183 replies to this topic

[eternaltraveler]

It's not what I think, it's what the law is.

Yes, this is the law in various jurisdictions. this is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether this law is based on sound principles. We aren't in a court.

Bar owners have "rights", they just aren't unlimited.

What rights are these exactly?

And it's not my society, it's our society. I'm talking about America. It's not a new thing, either; laws regarding public accommodations have been on the books for decades, probably centuries.

The time period in which something has been happening is irrelevant in regards to whether it follows an optimum paradigm as I'm sure you agree (I won't bother listing examples)

Are you equally incensed over laws that require health inspections or take away the owner's right to deny service to "coloreds"? Why do you say that I "can and do impose them"? Do you mean "you" as in "people in general"? No one has made me king; I just live here.

I think you may have misunderstood me, which is easy to do in text communications. I'm not incensed at all. I have other much more important things to worry about (like aging). This is just a mild mannered internet discussion. You may have wanted to hold on to the race card a little while longer.

I addressed that point in an earlier post. Let me ask you the same question: Why not create your own libertarian paradise somewhere where everyone can do whatever they please, and no one has to pay any taxes? If that kind of society is so optimal, I'd think people would flock to it.

Yes, I'll go do that. What area of the earth do you think I should conquer for this project since I have no rights to establish such an association of individuals on any land anywhere I can buy whereas you certainly would have the right to buy a bar and declare it non smoking. Again. A red herring.

This basically comes down to a contest between two groups; smokers who want the freedom to smoke in bars and restaurants, and nonsmokers who want the freedom to enter bars and restaurants without being injured by smoke. The smokers could reasonably step out for an occasional smoke, but the nonsmokers can't very easily step out to breathe. Thus the first party faces either inconvenience or denial of service. The second party faces either injury or denial of service. Without even taking into account the relative size of the two parties, thus removing any "tyranny of the majority" claim, it seems fairly obvious that avoidance of injury should trump inconvenience.

As long as we are ignoring the fact that in many of these jurisdictions where smoking is outlawed in bars it is also outlawed on the streets outside bars, and as long as we are ignoring that this is not a denial of service to nonsmokers in any sense,( it's a clear situation where there is some risk involved in entering, and a person is welcome to assume this well defined risk, or not accept it, and go somewhere else; if we weren't ignoring that I might feel inclined to go into detail of the legal principle of volenti non fit injuria). And especially as long as we are ignoring relative size of various groups there are other things we definitely need to outlaw right away. We need to outlaw any kind of flashing lights because they trigger seizures in susceptible individuals (which can result in severe neurological injury and death). This is a de facto denial of service to people with epilepsy. And actually a sub population of epileptics has these very serious seizures induced by music (rhythmic beats are another neurological input not terribly dissimilar from rhythmically flashing lights), so we will need to outlaw music or these patrons will never be able to enjoy a bar in their lives. At present they are forced to chose to do other things instead, find a bar that doesn't play music, or start their own (but these kinds of choices evidently can't exist). There are many other very real examples like this. Of course this entire paragraph is again playing by your "rules" and ignoring the ability of owners of various establishments to decide any of these things for themselves (which is obviously a point I do not concede).

Could you please explain the underlying principles on which you have constructed your morality? I'm having difficulty discerning them.

Edited by elrond, 26 April 2008 - 09:09 AM.

[niner]

Bar owners have "rights", they just aren't unlimited.

What rights are these exactly?

Oh, the right not to be robbed or vandalized, the right to charge whatever they want, you know, all manner of things, just not the same rights that a homeowner has in his private home.

I addressed that point in an earlier post. Let me ask you the same question: Why not create your own libertarian paradise somewhere where everyone can do whatever they please, and no one has to pay any taxes? If that kind of society is so optimal, I'd think people would flock to it.

Yes, I'll go do that. What area of the earth do you think I should conquer for this project since I have no rights to establish such an association of individuals on any land anywhere I can buy whereas you certainly would have the right to buy a bar and declare it non smoking. Again. A red herring.

Ok, you're right, that would be tough. Even if you went out and bought some land in the middle of nowhere, you would still be under the jurisdiction of some form of state. Let me rephrase it; is there anywhere in the world (where you would actually want to live) that employs the libertarian principles that you prefer? I think that if I looked, I could probably find a lot of nonsmoking bars. I don't think I know of any restaurants that allow smoking where I live, but I don't think there's a law about it. That certainly wasn't the case 20 years ago.

