Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by DBear, Mar 11, 2008.
Follow da $.
I this story.
Thats pure awesome.
It's kinda pathetic. Like a swan's dying song.
I love it.
Here in Phx, smoking inside restaurants and bars was banned a year ago. However, private clubs could continue to allow smoking. So what did the bars do?
Charged a $1 entrance fee and called it a club.
PS--At some bars, you get a book of matches for your dollar.
I love it.
To be or not to be, ah screw be.
I love it when the common man sticks it to the man. Especially when the man is a bunch of uppity folk that impose their will on others for the 'common good.'
I've heard about it and I support it!
I'm still against blanket bans that are supposed to apply to every single establishment. If they really must, then give them some kind of smoking license for their place and be done with it.
In both Italy and France, in the first months after the smoking bans, the number of myocardial infarction dropped by 10-15%, particularly in the non-smoking population.
In both cases the numbers and conclusions are eerily similar. And of crucial importance:
The French study has a similar finding.
So I wouldn't be so sarcastic about the common good, pal.
I love my state.
if someone goes out to drink, they should know that there will be smokers there.
either way, i like our little mexican place's idea here. there's the building, then there's a closed patio right next to it that's "another building" and it's connected by a 2 foot hallway. smokers go to the patio (that's heated and air conditioned) and non smokers stay inside.
i support the smoking licence idea though. and you know most states would love the extra revenue.
This is absurd. Smoking is bad for people and should be banned and those who refuse to adhere to these bans should be... *slap slap slap*... Wow, sorry, I was channeling Donna Shalala for a moment and she refused to leave my body.
I absolutely, wholeheartedly support these fine thespians. Puff away, brothers!
Don't you think it ought to be the discretion of the business owner whether or not to allow smoking? And wouldn't the free market solve the second hand smoke problem, whereas certain establishments would allow it and certain ones would not?
Now that thar is the entrepreneurial spirit!
No but really, licence bars to allow smoking, make signs clear on the doors.
ROFL! Do you live in a cave? How do you think these places operated before? The reason for this type of legislation/regulation is because the market failed.
Can you give me one example where the "free market" has advanced the health interests of non-smokers? (in terms of public spaces* becoming non-smoking) I can't, at least not in the places I've lived. All the small steps forward... no-smoking sections, then no smoking in restaurants altogether, no smoking in airports, in other public places, almost uniformly done because of regulation.
Yes, you will find cases where the market played catch up, where some segment took it upon itself because a precedent was already set by regulation. But, almost always the leadership was from the need to regulate to protect non-smokers.
This paranoid fear of reasonable regulation is comical.
*in this sense "public" means open to the public, not governmentally owned.
The free market has lung cancer.
Why don't we ban alcohol then? Alcohol can cause liver disease and impairs peoples judgements. Let's also ban anything with meat in it as it'll cause heart disease and obesity and force everyone to become a vegetarian. Let's also mandate a mandatory 30 minute workout regime for everyone under penalty of $5000 and 3 months in prison.
You really don't get it.
Secondhand smoke has no equivalent in alcohol and meat.
If smokers want to smoke, do it in their own area. I'd rather not have my lungs assaulted, thank you.
Leonel, the statistics I quoted specifically said the decrease in heart attacks were for NON-SMOKERS.
We tried. Y'know, Prohibition? That worked out well . Remember that although someone drinking alcohol next to you COULD affect you in that the person drinking might do something stupid, the actual act of him drinking alcohol does not have adverse effects on you.
I know you're being sarcastic, but you're also trying to show the "absurdity" of banning smoking. So be it, I'll play along. Meat might contribute to unhealthiness, but it's also shown that eating meat in moderation is good for you. Last time I checked, smoking in moderation is NOT good for you. Plus, there's nothing wrong with smoking outside or in your own home, so a comparable ban on meat would still allow plenty of meat-eating, just like this smoking ban allows plenty of smoking. See, it's really not about how bad smoking is for the person doing it, it's about the effects on other people.
Maybe then America wouldn't be so fat
Separate names with a comma.