 |
| |
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
What's this Public Good stuff... If it was a matter of public good, they would outlaws bars period. Liquor is also one of the leading health hazards... Yeah, restrict the owners right to allow smoking in a bar, but make him pay for a liquor license so he can help people kill themselves with liquor... maybe if there was "allowed smoking inside license" the government would leave it alone  |
For "bars" in the first sentence, substitute cars, factories, meat, drugs, etc., and you'll get a sense of why it's a strawman argument.
For at least 100 years, the rights of the private businessman and the greater public good have been a balancing act. Do businesses have a right to sell tainted beef? Probably, but we don't let them. Do auto manufacturers have a right to sell cars with bumpers that can't withstand a 5 mph impact? Probably, but we don't let them. Do banks have a right to issue credit cards charging 50% interest? Probably, but...you get the idea.
We regulate business in the name of the public good, and most of us appreciate those efforts at least some of the time (I, for one, enjoy not having to personally subject the medicine I give my daughter to a battery of safety tests every time she gets a cold). And it generally doesn't happen until there's overwhelming support for the measure (as was the case with smoking bans, where municiple governments were asked to defy both local businessmen and Big Tobacco; you don't do that without serious public support). When there's not enough public support, though, all the liberal whining in the world can't interfere with people's "rights" (see here gun control).
In short: it's not an absolute right, and is thus subject to democratic adjudication. And in a democracy, sometimes your side loses and you just have to suck it up. Trust me, I know; I'm a Democrat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I've never heard of a smoke free bar. |
Go to Vancouver - the laws are in effect there. Amazingly, the bars are every bit as full as they were before.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I've never heard of a smoke free bar. |
Calgary is half-way-- A good chunk of bars are smoke free including any restaurants that want to be allowed to have children inside (but do also serve alcohol)
There is talk of a complete smoking ban in teh future but I believe thats still a ways off
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:37
|
|
Ming....it's a good try, but you and I both know that arguing with GePap is akin to this:
Although admittedly, a good deal more fun! 
Economic collapse? That's awesome! Yep...I grant you, if personal autos were outlawed tomorrow, there'd be a HUGE, vast sucking sound as the economy contracted violently, but collapse? Nope. And further, such a law would not be enacted overnight to avoid that very thing. The bike and cart manufacturers would get time to gear up, etc...the economy would make a fairly orderly shift to the new paradigm, and life would go on as it tends to do.
cost benefit analysis of the law. Glad you mentioned that point. I'm sure as the law sits on the books and gathers its share of dust, we'll see that phrase coming up more and more often. I'll remind you that you said it a bit later. 
And by the way, no one has advocated the banning of the combustion engine, but we all know how you like to twist in the wind and change the argument when you're not faring so well....
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Ming....it's a good try, but you and I both know that arguing with GePap is akin to this:
Although admittedly, a good deal more fun!
Economic collapse? That's awesome! Yep...I grant you, if personal autos were outlawed tomorrow, there'd be a HUGE, vast sucking sound as the economy contracted violently, but collapse? Nope. And further, such a law would not be enacted overnight to avoid that very thing. The bike and cart manufacturers would get time to gear up, etc...the economy would make a fairly orderly shift to the new paradigm, and life would go on as it tends to do.
|
Do you even read Ming's posts? He is complaining about pollution. The biggest polluters are Trucks. By Mings "rationale", all combustion vehicles must be banned for public safety. I think banning the most common form of transportation of all goods, including food, would most certainly lead to a collapse in the economy.
Also, don;t you think, perhaps, just perhaps, more industries than just autmobile manufacturing would be affected? Here is a few: Stell makers, plastics makers, glass makers, tire companies, the entire infrastructure of car support, all gas stations, as part of a huge hit on the oil sector. Tourism of course, as well as every industry that supports any of those.
Yeah, I am sure the bike and horse marjets will really replace the automobile... Is a  or a  more appropriate?
quote:
cost benefit analysis of the law. Glad you mentioned that point. I'm sure as the law sits on the books and gathers its share of dust, we'll see that phrase coming up more and more often. I'll remind you that you said it a bit later. |
Laws over seatbelts and smoking bans most certainly aren't sitting on the books unused. Of course, if the cost of a law is 0, then it does not matter if the benefit is also 0, meaning there is no point of it NOT being in the books, now is there?
quote:
And by the way, no one has advocated the banning of the combustion engine, but we all know how you like to twist in the wind and change the argument when you're not faring so well....