This basically comes down to a contest between two groups; smokers who want the freedom to smoke in bars and restaurants, and nonsmokers who want the freedom to enter bars and restaurants without being injured by smoke. The smokers could reasonably step out for an occasional smoke, but the nonsmokers can't very easily step out to breathe. Thus the first party faces either inconvenience or denial of service. The second party faces either injury or denial of service. Without even taking into account the relative size of the two parties, thus removing any "tyranny of the majority" claim, it seems fairly obvious that avoidance of injury should trump inconvenience.

As long as we are ignoring the fact that in many of these jurisdictions where smoking is outlawed in bars it is also outlawed on the streets outside bars, and as long as we are ignoring that this is not a denial of service to nonsmokers in any sense,( it's a clear situation where there is some risk involved in entering, and a person is welcome to assume this well defined risk, or not accept it, and go somewhere else; if we weren't ignoring that I might feel inclined to go into detail of the legal principle of volenti non fit injuria).

I think maybe I'm not being clear enough with the term "denial of service". What I mean is that if the smoker refuses to accept the inconvenience of stepping out for a smoke, he much choose to not use the bar. If the nonsmoker refuses to accept injury, he must choose to not use the bar. In both cases, it's either accept a sub-optimal state, or don't use the bar. Since "don't use the bar" is the same for both parties, isn't it reasonable to consider that part to cancel out, so that we can make a decision on which path to take based on the onerousness of the sub-optimal state that must be accepted by either party?

Could you please explain the underlying principles on which you have constructed your morality? I'm having difficulty discerning them.

Sure. Humans are social animals, and we live in societies. Societies have evolved mechanisms for improving the overall lot of their members by, among other things, creating social structures to accomplish things that individuals working on their own can not. An example would be taxation for the purpose of creating infrastructure, or courts and enforcement agents for everything from mediating disputes between members to creating transparent capital markets. Advanced societies have produced tremendous benefits for their inhabitants, but these benefits come at a cost: Each individual's freedom to do whatever he pleases must be constrained in order to protect the interests of the other members. Members are presumably free to not accept these constraints, and wander off into the wilderness to live the life of Grizzly Adams, or Ted Kaczynski, but almost no one does. This suggests to me that "the deal" is a pretty good one.

Like all of us here, I live in an advanced society and reap many benefits therefrom. I accept the deal and recognize that I can't do whatever I want, and that I have to pay (a lot...) for the privilege of living in our society. My own underlying principles are that, first, people should not harm others. People should, to the extent possible, bear the cost of their actions. This 'personal responsibility' factor is really a subset of the first principle. Most everything gets back to the first principle; fairness, justice, environmental responsibility... pretty much everything I consider right relates to the first principle. The second principle would be maximization of good: Happiness, health, beauty, art... I think that each of us is responsible first to ourselves, but also to others. My decisions would ideally be designed to optimize good for all life, but with my family and myself weighted highest, followed by my extended family, friends, neighbors, etc with decreasing weights, down to benign microorganisms with infinitesimally small weights. I suspect that most people's behavior could be described by this sort of scheme, whether they think about it as such or not. People would differ in the shape of their weighting curves; most of us would put ourselves somewhere near the top; the question would be how fast does the curve drop off, and does it go negative for various life forms. For me, the curve goes negative for beings that are evil, i.e., that harm others. The more evil they are, the more negative it goes. If, for example, I could go back in time and kill Hitler, I would. There aren't many people I would kill though; they would have to be really evil.

Well, thanks for giving me the opportunity to write this down. I don't think I've ever done it, which is kind of "unexamined life" of me, I guess. So elrond, what would you describe as your fundamental principles?

[VictorBjoerk]

Well,interesting discussions here.

[PWAIN]

"Yes, I'll go do that. What area of the earth do you think I should conquer for this project since I have no rights to establish such an association of individuals on any land anywhere I can buy whereas you certainly would have the right to buy a bar and declare it non smoking. Again. A red herring."

Just get a large enough group of similar minded people together and all move to a low population democratic country where you form a majority. Try Tuvalu or some such. With a bit of cash to grease the wheels, immigration should not be a problem.

Or better yet, just make a bunch of excuses as to why it is totally impossible and then you won't have to do anything and can complain about your rights being eroded.

Limited rights for minority groups are the price of democracy. The US treis to get around this to sime extent by using advocacy/lobby groups with mixed success.

Incidently the situation is somewhat different with more public health facilities. Over here, we pay more for a public health system and it would be nice not to have to pay the smokers premium. Taxing cigarettes goes part way towards paying for this but cigarette taxes would have to be much higher to cover the total real cost.

