Finally, A Cause I Can Really Get Behind

The New Jersey smoking ban. It's incredible the extent to which politicians simply try to dictate to society today. If, say, a tavern owner wants to permit smoking, individuals are not forced to enter. I say let the marketplace decide. And it ticks me off that the one exception is the Casino industry.

Now this is a cause I'd like to really get behind:

N.J. Strippers Protest Indoor Smoking Ban

And the AP was even kind enough to provide video

Comments

[superdestroyer]

But the question you should be asking is: Why is cigarette smoke the one indoor air pollutant that should not be regulated in the workplace.

If you ran an industrial facility, OSHA and the states can and does regulate every single air emission on the factory floor. Why should the restaurant and bar industry be the only industry that does not have to comply with such laws?

[thealamo]

But the question you should be asking is: Why is cigarette smoke the one indoor air pollutant that should not be regulated in the workplace.

If you ran an industrial facility, OSHA and the states can and does regulate every single air emission on the factory floor. Why should the restaurant and bar industry be the only industry that does not have to comply with such laws?

Posted by: superdestroyer | Sunday, January 15, 2006 at 04:55 PM

Because a free society is not "regulated." The idea that one group of people can "regulate" the behavior of another is not an American ideal, and it will backfire on this nation just as it has in all other nations doing so, namely Germany, Russia, Cuba and China. That is what "regulation" is....

I do not smoke. But I am adult enough to leave a place where it bothers me. No one forces another to enter into any place of business. Therefore, those who go into a smoking environment choose to do so.

Under this type of mentality, then the smoker group should have the same right and power to regulate places where you HAVE to smoke to enter in.

What a can of worms communistic thinking opens up.

[superdestroyer]

But Alamo,

What makes the bartenders and servers different than welders, machinists, or people who work in a TB ward at a hospital. In all other cases, except the food service industry, the employers has been responsbile for the occupational exposures of the workers and the protection of the workers. Why shouldn't the food industry have to follow the same rules for occupational exposures.

You can argue that the customer is free to choose to to go into an area where their is smoke but an employee is not cosndiered to have the same "freedom to choose."

If you want to argue to the public that OSHA should be put out of business but of course, everyone, except for a few libertarians, would laugh in your face.

[thealamo]

You can argue that the customer is free to choose to to go into an area where their is smoke but an employee is not cosndiered to have the same "freedom to choose."

If you want to argue to the public that OSHA should be put out of business but of course, everyone, except for a few libertarians, would laugh in your face.

Posted by: superdestroyer | Sunday, January 15, 2006 at 07:59 PM

On the contrary, employees have the choice to work where they choose. Since they are not the owners, and have no capital at risk, then their input into the running of the business should be only what is solicited from their employer. If, they find that the conditions at that work place are not suitable, then they are free to go work somewhere else, or put up their own risk capital, go into business as the competition, and run their show the way they want. This way, they protect others' rights and freedoms and do not use force to infringe upon others. If their argument is that viable, then the market will do the work for them. The other companies will be out of business as their better way draws more and more customers who now, have a right to choose on their own, without government dictates. This...is what made America great, not force.

And, in regards to your remark about OSHA, and the inept attempt at categorizing libertarians in a negative light, all one need do is check the record of democrats and republicans to find the laughable part in the equation.

I think most Americans miss the point when persons attack government entities such as OSHA. No one in their right mind is for abominable working conditions. There should be local or state oversite in regards to such. However, when it is federal, there are problems. First when the feds pass an ordinance, it applies to everyone whether they need it or not. If done on the local or state level those corrections are applied by those best to do so...those that are affected, and....it protects the rest of the country from all encompassing legislation as you see in totalitarian nations.
Not only that, the market is much more adept at eliminating bad businesses than government edict. Government edicts tend to eliminate all but one or two, thus eliminating the consumers' choices and the livlihood of many, to protect that of a few. One need only look at the pollution problem to see that government controls are not impartial, and they are allowing some to pollute, while others are shut down. Not a functional system, but a definite way to control the competition, if one happens to contribute enough campaign money.
Now, if you have something concrete with which to dispute these things, then by all means let's hear them. As for labels, I am an American, and hope to discover some others along the way.

[ViVi]

Free markets, free trade, laissez faire. Yay America!

[Muirnin]

Hey Alamo.......Muir here.