-=Vel=- |
Maybe if you read Ming's "point", next time you can actually get yourself involved in the debate.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:37
|
|
quote:
Economic collapse? That's awesome! Yep...I grant you, if personal autos were outlawed tomorrow, there'd be a HUGE, vast sucking sound as the economy contracted violently, but collapse? Nope. And further, such a law would not be enacted overnight to avoid that very thing. The bike and cart manufacturers would get time to gear up, etc...the economy would make a fairly orderly shift to the new paradigm, and life would go on as it tends to do. |
Course it would crash, it'll crash and burn horribly. Not only for everything that GePap has already mentioned but also how far on average do most people travel to work? By car. Now imagine that time extended because cars are no more. Peoples jobs go out the window, or they get up the needed three hours before so they can pushbike their way into work. Our economy is highly dependant on the motor vehicle, how can you possibly think otherwise.
Heard an ad on the radio this morning. Everytime someone lights up in a car they are sharing 200 different poisons with every occupant of that car. Now I know you coulda not chosen to get into that car, yeah right not always possible but I would like to have the right to choose which poison enter my body not somebody else who has a vice they can't control.
Of course when the smokers side started getting really desparate near the end they even started arguing that the smells from all those bodies will become unbearable due to the fact that there weren't any smoke covering it up. Guess what, didn't happen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:37
|
|
quote:
Yeah, I was wondering what Ming was smoking. |
Hell even MJ smokers see this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:37
|
|
GePap, you never fail to disappoint.
I love your debate style...the whole condescending approach serves you well most of the time....'cept that it has no effect on me other than to bring me to tears, laughing at you.
It is fairly effective at covering up the fact that your posts lack both any attempt at proper English, substance, and style tho, so I suppose that's a point in your favor.
Back to Autos:
1) Yes....vehicles used in transport and for other business purposes, on average, pollute more than your car does. Also true that there are technologies in the pipeline to remedy this. Also true that there are a lot more cars "like yours" on the road than the heavy hitters. More cars producing less pollution each = more aggregate pollution. Surely a smart boy like you can figure that out, yes?
2) Economy wouldn't need to take as big a hit as you and others are claiming. There are always alternatives (and in my proposal, mass transit and businesses got to keep autos...I was focusing on the elimination of the personal auto only). Conclusion = auto sales would not completely vanish in this country. Also, there are emerging markets FOR autos that our existing players could position themselves to take advantage of. Also, our existing auto makers and spinoff industries could retool to produce one or more of the alternatives. Combined effect (especially given that the size of the emerging markets dwarf the size of the existing market), auto makers would take a hit, but it need not be fatal to the economy if handled properly. Of course, you'll give me an eyeroll and disagree, but at least you're predictable.
3) Proponents of the seatbelt law will tell you its cost is zero. In fact, I already used their very arguments a page or two ago. Truth is, we've spent more than a hundred million bucks on advertising, and IF we mean to do more than enforce the law casually (ie, more than bust someone for not buckling up only when we pull them for something else), then we'll need more cops. I'll go slow...more cops = more salary, more salary = more Money, =! "0 cost." If you still believe the law to have zero cost, please mail me a check for 140-odd million dollars. I am sure you won't miss it. I'll PM you with my address.
Oh, and just so you know...I DID see the silly comparison with murder laws, but decided not to even bother to comment. The comparison is rediculous, for reasons you *should be* fully aware of. Good try tho!
-=Vel=-
(off to work!)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rah
|
|
Apolyton Prince of Moderators, Master of Reason
|
 |
Lord of the Ferrets
Jan 1970
time: 23:37
|
|
I can honestly say that with the exception of grabbing a quick drink in an airport, that I have never gone to a bar where smoking was prohibited. My choice. I'm a good customer, I spend a good sum of money, tip well, and I'm not a mean drunk, usually since I don't go overboard. I am even actually considerate of others when I'm smoking whenever possible.
Now the arguement I always hear, is that the owner won't suffer if a no smoking ban is in place because I will be replaced by non-smokers that will magically go and spend more money in their bar.
The owner should have the choice of which of thes two patrons he wants to serve. Me, or some whiney crusader who while satisfying his own booze vice is celebrating his victory over allowing someone else to satisfy their own vice only because they don't enjoy that vice. They're probably really loud drunks (based on the egos on display in this thread) who's opinions are more important than others. And in the end, they're probably lousy tippers.
I think owners should be allowed to decide. IF there is really more money to make, the market will choose.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-08-2005 05:21
|