Linking issues to justify inaction is an absurd arguement. Just because there are other mechanisms of harming ourselves, does not mean that we should not tackle one. Sure people may drink and that may ruin their health but that does not mean that we should not do something in other areas like smoking. If people are killed in road accidents, should we not legislate for proven safety features in new cars? But that would not be fair since speed limits are routinely broken and drink driving goes on and roads are not in good repair etc etc.

[Luna]

Yes, ban them.
Smoking are like drags, but even worse as it kills people around you too.

[luminous]

Unfortunately, smoke is something that is hard to contain--when you smoke, it spills out into the air and forces everyone around you to smoke as well. Smoking cigarettes is okay so long as you smoke where *I* don't have to inhale any of it. I choose not to smoke and should not have to. Even public places--outdoors--where other people are in close proximity should be off limits. (I'm an ex-smoker.)

None of the the choices for the vote fit my feelings on this. My vote would be: Keep it legal, but only use in the privacy of your own airspace, out of breathing distance of all people who prefer smoke-free air.

Edited by luminous, 28 April 2008 - 06:47 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

Since "don't use the bar" is the same for both parties, isn't it reasonable to consider that part to cancel out, so that we can make a decision on which path to take based on the onerousness of the sub-optimal state that must be accepted by either party?

Yes of course. Assuming bar owners didn’t exist that is.

Well, thanks for giving me the opportunity to write this down. I don't think I've ever done it, which is kind of "unexamined life" of me, I guess. So elrond, what would you describe as your fundamental principles?

Simple. Freedom. The ability to live my life as I see fit as long as I don’t hurt others (as I see fit doesn’t involve hurting others anyway, it actually involves helping to extend this freedom to others as well). The freedom to choose to live to die, or anything in-between.

Presently the number one factor that is limiting freedom is not government, it is biology. And biology is an absolutely tyrannical beast beyond the worst dictator in history. Presently biology would like to force me to live 3 score and 10 years, and torture me to death, along with every other human being on earth. Unacceptable.

So that’s why I view discussions like this, though relating to my freedom to some small degree, as just being a side issue to idly debate when I need a break from the real battle.

[eternaltraveler]

Just get a large enough group of similar minded people together and all move to a low population democratic country where you form a majority. Try Tuvalu or some such. With a bit of cash to grease the wheels, immigration should not be a problem.

Once greater problems are solved I may consider an option like this. However probably not involving a location on the earth. Mars needs colonists (so do the Oort and the Magellanic clouds for that matter).

Limited rights for minority groups are the price of democracy.

The US is not a democracy. A true democracy could not function. Everyone would be one kind of minority or another and everyone would be oppressed. Thats why the constitution of every industrialized nation specifically limits the power of the people so they can't all oppress each other. It works to varying degrees.

People do not have a right to not be offended.

Linking issues to justify inaction is an absurd arguement. Just because there are other mechanisms of harming ourselves, does not mean that we should not tackle one.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough earlier. I think it would be ok if a bar owner choose to have a crocodile pit in between the entrance and the bar that you had to swim through to get a drink... so long as it was well marked.

Edited by elrond, 29 April 2008 - 09:16 PM.

[luminous]

Suppose you walked into a restaurant intent on having a salad. Suppose that one of the menu items was liver--and a few of the people there were eating it. What if the liver eaters force-fed liver to you and everyone else who otherwise would have chosen other menu items besides liver? To me this is analogous to what happens when people are smoking in a restaurant. The smoke gets everywhere, and everyone in the building must inhale it whether they want to or not.

During the seven years I smoked, I was oblivious to how obnoxious smoke truly is. Even when I wasn't smoking, I never particularly noticed when others around me were smoking. Perhaps my lungs were so used to being filled with smoke, I was desensitized and truly had no idea. At that time, I thought non-smokers were ridiculous for getting so upset about it. My thought was, I'm not forcing them to smoke, why should they care if I do? Truth be told, I WAS forcing them to smoke.

I'll never forget one of my many epiphanies, which occurred about three weeks after quitting. I was with a large group of students at a college assembly. Suddenly, I smelled smoke and got totally alarmed--I thought something was burning--that the building was on fire. I turned to my friend, saying, "I think the building's on fire--we need to get out of here!" He said, "Someone just lit up a cigarette, but other than that, I don't smell anything burning." Sure enough, it was just the cigarette smoke I was suddenly able to detect. Smokers have no idea how much more sensitive nonsmokers' noses and lungs are to smoke. They just don't.