We've had some awesome debates before.

First, just want to say I'm happy your son is home, safe and sound, from Iraq.

JMO now..........everyone needs to lighten up on the smoking cigarette thing. Good grief! There are so many things polluting our air.....!

As Always,
Muir

[thealamo]

Hey Alamo.......Muir here.

We've had some awesome debates before.

First, just want to say I'm happy your son is home, safe and sound, from Iraq.

JMO now..........everyone needs to lighten up on the smoking cigarette thing. Good grief! There are so many things polluting our air.....!

As Always,
Muir

Posted by: Muirnin | Sunday, January 15, 2006 at 09:46 PM

Thank you Muir. I talked to him for about two hours today via phone, and it looks like after a short break his unit may have to head for Afghanistan, at least, that is the scuttle-butt. I am not too excited about that one. I don't know enough about the goings on in Afghanistan as opposed to Iraq, ie which is the "better of the two," if you can categorize them that way. Seems the media coverage in Afghanistan is lacking as far as in comparison to Iraq. Hopefully that is a good sign as it points to the fact that not as much is going on there. I hope.

In regards to smoking, I think they ought to pass a law that forces everyone to dip copenhagen, and drink Miller Light....then we will all be equal, and it will end air pollution :)!!

[Muirnin]

Thank you Muir. I talked to him for about two hours today via phone, and it looks like after a short break his unit may have to head for Afghanistan, at least, that is the scuttle-butt. I am not too excited about that one. I don't know enough about the goings on in Afghanistan as opposed to Iraq, ie which is the "better of the two," if you can categorize them that way. Seems the media coverage in Afghanistan is lacking as far as in comparison to Iraq. Hopefully that is a good sign as it points to the fact that not as much is going on there. I hope.

In regards to smoking, I think they ought to pass a law that forces everyone to dip copenhagen, and drink Miller Light....then we will all be equal, and it will end air pollution :)!!

Posted by: thealamo | Sunday, January 15, 2006 at 10:05 PM

Hi Alamo....

How long is your son enlisted for..? Hate to mention it, but it looks like Iran might be a needing a visit. I don't know what country is the worst....as we mainly rely on media coverage.....and it's not accurate.

Next time you talk to your son, please tell him I truly appreciate his efforts and admire his loyalty to our country!

As for smoking, blah, obviously, we have more important issues to worry about!

Muir

[thealamo]

How long is your son enlisted for..? Hate to mention it, but it looks like Iran might be a needing a visit. I don't know what country is the worst....as we mainly rely on media coverage.....and it's not accurate.

Next time you talk to your son, please tell him I truly appreciate his efforts and admire his loyalty to our country!

As for smoking, blah, obviously, we have more important issues to worry about!

Muir

Posted by: Muirnin | Sunday, January 15, 2006 at 10:27 PM

I think he's got a good year and a half left. And you are right, the Iran thing is going to heat up. The French, Germans and British are those complaining, but you won't see any French or German soldiers to back it up.

Again, I make the statement, if the UN is so hopped up about people having nuclear weapons, they why the silence about Russia, China, and N. Korea? They collectively have murdered more people than have died in all of the wars added together--for all time....and we, and the UN just ignore that?

The problem with us being the errand boy for the UN, is that our people have no recourse against UN mandates...can't vote losers out. Why we as a people belong to such a defunct organization is beyond me.

I will tell him about your comments...thank you again....but...you forgot comment on the part where we should all be required to drink Miller Lite!!!:)

[Muirnin]

How long is your son enlisted for..? Hate to mention it, but it looks like Iran might be a needing a visit. I don't know what country is the worst....as we mainly rely on media coverage.....and it's not accurate.

Next time you talk to your son, please tell him I truly appreciate his efforts and admire his loyalty to our country!

As for smoking, blah, obviously, we have more important issues to worry about!

Muir

Posted by: Muirnin | Sunday, January 15, 2006 at 10:27 PM

I think he's got a good year and a half left. And you are right, the Iran thing is going to heat up. The French, Germans and British are those complaining, but you won't see any French or German soldiers to back it up.

Again, I make the statement, if the UN is so hopped up about people having nuclear weapons, they why the silence about Russia, China, and N. Korea? They collectively have murdered more people than have died in all of the wars added together--for all time....and we, and the UN just ignore that?

