? Switching channels on the radio? Come on, if someone does any of these things and it causes them to drive recklessly, they should be pulled over and ticketed for reckless driving. NOT for..........oh say picking their nose.
But it apparently worked for the owners, didn’t it?
When Wahington, DC put in the government imposed ban soemthing like 90% of the eating establishments there were already non-smoking -— but that wasn’t enough......the whiners insisted EVERY establishment had to be that way.
You know I sympathize with your situation, but the selfishness of some people is getting down right out of hand. As the example of D.C. proves.
What about the choice of the owner who has put in the money and time to get a business going and chooses to cater to a certain clientele? Do you really have the right to tell him his clientele has to change? Are you next going to tell the seafood restaurant owner he has to change his menu because there are people allergic to seafood?
Where and when is this nonsense going to stop?
Actually, the biggest opponents of smoking bans are the people who value liberty.
Your Twinkies may be next.
We will also defend your right to Twinkies.
You’re right, I don’t know for a fact that people here are smokers. Most people acknowledge it. I can only take people at their word. I haven’t seen any obvious frauds (at least I don’t think so). Personally, in my opinion, if you have to resort to that sort of tactic then your argument is weak to begin with.
I’m sorry I didn’t answer your question before. I don’t believe I have a right to ask government at any level to interfere with the legal business operations of another citizen. I do my “voting” with my business; if I don’t like it I don’t go there. In a free society we aren’t forced to patronize businesses we don’t like (well, in most cases). Now, it isn’t totally free, as restaurants, for example, have to follow certain safety and health regulations. (You can safely assume that the food you’re eating isn’t poisoned.) People do have a right to vote on the clientele or business operations of places that they otherwise pay for with their taxes; unless a restaurant is subsidized they don’t apply. (I’m sorry I never made clear of that before.)
In general I don’t believe people need government to save them. If the people want to ban something then in most cases the free market can fix that. I just pointed out a differnt situation in which I think something is necessary and people also have no control over (distracted driving).
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.