 |
| |
|
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:37
|
|
quote:
It's the same with driver's licenses - they can't pull you over and demand to see your license (at least, not in Virginia). |
Wow. They can and do over here. Just randomly pull up random people to check there warrant and rego, drivers license too, gotta have one on you. If not, got something like 48hours to produce one or its a fine, might just be an instant fine now. Its amazing how much difference there is between countries.
Basically smoking is being made obsolete. Unfashionable. No longer. Time to catch up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
I told you that Aragon was nothing but a two bit fascist. After all, a monarchy is nothing more than a military dictatorship with nicer bling.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rah
No it just shows your ignorance.
Liquer increases the urge to smoke in most smokers.
Many social smokers only smoke when they drink.
I don't go to resturants to smoke and most others don't either so it's not really injurious to my freedom, especially since i'm only going to be there 90 minutes. But when I go to a bar, i go with the intent to sit for a long period of time to drink and smoke. It's not my intent to decrease one's pleasure of eating. But if they're in a bar pounding down their own vice, they're fair game in my book, especially if they're anit smoking fanatics, what the heck are they doing in a smoke filled bar. There are enough bars that are smokefree for them to choose from. Just a few reasons why it's different. |
Saying that "smokers like to smoke more when drinking" does not change the liberterian notions of choice, specially the ability of owners to chose what their customers can do. At most what you are saying is that bar owners have a much greater incentive than restaurant owners to allow customers to smoke, since it increases their profitability because one vice feeds the other. That one choice may be more logical for one set of businessmen than the other does not actually differentiate between their relative freedoms.
quote:
But it's good to know that people that are ignorant about this type of thing are involved in regulating it.
It's what I've come to expect from government. |
quote:
And you'll note that I don't argue about most of the anit-smoking regulations or the extra tax.
I'm just saying where I feel the line should be drawn.
I think resturants should be given a choice also but since smoking can easily ruin a dinning experience and not smoking for an hour is not an excessive burden, I'm willing to concede that one. As stated before, I know it's a bad habit and I try to be considerate. All I want is the same in return. But no matter how far I bend, there are those that want me to bend further. And it's usually people that don't really understand the situation. |
A line about what?
So in the case of bars its all about the convinience of the owner, but when it comes to restaurants, its about the convinience of dinners?
Sorry rah, but as much as you want to make it sound like yours is some enlightened difference, it boils down to "I hate smokers in restaurants, I don;t mind them in bars, why ban smoking in bars?" That's not an arguement based on logic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
NOT irrelevant. I brought the original counter argument up, thankyouverymuch. But it does go to show that YOU are the one who needs a bit of help when it comes to reading posts.
The argument is/was that if you're soooooo worried about the safety and welfare of the public that you pass a law banning that awful, injurious habit some folks have, (smoking), before you pat yourself on the back for it, why not look at the pollution numbers and acknowledge the fact that every smoker in chicago puffing away at the same time pollutes less in a given day than ten minutes of rush hour traffic in that same city. |
Because smoking and driving are two fundamentally different situations.
quote:
When put side by side with OTHER forms of pollution, it makes the whole "we're saving lives!" mantra somewhat silly. No, strike that, it makes it just this side of rediculous. That said, if you're really serious about saving lives, you'd go after the BIG pollution, and believe me, you don't have to eliminate every combustion engine on the planet to have an impact....a fine beginning (and a MUCH bigger impact that a smoking ban) would be the ban I mentioned. It must kill you to be wrong. |
So your arguement boils down to : other forms of pollution are fundamentally worse, yet caused by processes fundamental to the functioning of the modern post-industrial society. So, since we can't ban those, lets not ban any.
BIG pollution is caused by IMPORTANT things. Smoking pollution comes from an insignificant vice which serves no purpose whatsoever and simply increases societies' health care costs significantly, specially sicne while to a non-smoker the efefcts of the smoking might (might) be less than standing behind some diesel truck, they do make a fundamental difference to those smoking.