"A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a pool."
----George Carlin

[JackCole]

You just have to accept the fact that when you're a smoker - you're a nicotine junkie. Smoking is just a delivery system. We all know smoking kills. We could quote how much it kills, where it kills, how it kills.. you get me.

It just kills slowly. We find it socially acceptable. It's sad when smoking is introduced into capitalism.. you know? The delivery system of a cigarette is perfect, the "magic ammount" of nicotine.

If you're a smoker -- you are more than likely going to die from a smoking related illness.

Can we agree on that?

Okay -

Why let that happen? All the money saved. Lives saved. Healthy Babies, the whole nine yards. I say we go after big tabacco for making cigarettes the easy, socaily acceptable, 9/10 doctors smoke camels, nicotine fix it is.

Private Property = Choice
Public = Not allowed

Smoking is a horrible addiction.

[luminous]

I'd have no problem AT ALL in public places if instead of filling my breathing air with smoke, people so inclined would slap on nicotine patches. That way, they could enjoy their nicotine freely without polluting everyone else around them.

[Athanasios]

How much harm is caused by second hand smoke? Sure, when you smog out rats/mice, who will be more susceptible, to the point where visibility is less than 1 inch, you may get data. That is not real world dosage, IMO. I found this when looking for video of those boxes they use on mice to simulate second hand smoke:

Pen and Teller on this issue:

1 of 2
http://video.google....6...mp;q=&hl=en

2 of 2
http://video.google....7...-3SAg&hl=en

Edited by cnorwood, 01 May 2008 - 10:42 PM.

[luminous]

How much harm is caused by second hand smoke?

Truth be told, I'm not as concerned about the physical damage second-hand smoke causes as I suppose I should be. I do get migraines easily, and smoky air occasionally contributes. But what bothers me personally is just the actual irritation of breathing smoky air. I totally notice smoke, and it truly is offensive to me. It interferes with my enjoyment of the food I'm eating and the beverages I'm drinking. Even if not eating or drinking, the smoke bothers me. I also don't particularly like cigar smoke or for that matter, the smoke from incense. (Now marijuana smoke is another story as far as my own personal preference goes. Personally, I adore it, miss it, love the smell, enjoy breathing it...but that's just me. Nonetheless, I wouldn't feel I have the right to smoke it in public places for exactly the same reason that people shouldn't be smoking cigarettes publicly.)

Just so you know, I do have sympathy and understand what it's like to be a smoker, as I've been there. I've never asked anyone to put out a cigarette. I try to distance myself from smoke as best I can, but it's not always possible to get away from it. The fact of the matter is that when you put smoke into the air, everyone around you must inhale it--whether they want to or not.

If some kind of system could be devised that confines cigarette smoke solely to the smoker's airspace and lungs, then I'd have no problem at all with people smoking in public places.

[niner]

How much harm is caused by second hand smoke? Sure, when you smog out rats/mice, who will be more susceptible, to the point where visibility is less than 1 inch, you may get data. That is not real world dosage, IMO.

Researchers commonly use megadoses to be sure that they see an effect, but I don't think it's at all true that "normal" levels of smoke are harmless. In fact, we are now accruing a large amount of epidemiological as well as experimental data showing that submicron particulates are quite harmful, even at levels that are not particularly obvious. My wife and I were out in a particularly smoky bar some time back, and the next morning we were both coughing. I don't think there is much mileage in claiming that second hand smoke is harmless.

My father in law once asked a guy if he'd mind not smoking around his (my ftl's) kids. The guy refused to put it out or move, and my father in law got into it with him, and wound up punching him. I'm not condoning that, but I'm just reminded that a persons "right" to smoke, like his "right" to swing his fist, both end at your and my nose. I'm having breakfast with the father in law tomorrow morning, at a restaurant that happens to be (voluntarily) nonsmoking. He's 89 now, so he's probably not going to be throwing any blows, but I'll let him know I told his story on imminst.

[Athanasios]

I am going to have to echo elrond here:

"People do not have a right to not be offended."

We are talking about law here not social etiquette.

[niner]

I am going to have to echo elrond here:

"People do not have a right to not be offended."

We are talking about law here not social etiquette.