The problem with us being the errand boy for the UN, is that our people have no recourse against UN mandates...can't vote losers out. Why we as a people belong to such a defunct organization is beyond me.

I will tell him about your comments...thank you again....but...you forgot comment on the part where we should all be required to drink Miller Lite!!!:)

Posted by: thealamo | Sunday, January 15, 2006 at 10:56 PM

Hi Again Alamo.....

The Brits and Australians seem to be the only ones behind us these days. I don't know much about Germany, but don't even get me started on the French!!!!

I for one am getting really concerned about this Iran thing. Apparently Russia and China kinda kiss Iran's butt due to oil. I'm not sure about Korea. Also, not sure why one country is allowed nuclear weapons, why another is not. I've got this awful feeling that those countries might unite.

IMO, the UN seems useless. It ignores many things.....and I don't think ANY country takes them seriously! Certainly, no country has been intimidated. Iran has moreless told them to F off. Just as Saddam Hussein did......! I beg to differ......I don't think the UN is "Hopped Up" about anyone having nuclear weapons. Quite honestly, I don't think the UN gives a rat's ass about anything.

It's very sad that the US has to be the "errand boy" for the "WORLD". We shouldn't have to do the job of the UN......in addition to our own responsibilities.

As for Miller Lite......I can't drink it! Sorry! I've had a horrific allergic reaction to Miller, Miller Lite....and Lowenbrau. My face swells up....and I won't go into other symptoms! Actually, I'm a wine and/or Irish whiskey girl. When I used to drink beer...I drank Dos Equis (Mexican) or Guinness (Irish). Hopefully, we won't be at war with Mexico or Ireland...or....I'll have to find a new beer!

Again, please tell your son...he's wonderful. There has been so much critical press lately. Ugghhh. If it wasn't for folks like your son, we wouldn't be sitting here freely writing our thoughts on a blog.

Great to talk with you again Alamo!

Muir

[thealamo]

Apparently Russia and China kinda kiss Iran's butt due to oil. I'm not sure about Korea. Also, not sure why one country is allowed nuclear weapons, why another is not. I've got this awful feeling that those countries might unite.

Posted by: Muirnin | Sunday, January 15, 2006 at 11:43 PM

You nailed it right here. It is worse than just oil...it is my understanding they have bilateral treaties, which means this. If we attack Iran, then Russia and China are bound by the treaty to declare war on us.

I wouldn't worry about them uniting...they have always been. The scam that the communists all became good guys and are just loveable sheep is a creation of the US lying media. They are our deadly enemies, and I am afraid we will get to see that fact pretty soon.

[Muirnin]

I wouldn't worry about them uniting...they have always been. The scam that the communists all became good guys and are just loveable sheep is a creation of the US lying media. They are our deadly enemies, and I am afraid we will get to see that fact pretty soon.

Posted by: thealamo | Monday, January 16, 2006 at 12:39 AM

Looks like WW3 is coming up......and I'm afraid the US miltary is terribly strained with this Iraq stuff. Good grief....Russia, China, Korea, in addition to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan......

Muir

[mulder]

The benefits of a smoke free workplace far outweigh any infringment on someones right to "do whatever I want, where I want, and screw everybody else". The only people who don't agree with this are smokers (because the truth hurts) and people who like to argue (because they need something to disagree with).

Where I live, there has been no smoking in bars, restaurants, casinos, and (thank god), strip clubs for 5 years. No one had to close, in fact, no one was even adversly affected. We had all the same arguments, but in the end, everyone knew it made sense and the thought of a restaurant with a smoking section is just ridiculous now.

[thealamo]

The benefits of a smoke free workplace far outweigh any infringment on someones right to "do whatever I want, where I want, and screw everybody else". The only people who don't agree with this are smokers (because the truth hurts) and people who like to argue (because they need something to disagree with).

Where I live, there has been no smoking in bars, restaurants, casinos, and (thank god), strip clubs for 5 years. No one had to close, in fact, no one was even adversly affected. We had all the same arguments, but in the end, everyone knew it made sense and the thought of a restaurant with a smoking section is just ridiculous now.

Posted by: mulder | Monday, January 16, 2006 at 02:33 AM

"do whatever I want, where I want, and screw everybody else".

Interesting statement here, who made it? You are the only one who has, and it seems to be your own attitude. Try logic, it is more reliable than emotion.