In short, even though you might not comprehend this Vel, smoking is something were banning makes perfect sense, simply because we can do it without any societal side-effects, other than whinning addicts.
quote:
Hmmm...well, but this flies in the face of the core argument. "IT SAVES LIVES" Implies that folks who don't wear their seatbelts lose their lives (I know....that's tough to get your mind around, but do try). And this in turn, implies no additional healthcare costs, since there aren't many EMT's who will administer much in the way of health care to a dead guy. |
Jesus christ on a cracker. Yeah, of course Vel, every fatality in a car accident happen AT THE SCENE. I mean, its not like people will gain serious injuries that will happen to kill them on the way to the hospital, or perhaps a few days into their care, or leave them in life long comas...NO, all car fatalities ONLY happen at the scene of the crash....
HOnestly, do you know HOW STUPID that is? Do you?
quote:
Granted, not everyone who doesn't wear a seatbelt will die, and they certainly will have medical costs, but separating their injuries and the dollars spent on them into wearing a seatbelt/not wearing a seatbelt categories is nigh on impossible, and to my knowledge, no such attempt is even being made. |
Actually, its possible, just note which people came in with injuries because they were not wearing seatbelts, then calculate the cost, then examine what range of injuries they would have had had they had seatbelts on, the cost of treating those, and calculate the difference. Oh, and add thhe care for those who died.
Hmm, looks VERY possible.
quote:
Further, the "cost" where insurance is concerned is borne by individuals PAYING for said insurance, and not by the government (which represents society as a whole) and so cannot even be factored into the equation. We're talking about the cost of passing and implementing the legislation, which is the cost borne by the government, and as programs go, this one has been pretty expensive on a "per life saved" basis. The money would have been better spent elsewhere if saving lives was truly the agenda, which it wasn't. |
Since insurance companies pass the costs on to all customers, all persons paying insurance see their premiums jump, hence the cost is shared, which actually is the very POINT of insurance. So yes, increase insurnace costs are born by the whole of society, specially when having auto insurance is mandatory for driving around in a car, meaing people can't ignore that cost.
quote:
Unlike anti-smoking laws (which are nearly as silly as an anti-flatulence law passed in an attempt to save lives by cleaning up the air), laws against murder DO provide an immediate social benefit, in that it, by creating a structure to deal with such crimes, prevents, or greatly reduces the tendency for vigilantism, which, while gratifying to the families of the victims of a murder, works directly against the desire of the "masses" for safety, security, and predictibility. Smoking does none of those things, especially given that a) smoking as a form of pollution is one of the most insignificant forms of pollution out there, and b) to my knowledge, there hasn't been a single case of injury or death that could be directly related back to second hand smoke, exclusively (and probably, there never will be, given the sheer number and amounts of other, much more dangerous pollutants out there).
|
Yawn.
Funny how yours i nothing more than, HEY LOOK, a COST/BENEFIT analysis.
The difference Vel is that your annalysis of the smoking situation is flawed.
In short, the possible benefits in savings in health care costs born by society easily outweight the ability of people to get hooked on nicotine by burning tabacoo leaves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rah
Actually I think resturant owners should have a choice also. But that battle seems reasonably lost already. So I try to go along with it and rationalize why it shouldn't bother me, just like all the other restrictions. I don't have a choice.
But back to my other question. If I open a shop on the corner to charge smokers to smoke out of the bad weather, would you want to restrict smoking there. No non-smokers involved. If so why? |
In essence, you are asking about the setting up of a smoking room.
I personally have no problem with the setting up of dedicated smoking rooms, with the understanding that what is supposed to happen there is smoking, including full understanding upfront for the staff who chose to work in a smoking room.
This is why I don't particulalry care about imposing smoking bans based on the idea of staff safety, but instead simply of the general health of customers. The point of a bar is to drink, the point of a restaurant is to eat. Smoking is a side activity of some customers. But if you set up a smoking room, then smoking is the point of the business, so whatever. Hell, it thins the herd of smokers faster.