I'm going to have to disagree. (Yeah, I know, everyone is shocked...) This is not about offense in the sense of Janet Jackson's Wardrobe Malfunction. This is about injury. Now, if you don't believe that second hand smoke is bad for people, or you don't recognise that society has a right to regulate public accomodations, then there is really nothing to argue about. (I'm speaking here about efforts to regulate smoking in public places, not about my father in law's little scuffle, where I believe he did wind up on the wrong side of the law.)

And speaking of Janet Jackson, I wish someone would tell Middle America they don't have a right to not be offended, because they sure act like they do. And funny thing about that, if enough people care about something, they can create a right. It's been happening for eons, and it will continue, I suspect.

[Ghostrider]

I never could figure out why people smoke. However, fine, if someone wants to smoke, let them...as long as they do not affect other people AND as long as they can cover ALL of their own medical expenses so that society does not have to pay for the habit. Only under these conditions should someone be allowed to smoke. Think about it, money and resources which could be put towards curing aging are instead consumed by taking care of people who do not know how to care for themselves. Also, what's worse than smoking? Paying the corporations that promote smoking.

[VictorBjoerk]

and let's not even talk about how the tobacco companies destroys the rainforests.....

[missminni]

I am going to have to echo elrond here:

"People do not have a right to not be offended."

We are talking about law here not social etiquette.

I'm going to have to disagree. (Yeah, I know, everyone is shocked...) This is not about offense in the sense of Janet Jackson's Wardrobe Malfunction. This is about injury. Now, if you don't believe that second hand smoke is bad for people, or you don't recognise that society has a right to regulate public accomodations, then there is really nothing to argue about. (I'm speaking here about efforts to regulate smoking in public places, not about my father in law's little scuffle, where I believe he did wind up on the wrong side of the law.)

And speaking of Janet Jackson, I wish someone would tell Middle America they don't have a right to not be offended, because they sure act like they do. And funny thing about that, if enough people care about something, they can create a right. It's been happening for eons, and it will continue, I suspect.

Hi Niner.
I am against smoking in public places including the street where there are people within close proximity. I have often gagged walking by a group of smokers and think how incredibly rude smoking is. I am an ex 2 pack a day smoker. I gave it up 30 years ago when we first found out it caused cancer. I smoked from 12 years until I was 32. 20 years. whew. But I was ignorant. Once I knew, I stopped. How anybody can smoke cigarettes in this day and age, knowing what we know about it, blows my mind. I know this is off topic, but that was the first reason I didn't like Obama. He's a smoker and I hear that he still smokes, just on the QT. I don't trust smokers. If they don't care enough about there own life to stop, why would I trust them with my well being?

[VictorBjoerk]

There has been a debate about smoking in your garden and how it kan affect your neighbours.I remember such a case some years ago when a woman was not allowed to smoke in her garden because her neighbour could feel the smoke and the debate was very intense.

What do you think about that?,should people be allowed to smoke in their gardens if they have close neighbours?

[missminni]

There has been a debate about smoking in your garden and how it kan affect your neighbours.I remember such a case some years ago when a woman was not allowed to smoke in her garden because her neighbour could feel the smoke and the debate was very intense.

What do you think about that?,should people be allowed to smoke in their gardens if they have close neighbours?

I think once the smell bothers somebody it should be stopped. That's second hand smoke.
My next door neighbor used to smoke and it would come in my back door by my bedroom and make me ill. She started going up on
the roof to smoke, which was fine because the smoke blew away. My downstairs neighbors used to smoke in the hall so they wouldn't
smell up their house. They smelled up everyone elses. We had to make a rule. No smoking in the hallways and if you smoke in your house,
you have to be vented properly so that it doesn't travel upstairs to the people above or next door. We've had that issue too.
Personally, I think tobacco should be outlawed for the good of all. It's poison to the smoker and the passerby and is a great financial
expense to the system. There are other substances that can be smoked without being carcinogenic or causing emphysema. In fact there are herbs that you can smoke that help asthma
and glaucoma.

[eternaltraveler]

There has been a debate about smoking in your garden and how it kan affect your neighbours.I remember such a case some years ago when a woman was not allowed to smoke in her garden because her neighbour could feel the smoke and the debate was very intense.

What do you think about that?,should people be allowed to smoke in their gardens if they have close neighbours?

some people aren't allowed to smoke inside their own homes

http://www.nbc11.com...719/detail.html

Edited by elrond, 04 May 2008 - 12:33 AM.

[niner]

some people aren't allowed to smoke inside their own homes

Most of us aren't allowed to smoke weed, eat shrooms, drop acid, snort ketamine, pop a tab of X, or shoot up a speedball inside our own homes... Most of these are less harmfull than tobacco, (speedball excepted) yet they are illegal.

