Yes, the free market has worked and continues to work on the issue of smoking. As I've said, numerous businesses decided to go smoke-free on their own and reaped the benefits. Patrons and employees vote with their wallets and their labor, respectively.
Restaurants, for the most part, already banned smoking on their own. I haven't been in a restaurant that allowed smoking since... well, probably since I was a little kid. That's 20+ years ago. The free market worked.
not true. Indiana has not banned it and being from a state that has banned smoking in restaurants years ago its really really weird walking into a Texas RoadHouse in Indiana and smell smoke.
But are there other restaurants nearby that don't allow smoking?
not true. Indiana has not banned it and being from a state that has banned smoking in restaurants years ago its really really weird walking into a Texas RoadHouse in Indiana and smell smoke.
Did this happen before or after some states started banning it?
im sure there are i just havent been to one that has.
Then in your experience it's not true of Indiana. Indiana is not a cross-section of America, last I checked.
This happened in areas that had no such ban.
That's not what I asked.
What I asked is did business start having their own smoking bans before or after other areas had government bans. Did it becoming more effective before or after the government started these bans.
The fact of the matter is, if people are going to have a choice of job with smoking or no job, the job is always going to win. Thankfully the government made it so you don't have to subject yourself to it and make the choice.
The fact of the matter is, if people are going to have a choice of job with smoking or no job, the job is always going to win. Thankfully the government made it so you don't have to subject yourself to it and make the choice.
You make a very typical mistake, Craig.
You assert a similarity among issues that does not exist.
It's common in those who regularly run down the slippery slope.
Sexual harassment is not permitted anywhere (whereas smoking is restricted along specific boundaries).
Racism is a general mental attitude that cannot be eliminated by government decree.
Our economy and the relationship between the consumer, employee, and employer is not the same as it was in the industrial age
, so your bogeyman doesn't frighten anyone.
At that point in history, jobs were fewer and less accessible, the economy was a lot more industrial/manufacturing, and the consumer was largely ignorant with little interest in or ability to acquire information relevant to what they were buying. None of these things are true today, nor will they be in the future.
Yes, there are reasons we have an elected government, but none of them are relevant in this thread.
Our elected government is not supposed to coddle and protect everyone from their responsibility to make choices for themselves and live with the consequences.
You need the government to tuck you in and read you a beddy by story too? I didn't think this thread was about smoking at work, it's about businesses being allowed to let their patrons smoke if they want to.
I have only worked in one place that allowed you to smoke while you were working, and that's where I am now. Not a single restaurant, or office I have ever worked in has allowed you to smoke inside while working, you can take a break and go to a designated smoking area, or outside.
Is the governor of New york official enough for you?
, here he claims the sale of non taxable cigarettes are hurting the economy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/13/indian-cigarette-tax_n_783159.html
The officials are not upset of lower smoking rates but lower revenues due to people buying cigarettes out of state or on Indian reservations, just because because the article mocks the fools who believe sin taxes are some sort of panacea to budget deficits doesn't mean you should discount it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/13/indian-cigarette-tax_n_783159.html
Since you missed what I was talking about I will explain it to you, it is Hypocritical for the government to profit off a product and use it for tax revenue while at the same time claim it is detrimental to society as well as the individual and should be banned.
Cigarettes will never be banned outright unless the states stop their addiction to the billions in tax revenues they provide.
You beg your question with a false assumption. I don't 'run down the slippery slope'.
Protection? You mean like people choosing not to patronize establishments that allow smoking? Jesus, you Nanny Staters are pretty weak minded if you need the .gov to protect you from everything, including your own decisions on where to eat.~snipped garbage is garbage~
It's an absurd generalization showing you have no point yet again - protection from carcinogens that kill thousands a year from *second hand* smoke is not a small thing.
I've spent more than my fair share of time in various bars.. and I've never met a bartender or waiter/waitress who had a problem with second-hand smoke.. even if they weren't smokers themselves.
Since you missed what I was talking about I will explain it to you, it is Hypocritical for the government to profit off a product and use it for tax revenue while at the same time claim it is detrimental to society as well as the individual and should be banned.
Cigarettes will never be banned outright unless the states stop their addiction to the billions in tax revenues they provide.
eh? I worked in that industry and I hated the smoking. No one should be sitting in a smoky room for 10 hours.
I agree that states should plan to lose the billions of review, and ban them eventually.
It's not easy to see any choices but legalization, or massive violence and corruption with huge criminal organizations here and in other countries.
No, I don't. I guess I need to correct another post trying to make a point on logic.
No, I didn't.
You beg your question with a false assumption. I don't 'run down the slippery slope'.
And that is a distinction having nothing to do with the analogy, not making any point.
And here you say something with truth to it again irrelevant to the analogy, not making any point.
You have not made a point yet.
I made a point about his claims not being accurate, as history shows, and you call it a 'bogeyman'. Clueless commentary does not make a point.
Your comments are so unrelated to the discussion, you may as well have posted the weather. All I can do is repeat what I said.
He claimed that people who work at employers who expose them to carcinogens have voted by being there that they approve.
That is ridiculous. I made relevant analogies to help show how ridiculous it is, how people working places need more than the 'free market' to protect them from abuses.
Which is nothing but vapid hyperbole implying that the government will have inspectors to say "don't wear THAT outfit, it doesn't look good".
It's an absurd generalization showing you have no point yet again - protection from carcinogens that kill thousands a year from *second hand* smoke is not a small thing.
Since our elected government is not supposed to coddle, then why not let 'the free market' resolve all the other issues I mentioned, too?
Take sexual harassment or any of them - if you don't like it, leave, and if you don't you are proven to approve. You did not rebut the logical issue whatsoever.
And what if someone works there and is fine with it? You're gonna stop them? for what? their own good?
Wait, Craig...
Let me see if I have this correct...
In another thread, you praised and supported the legalization of drugs and an end to the war on drugs as it was an utter failure and cause more harm than good:
And yet here, you call for a ban on tobacco???
WTF???
Do you even fucking THINK???
Let's see...
Prohobition was a failure...
The War on Drugs is a failure...
But let's ban tobacco!!!
Yeah! That's it!
Maybe you can wrap your mind around this: The WOD and Prohibition was a failure because morality and personally destructive behavior CANNOT be legislated. It is a clear example of nanny state legislation "for the people's own good" blowing up in your face and causing FAR more harm than good.
And you want to ban tobacco.
Are you fucking SERIOUS???
THINK man!!!
Contrary to what you believe, though, smoking is not a crime.
No you stop the smoking. A single mom with 2 kids will sit in a smoke filled room for 60 hours a week and smile. You people are fucking retarded.
Sexual harassment is a deliberate crime committed to a specific person (or persons) and is something the victim can (and should) take the perpetrator to court to resolve, as it remains a crime no matter who commits it or where it is committed. Contrary to what you believe, though, smoking is not a crime.