Party of free choice???

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Vic
I suggest you look back on the thread again. You said "all laws" blah blah, and then when I pointed out that assertion was wrong, you accused me of being an anarchist and not knowing the difference between laws and regulation

Blah blah is right, as that is an incomplete quote. I didn't merely say "all laws", I said:

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Almost all laws are a balancing test between compromised individual liberty and the common good.

I tend not to speak in absolutes as it usually bites you in the ass. You pointed out a few criminal laws as if I had asserted that every single law required legislators to deeply consider a balancing test. I don't think we need to go to committee to see if raping a 4 year old should be illegal. Fact is, criminal laws make up a tiny fraction of statutory law. The overwhelming central focus of legislation deals with regulatory and non-criminal issues, which do require, in almost every case, a balancing of the interests between the various affected parties.

The anarchist statement was a rhetorical comment on the slippery slope argument invariably raised every time any legislation is proposed, and was not intended as a personal insult. Sorry if you took offense.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic
I suggest you look back on the thread again. You said "all laws" blah blah, and then when I pointed out that assertion was wrong, you accused me of being an anarchist and not knowing the difference between laws and regulation

Blah blah is right, as that is an incomplete quote. I didn't merely say "all laws", I said:

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Almost all laws are a balancing test between compromised individual liberty and the common good.

I tend not to speak in absolutes as it usually bites you in the ass. You pointed out a few criminal laws as if I had asserted that every single law required legislators to deeply consider a balancing test. I don't think we need to go to committee to see if raping a 4 year old should be illegal. Fact is, criminal laws make up a tiny fraction of statutory law. The overwhelming central focus of legislation deals with regulatory and non-criminal issues, which do require, in almost every case, a balancing of the interests between the various affected parties.

The anarchist statement was a rhetorical comment on the slippery slope argument invariably raised every time any legislation is proposed, and was not intended as a personal insult. Sorry if you took offense.

Blah blah blah backpedaling.

Tell ya what. Make your little kneejerk ban, pretend to yourself that you're doing something to help when you're really just jumping on the bandwagon of the latest moral authoritarian agenda, that you're the big smart hero when you're really just being immature and selfish, and watch the smoking tents go up in the parking lots and nothing change about smoking. I don't care, I don't smoke. I'm just interested in doing something that actually works instead of just being one of the kneejerk bleating sheep.

One of these days, I would hope that the moral authoritarian crowd will learn that government can no longer regulate something once it's been outlawed. Too much to hope for, I am sure.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Oh, and I know Mormon's (and Muslims and Jews and Christians and Atheists) who drink, so that doesn't get mama off the hook. Sorry.

Standard joke when we lived in Utah went:

Why do you never take one Mormon fishing?

Because he'll drink all your beer.

The explanation was that you always take 2 or more Mormons fishing

That way, they'll be worried that one of the others will turn them in,
and they'll leave your beer alone...

Jack Mormon can drink...

FYI: a "Jack" Mormon is by definition a non-practicing Mormon. It means a sympathizing non-member.

And the irony of sirjonk's little attack on my mother is that she is rigidly devout. Except for one time when someone spiked the holiday egg nog, she has literally never drank a drop of alcohol in her whole life. I remember when I was a kid that her biggest vice was the occasional Dr. Pepper. I kid you not.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Robor
Are you saying smoking bans make owning a restaurant more risky? If so I say you're wrong. I live in FL and smoking is banned in restaurants/bars that make < 10% from food. That pretty much includes all restaurants and excludes most bars. Neither are suffering from the ban that went in place years ago. The places that want to be considered 'bars' do so and attract the smoking and younger crowd. Restaurants are smoke free but allow it on patios. In both cases most places around here are packed.

What is wrong with putting an issue like banning indoor smoking to a vote and letting the people decide? I'm a non-smoker and I voted for the ban. I'm married hetro and I'd vote against any 'defense of marriage' law because it's stupid. Gay people marrying doesn't affect me or my spouse or our marriage.

No, I was saying that bars have demonstrated the ability to make this decision on their own under pressure from their actual patrons.
Here in Oregon, we have no smoking ban in bars (and ONLY bars and taverns are exempt, smoking has been banned in restaurants, stores, and offices since 1972 IIRC), and roughly half the bars are voluntarily non-smoking. Those that do allow smoking are required to install, at their own expense, high-end "smoke eater" ventilation systems.

FYI: that's how REAL progressive liberal politics work.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic
I suggest you look back on the thread again. You said "all laws" blah blah, and then when I pointed out that assertion was wrong, you accused me of being an anarchist and not knowing the difference between laws and regulation

Blah blah is right, as that is an incomplete quote. I didn't merely say "all laws", I said:

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Almost all laws are a balancing test between compromised individual liberty and the common good.