Well Mulder I don't like loud kids bugging me when I am in a restaurant. Noise pollution being what it is, proven to be harmful, I think we should ban kids in restaurants. This way, everyone is taken care of.

You see, what you like possibly someone else does not. When government begins legislating what occurs on private property, other than attacks on the person of another, then we have moved from a free society to one of a totalitarian nature. Anyone can come up with things they don't like or are harmful, to justify an agrument. There is no question auto pollution is way more prevalent and just as dangerous as cigarette smoke. Should we ban autos?
Like I said above. No one is forced to smoke. No one is forced to frequent places where it occurs. No one is forced to work for anyone else. Therefore, if you allow choices in those things, then you have no right to exclude that of others. In this way YOUR freedom does not become vulnerable to the will of the majority---the express, and exact reason this country was not founded as a democracy. Big difference between a republic, and a democracy. The founders knew exactly what they were doing,...to protect the minority from the majority---no matter what the circumstances.
But, if you have a viable argument other than it is what you want, please by all means pontificate.

[thealamo]

Looks like WW3 is coming up......and I'm afraid the US miltary is terribly strained with this Iraq stuff. Good grief....Russia, China, Korea, in addition to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan......

Muir

Posted by: Muirnin | Monday, January 16, 2006 at 12:51 AM

The United States is spread out in over 40 countries. The Russians and Chinese must be salivating. We gave them the Panama Canal, Long Beach Naval yard and a base in the Bahamas. All we need do now is put out the welcome signs saying please come on...invade us.

If being an idiot is a prerequisite for government service then I would say we have gotten the cream of the crop.

[mulder]

Alamo,

I believe a while ago, there was a decision to put the dignity of human beings before the rights of bus drivers to tell people where to sit. Would you say "well, they didn't HAVE to ride the bus"?

[mulder]

Noise pollution being what it is, proven to be harmful, I think we should ban kids in restaurants.

Posted by TheAlamo

Proven? Where? Show me a study that shows that children in restaurants affects the health of workers to a degree comparable to second hand smoke and I'll advocate the ban.

[thealamo]

Alamo,

I believe a while ago, there was a decision to put the dignity of human beings before the rights of bus drivers to tell people where to sit. Would you say "well, they didn't HAVE to ride the bus"?

Posted by: mulder | Monday, January 16, 2006 at 03:23 AM

First of all, why would someone need to make a "decision" on that? If our society is so ill that they cannot make rational decisions on things like that, then they should all be in camps of something befitting those without a brain.
Who disagrees? The dignity of the person who put up the capital investment and has his/her livlihood at risk is the best person to anaalyze what is good, or bad for busienss...not government agents. If their place of work/business is that terrible, then it will go under--without force.
Talk about whose dignity should be respected? How about those who employ you and others? How about those who have their family on the line with their business? You know, those that are responsible for this country's success and growth? Show something government has done to enhance their life? if they wanted to do so, they would butt out of things that have only to do with businesses in communist type countries.

[thealamo]

Posted by TheAlamo

Proven? Where? Show me a study that shows that children in restaurants affects the health of workers to a degree comparable to second hand smoke and I'll advocate the ban.

Posted by: mulder | Monday, January 16, 2006 at 03:47 AM

Be happy to Mulder, as soon as you show me the ledger statements of the businesses you quote about here below:
"Where I live, there has been no smoking in bars, restaurants, casinos, and (thank god), strip clubs for 5 years. No one had to close, in fact, no one was even adversly affected."

Yes, by all means show me their ledger statements that prove they were not adversely affected, or I will give you a break, just show me all of the newpaper interviews they did, stating their business has not been harmed...

I wait..........

[mulder]

"No one is forced to frequent places where it occurs. No one is forced to work for anyone else."

-TheAlamo

Obviously, people have choices, but it is also fairly obvious that there will always be people who have no choice but to work long hours in bars/restaurants where second hand smoke is a serious, and documented health issue.

The whole "people can work where they want" mantra is a nice idea, but just not true.

[thealamo]

Noise pollution being what it is, proven to be harmful, I think we should ban kids in restaurants.

Posted by TheAlamo

Proven? Where? Show me a study that shows that children in restaurants affects the health of workers to a degree comparable to second hand smoke and I'll advocate the ban.