[eternaltraveler]

some people aren't allowed to smoke inside their own homes

Most of us aren't allowed to smoke weed, eat shrooms, drop acid, snort ketamine, pop a tab of X, or shoot up a speedball inside our own homes... Most of these are less harmfull than tobacco, (speedball excepted) yet they are illegal.

The obvious retort aside that the government shouldn't be able to outlaw anything a person does to ones self, and that tobacco itself is not illegal; I'm sure you are well aware this is a fallacious argument. You are basically saying one thing has been made illegal therefore it is fine if any other thing is made illegal as well.

Based on other dialogs you've been involved in I get the distinct impression you do not approve of much the government does, or trust said government. Why are you in favor of giving this government you do not trust cart blanche authority over what people do to themselves?

[eternaltraveler]

Also I haven't really brought this up yet. But just for completeness sake, I am not a smoker, and smoke in bars and restaurants bothers me, and has made me choose not to go to them, or go to ones that either don't allow smoking, or have adequate ventilation systems. Ventilation systems incidentally can do wonders. At a casino where I once worked as a bartender smoking was allowed, and probably half the patrons did smoke, but you couldn't smell it even if they were sitting right next to you. The air was drawn straight up to the ceiling, and you could see columns of smoke going directly up, and not drifting to the sides. I believe smoking is now outlawed in the jurisdiction this casino is in. Hell of a waste of a million dollar ventilation system.

Edited by elrond, 04 May 2008 - 07:34 AM.

[mentatpsi]

isn't drinking linked to various forms of cancer? I suppose we should just make drinking illegal as well, not just that but it also risks the driving ability of the individual and increases the risk of accidents...

i understand it's more an issue of risking other people's health during the process of enjoying it, but if people want a place to smoke i don't see why they can't get it...

I don't myself smoke, i don't see the point of indulging in a toxic substance i might get addicted to, but each person deserves their freedoms don't you think?

[niner]

some people aren't allowed to smoke inside their own homes

Most of us aren't allowed to smoke weed, eat shrooms, drop acid, snort ketamine, pop a tab of X, or shoot up a speedball inside our own homes... Most of these are less harmfull than tobacco, (speedball excepted) yet they are illegal.

The obvious retort aside that the government shouldn't be able to outlaw anything a person does to ones self, and that tobacco itself is not illegal; I'm sure you are well aware this is a fallacious argument. You are basically saying one thing has been made illegal therefore it is fine if any other thing is made illegal as well.

Based on other dialogs you've been involved in I get the distinct impression you do not approve of much the government does, or trust said government. Why are you in favor of giving this government you do not trust cart blanche authority over what people do to themselves?

I'm not really sure why I even brought that up, since: a) I'm in favor of people being able to use whatever drugs they want, as long as they don't hurt others or make others pay for whatever trouble they cause. b) It totally confuses the smoking issue, which is not about what people do to themselves, but rather about the harm they do to others.

In this particular case, the homes involved were not detached dwellings, but were apartment buildings where smoke drifting into other people's living space is the problem.

Elrond, relating to our earlier discussion, I met a woman at a party today who told me that she and her husband found a nonsmoking bar in town that they liked, and went out of their way to go to. I was curious about this, and asked if it was popular. She said yeah, that on some nights you couldn't even get in. So I guess some brave bar owner picked up your challenge, and seems to be doing quite well with it. As I mentioned way upthread, this strikes me as a bizarre market failure. We should see more nonsmoking bars in the future if the world is rational. I'm pretty sure that everywhere smoking bans have been put in place, bar business overall has improved. If someone knows of a case where that was not generally true, let me know. I find it really kind of strange.

[niner]

Based on other dialogs you've been involved in I get the distinct impression you do not approve of much the government does, or trust said government.

Actually, I believe in government. I have good local government that I'm happy with. I pay a lot in taxes but I get a lot in services and quality of life. I have been appalled with government on the national level ever since the Republicans turned radical and decided that government was the problem, not the solution. They took that idea so far that they have become essentially incapable of governing. Since this crew has been more or less in control since the mid nineties, I've had a lot to complain about. So while I don't approve of much that's been happening on the national stage for a while, I'm not opposed to government in general.

[VictorBjoerk]

52 votes....Well let's see how it proceeds.....

[VictorBjoerk]

How dangerous is passive smoke in restaurants actually?Does anybody have any studies of it?