I tend not to speak in absolutes as it usually bites you in the ass. You pointed out a few criminal laws as if I had asserted that every single law required legislators to deeply consider a balancing test. I don't think we need to go to committee to see if raping a 4 year old should be illegal. Fact is, criminal laws make up a tiny fraction of statutory law. The overwhelming central focus of legislation deals with regulatory and non-criminal issues, which do require, in almost every case, a balancing of the interests between the various affected parties.

The anarchist statement was a rhetorical comment on the slippery slope argument invariably raised every time any legislation is proposed, and was not intended as a personal insult. Sorry if you took offense.

Blah blah blah backpedaling.

Tell ya what. Make your little kneejerk ban, pretend to yourself that you're doing something to help when you're really just jumping on the bandwagon of the latest moral authoritarian agenda, that you're the big smart hero when you're really just being immature and selfish, and watch the smoking tents go up in the parking lots and nothing change about smoking. I don't care, I don't smoke. I'm just interested in doing something that actually works instead of just being one of the kneejerk bleating sheep.

One of these days, I would hope that the moral authoritarian crowd will learn that government can no longer regulate something once it's been outlawed. Too much to hope for, I am sure.

Of course you don't care. 30000 posts = you don't leave your computer, so don't have to deal with smoke. Correcting your misquote != backpedalling. Blah blah = your best argument thus far.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Of course you don't care. 30000 posts = you don't leave your computer, so don't have to deal with smoke. Correcting your misquote != backpedalling. Blah blah = your best argument thus far.

Ooooh... the old post count attack. Like I've never heard that one before. It doesn't take much time to make 11 PPD. In fact, I usually only post from work. It's just a multi-tasking distraction for me most of the time.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Robor
Are you saying smoking bans make owning a restaurant more risky? If so I say you're wrong. I live in FL and smoking is banned in restaurants/bars that make < 10% from food. That pretty much includes all restaurants and excludes most bars. Neither are suffering from the ban that went in place years ago. The places that want to be considered 'bars' do so and attract the smoking and younger crowd. Restaurants are smoke free but allow it on patios. In both cases most places around here are packed.

What is wrong with putting an issue like banning indoor smoking to a vote and letting the people decide? I'm a non-smoker and I voted for the ban. I'm married hetro and I'd vote against any 'defense of marriage' law because it's stupid. Gay people marrying doesn't affect me or my spouse or our marriage.

No, I was saying that bars have demonstrated the ability to make this decision on their own under pressure from their actual patrons.
Here in Oregon, we have no smoking ban in bars (and ONLY bars and taverns are exempt, smoking has been banned in restaurants, stores, and offices since 1972 IIRC), and roughly half the bars are voluntarily non-smoking. Those that do allow smoking are required to install, at their own expense, high-end "smoke eater" ventilation systems.

FYI: that's how REAL progressive liberal politics work.

Sounds like the smoking laws in Oregon are similar to what we have here in Florida. I don't know about the requirement for exempted places to install 'smoke eaters' though. My best guess would be they aren't required in FL because in my limited experience the places that do allow smoking are *very* smoky. It seems like the bars here that make sure they are < 10% income from food deliberately cater to smokers so that might explain it. I don't go to them (as others suggest).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Robor
Sounds like the smoking laws in Oregon are similar to what we have here in Florida. I don't know about the requirement for exempted places to install 'smoke eaters' though. My best guess would be they aren't required in FL because in my limited experience the places that do allow smoking are *very* smoky. It seems like the bars here that make sure they are < 10% income from food deliberately cater to smokers so that might explain it. I don't go to them (as others suggest).

The smoke eaters work very well here. The bars that allow smoking rarely seem smoky. You'll still get it on your clothes, of course, but IMO it's not unpleasant unless you're right next to a smoker.
I know what you're saying though. I was in Montana a while ago, where they have no ventilation requirements, and the bars there were not only very smoky but STANK. Like nasty old ashtray. I'm certainly sympathetic to that situation.

And yeah, I have found that the best way to avoid smoky bars is to look for places that focus more on food and/or music. Diners and musicians don't like smoke. One of my fav establishments, well-known for its blues, went non-smoking a few years ago under musician pressure. While pool halls or your local watering hole are much more likely to not only allow smoking, but actually cater to smokers. After all, those are their customers.
I need only go a few miles across the river into Washington state and see how that has worked. Not the smoke-free utopia that some would want you to believe. At best, they put a tent in the parking lot for the smokers, while the establishment itself still reeks from years of smoke. Usually though, the smokers crowd around the door, forcing guests to have to go through a gauntlet of smoke, and the 25-foot ban is never enforced.