Posted by: mulder | Monday, January 16, 2006 at 03:47 AM

How about the ban on automobiles? You conveniently forgot that one. There are thousands of studies on auto pollution, not to mention those killed in auto accidents. So, with that evidence, I move we ban automobiles. Now, you are "so concerned" with the health of others, show me a study proving automobiles do not pollute, and...that no one dies in auto accidents, or else don't be a hypocrit...vote to ban automobiles.

[thealamo]

"No one is forced to frequent places where it occurs. No one is forced to work for anyone else."

-TheAlamo
Obviously, people have choices, but it is also fairly obvious that there will always be people who have no choice but to work long hours in bars/restaurants where second hand smoke is a serious, and documented health issue.

The whole "people can work where they want" mantra is a nice idea, but just not true.

Posted by: mulder | Monday, January 16, 2006 at 04:25 AM

Really? Please show me the laws requiring people to work in those places, and I will join with you in getting them abolished. They work there because they CHOOSE to do so. Your agrument is losing wind rapidly....

[mulder]

Do you really believe that no one is forced, due to socioeconomic factors, to work in certain jobs, in certain working conditions?

[mulder]

How about the ban on automobiles? You conveniently forgot that one. There are thousands of studies on auto pollution, not to mention those killed in auto accidents. So, with that evidence, I move we ban automobiles. Now, you are "so concerned" with the health of others, show me a study proving automobiles do not pollute, and...that no one dies in auto accidents, or else don't be a hypocrit...vote to ban automobiles.

Posted by: thealamo | Monday, January 16, 2006 at 04:26 AM

lol - did you really just say that? How about "gee, a car ban would cripple the entire worlds economy whereas a smoking ban has been shown to be financially sustainable in countries like Canada.

[thealamo]

Do you really believe that no one is forced, due to socioeconomic factors, to work in certain jobs, in certain working conditions?

Posted by: mulder | Monday, January 16, 2006 at 04:43 AM

Ah, but that is a different can of worms. You see up above we were talking about the use of government force to affect the lives of others.
The socio-economic situation isn't a direct result of legislation. Cetrtainly there are factors that cause people to have to work at things they may not be comfortable with at the time. That is why colleges have night classes, and weekend classes, internet classes and correspondence classes. Now, for the person griping about what they are doing, and NOT taking advantage of all those opportunities I say tough do-doo, but because of your (their) laziness, don't expect me to support legislation to make your life better---that...is the province of the free man.

However, I can also give you just as many reasons why the use of government force has caused that person to work in a certain job as well. But that, as this, is a different matter than what our original discussion was about.

Also, let me point something out. I have no personal vendetta against you, because if you would have seen me when I graduated from college...I was just about as far left as possible....I was "educated." Then one day I ran into this old man who basically tore apart every argument I posed. he really frustrated me. Here I was with all these degrees, and this guy didn't even go to college....but he "won" every argument once emotion was taken out of the formula...and we have to do that to be fair to all...
He ended several different debates with these words. Government control is always acheived through emotions...to "help the poor and downtrodden, etc." when they, in fact are the cause of the poor and downtrodden. He then challenged me to study the free market, and liberty itself....two terms I heard sparingly in college.(and I graduated from the top academic university in the state--which, means nothing...unless you are a "credentialist.") So I took him up on it and damn if freedom and liberty do not help the most people most of the time, and everyone has a better lifestyle, whereas every nation that I have studied that has top down "federal" control has stagnated into slavery and/or oblivion. You cannot put an argument up here that the free market will not solve better than a government solution, other than laws preventing the obvious like murder, theft, etc.
I say these things not condescendingly, in hopes that when you get the chance you will learn of freedom and liberty...neat things.

[thealamo]

Posted by: thealamo | Monday, January 16, 2006 at 04:26 AM

lol - did you really just say that? How about "gee, a car ban would cripple the entire worlds economy whereas a smoking ban has been shown to be financially sustainable in countries like Canada.

Posted by: mulder | Monday, January 16, 2006 at 04:55 AM

Ah, but you are a "fair" person are you not? You cannot just discriminate for or against whoever you wish when it is convenient for you....if...you are a fair and just person, which, I assume you are.
That is precisely why government should not be allowed to do the job of the market...it is unfair, and very, very inefficient, and DOES discriminate.
If these guys are so bad...they will be out of business. If not, then there are obviously quite a few people who feel differently than you do about it. So the solution? You stay out of places that offend you, and let others enjoy the same rights to liberty that you want for yourself.