Of course, here in NYC they banned indoor smoking on the "health of staff" arguement, even if the ban was always largely popular (over 60% support from the electorate), meaning that smoking rooms are banned in the City, well, except for 6 locales set up for Cigar smoking, which caters to a select (rich, VIP, politically connected) clientel.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rah
Then if it's ok to have a smokers room just for smokers, then I don't see the difference of allowing the smokers to drink while they're doing it. |
I agree. Conceptually, you could look at every bar as a dedicated smoking and drinking room.
I hate cigarette smoke. I generally avoid bars because of it. I don't see that it has anything of any value to it. I personally LIKE smoking bans.
All that said, on a legal logical basis I don't see the basis for a total ban. Its a bit like freedom of speech. Within the range of what is permitted will be some expression that is hurtful or insulting or that has no redeeming value whatsoever. Yet such speech is permitted. There are some limits.
I actually find the restaurant/ bar distinction to be somewhat defensible if the difference is the presence of children. As a society we are saying that smoking is harmful and children will not be exposed to it in regulated businesses. Considering how most restaurants serve alcohol and many bars have a broad menu, it is probably not hard for a owner to choose to class his business as one or the other. The choice is simple
bar-- smoking -- no children allowed
restaurant -- no smoking, everyone allowed
The reality here in Calgary is that many places are both. Two areas have different characteristics and maybe a bit of a different "look" but its all one business and all the food comes from a common kitchen.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:37
|
|
In short, the possible benefits in savings in health care costs born by society easily outweight the ability of people to get hooked on nicotine by burning tabacoo leaves.
Well...this was about the only GePap comment worth even dredging up. The rest was more of the same blind ignorance of the facts.
Savings in health care costs, says you. That's your argument for the no smoking thing, eh?
Interesting, given the following:
In 1990, Americans spent 697.5 Billion on health care
By 1995, that amount had grown to 988.5 Billion
In the period from 2000-2004, health insurance premiums increased, on average, three times faster than wage increases for the same period.
Ahhh, but I forgot. You work in government, or used to. Thus, when you refer to that vast health care "savings," what you really mean is a "slower rate of increase."
Uh huh.
So the money savings on health care argument goes out the window.
What else do you have? Studies offering definitive proof that people have been keeling over from the inhalation of second hand ciggarette smoke? Is there even ONE fatality on record as having been directly caused by ciggarette smoke?
And this is your big bugbear....your poster child for saving and improving public health?
Good gods man, the anti-flatulence law I mentioned earlier would likely have a bigger impact, and at least it'd get a chuckle or two.
Further, you wouldn't need an outright BAN to see 80-90% (or more) of the so-called "benefits" of your anti-smoking crusade....what's wrong with allowing smokers the odd haven here and there? But that's not what your real agenda is, although you attempt to cloud the issue by bringing up all the vast riches to be reclaimed by just doing this one small thing.
Try again.
Oh...and in case you're curious, the numbers for auto insurance follow the same trend as the ones for health insurance, thus negating your argument about the vast savings to be reaped by buckling up....but again, nice attempted dodge. 
-=Vel=-
PS: You could always make Apolyton history and just admit you're wrong.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:37
|
|
Now there's a surprise.
You touted the savings to society in health care costs as the reason (the only reason you mentioned, actually) for the law.
Trouble is, health care costs have been going through the roof for decades, and show no signs of stopping.
In light of this, it becomes impossible to point to even a penny's worth of savings, because there aren't any savings to be found.
I realize that it's a tough thing to grasp, but do try and get your mind around it.
When costs INCREASE, No savings.
The very best you could argue is that the law has helped slow the rate of increase, but I've seen no numbers whatsoever to support that.
It's not that I don't understand that other factors are causing the cost of health insurance to rise, it's just that the rise totally negates any "savings" you could possibly lay claim to.
The evidence is the evidence, and it ain't on your side, but that's okay. I didn't expect anything from you other than parroting back the same old worn out line that you prolly heard somewhere on talk radio.
Try thinking, rather than parroting what somebody else said, and remember, just cos you heard it on talk radio....that don't necessarily make it so, 'k?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2005 08:11
at Vel.
|