 

[m316foley]

So whatever happened to the idea of: If you don't like a place, don't go there? I mean, it's pretty simple idea in my opinion. If you don't like your work environment, don't work there. Anyone else find it ironic that some states are increasing the tax on cigarettes to help fund public schools? I mean really. You can sugarcoat things any way you want, but when it gets down to it, the people for the smoking-bans are just accepting the sugarcoated poop. How do you plan on raising money when cigarettes are gone, because no one can afford them? Tax alcohol? Sure. I mean, who likes drunk drivers? I think we'll do that. We'll raise the tax on every liquor bottle three dollars. We'll raise the tax on a beer one dollar. It'll continue to go up. What happens then, when people stop drinking because the price is too high? Hey, we need more money. Let's go ahead and raise the taxes for people with compact cars. Afterall, they're saving all that money on gas. They can afford it. The people with large SUVs need the tax break. Afterall, if you're making payments on a $50,000 escalade, you're going to need it.

I've boycotted restraunts, bars, and clubs that don't allow smoking. I refuse to go to DC to a club now, when I can stay in Virginia, save gas, and smoke my cigarettes as I please. I plan on quitting one day, but forcing smokers to quit is not the way of doing it.

Really, when does it stop? I know my father said he'd quit when cartons got to $10 a piece. They're now at $30 for name brands, but you can get off brands for $15 a carton. Better yet. You can order them online and overseas. After paying all the tariffs, you're still hitting only $15 for a carton of name brand cigarettes. I wonder who's government this is supporting?

Smoking is definitely on it's way out and smokers are definitely becoming a minority. I won't deny that. However, the government is getting stronger and stronger (that may not be a bad thing), but when you start giving up certain liberties for certain false securities, you're playing with fire.

EDIT: Also, does anyone have any articles on how banning smoking has increased revenue for businesses? I haven't seen any for the DC area, but I really didn't look too hard either. Maybe this is a contributor to the economy going down?

Just my $0.02

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: m316foley
So whatever happened to the idea of: If you don't like a place, don't go there? I mean, it's pretty simple idea in my opinion. If you don't like your work environment, don't work there. Anyone else find it ironic that some states are increasing the tax on cigarettes to help fund public schools? I mean really. You can sugarcoat things any way you want, but when it gets down to it, the people for the smoking-bans are just accepting the sugarcoated poop. How do you plan on raising money when cigarettes are gone, because no one can afford them? Tax alcohol? Sure. I mean, who likes drunk drivers? I think we'll do that. We'll raise the tax on every liquor bottle three dollars. We'll raise the tax on a beer one dollar. It'll continue to go up. What happens then, when people stop drinking because the price is too high? Hey, we need more money. Let's go ahead and raise the taxes for people with compact cars. Afterall, they're saving all that money on gas. They can afford it. The people with large SUVs need the tax break. Afterall, if you're making payments on a $50,000 escalade, you're going to need it.

I've boycotted restraunts, bars, and clubs that don't allow smoking. I refuse to go to DC to a club now, when I can stay in Virginia, save gas, and smoke my cigarettes as I please. I plan on quitting one day, but forcing smokers to quit is not the way of doing it.

Really, when does it stop? I know my father said he'd quit when cartons got to $10 a piece. They're now at $30 for name brands, but you can get off brands for $15 a carton. Better yet. You can order them online and overseas. After paying all the tariffs, you're still hitting only $15 for a carton of name brand cigarettes. I wonder who's government this is supporting?

Smoking is definitely on it's way out and smokers are definitely becoming a minority. I won't deny that. However, the government is getting stronger and stronger (that may not be a bad thing), but when you start giving up certain liberties for certain false securities, you're playing with fire.

EDIT: Also, does anyone have any articles on how banning smoking has increased revenue for businesses? I haven't seen any for the DC area, but I really didn't look too hard either. Maybe this is a contributor to the economy going down?

Just my $0.02

I don't think you read this thread. Your original question has been asked, answered, and debated over and over. Read the thread and decide which argument you agree with.

FWIW, a smokers boycott on places that don't allow smoking is far less effective than non-smokers boycotting places that do allow it. It's simple math. Again, look over the thread. Seems when these bans are given to the public to vote most people vote their personal lifestyle. Fair, unfair, that's debatable but when the ratio of non-smokers to smokers is 70/30 and it's put to vote don't expect 'smoking freedom' to win. The reason? Most non-smokers are closet anti-smokers.