In fact, if you are convinced you are right in the matter, then it is a guaranteed home run for you to open up a competing business and put in place those restrictions which you support. If the other places are so bad, then you will have their business in no time, and they will be out of business. This way, you accomplish your goal...and get rich at the same time!
Otherwise, I can promise you that turn about will come about. Maybe not this issue, maybe not affecting you personally....but sooner or later totalitarian type government edicts will foment disruption of one type or another. One need only study history to see that that is the case...it is not even a question of if...but only when.

[mulder]

Yes, by all means show me their ledger statements that prove they were not adversely affected, or I will give you a break, just show me all of the newpaper interviews they did, stating their business has not been harmed...

I wait..........

Alamo, this is how it goes. First, everyone complains and shows statistics about how restaurants and bars will close. Then the ban comes and some comply and some don't. The ones that comply get briefly screwed while others take the smokers. Then the local gov. gets its act together and creates a level playing field. At this point, dining habits go back to normal because smokers just take smoke "breaks" while frequenting a restaraunt/bar. They do this on patios, outside, and in special smoking rooms. I've seen it. I don't need stats.

but, just for you ....

from http://www.cleanaircoalitionbc.com/caccontenteconomics.htm

Sales figures compiles by the BC Liquor Distribution Board show no negative impact on business (after going smoke-free) for Greater Victoria hospitality venues after 9 months. In fact, a 4.5% increase in retail liquor sales at neighbourhood and marine pubs, and 1.7% increase at all licensed establishments was reported. (Outlook, Clean Air Coalition, December 1999, "Clean Air Figures Bring Good Cheer")

For the first year following a California-wide smoking ban, an additional $880 million of taxable sales were made in California's beer, wine and liquor serving establishments; also, the rate of growth in the beer, wine and liquor serving establishments outpaced all retail outlet taxable sales by 7.7%. (Final Taxable Sales Figures for Bars and Restaurants for the fourth quarter and year end, 1998. Contact: Gregory Oliva, MPH, Department of Health Services 916-445-2563. (California went smoke-free in 1998.)

Sales tax data for 15 cities with smoke-free restaurant ordinances showed that smoke-free ordinances do not adversely affect either restaurant or bar sales. (American Journal of Public Health 87 (10), 1997. "The Effect of ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants and bars on revenues: a follow-up." Glantz et al.

Sacramento, California news services ran the following quote after the first year of a smoking ban: "In stark contrast to predictions of economic ruin, bars around the state appear to have enjoyed a healthy increase in business during the first year of a controversial smoking ban, fresh sales data show..." (Copley News Service, Sweeney, J.P.: "Smoking Ban Good for Bars, a Report Says". November 6, 1999.)

In Massachusetts, studies failed to find any statistically significant effect of smoke-free policies on restaurant businesses; rather, they provided evidence that local smoke-free policies do not cause a large decline in communities' restaurant industries. (Journal of Public Health Management Practice 5 (1), 1999. "The economic effect of smoke-free restaurant policies on restaurant businesses in Massachusetts", Bartosch et al.

Prohibiting smoking in Flagstaff, Arizona, restaurants has had no effect on restaurant sales. (American Journal of Health Promotion 12 (3), 1998. "Prohibiting smoking in restaurants: effects on restaurant sales", Sciacca et al.

The total sales of the restaurants in West Lake Hills, Texas, did not decrease after implementation of the 100% smoke-free ordinance. (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 44 (19), 1995. "Assessment of the impact of a 100% smoke-free ordinance on restaurant sales - West Lake Hills, Texas, 1992-1994", Huang et al.

[mulder]

The socio-economic situation isn't a direct result of legislation. Cetrtainly there are factors that cause people to have to work at things they may not be comfortable with at the time. That is why colleges have night classes, and weekend classes, internet classes and correspondence classes

-mulder

College classes? Are you for real? Some people cannot afford classes, some people do not have the capacity to complete classes due to physiological issues (mental illness, disability, etc ...).

So, you think that instead of imposing a smoking ban, we should just tell all of the people who work in the service industry to go to college and get better jobs that aren't around smoke?

I think you've been in too many rooms with the wrong kind of smoke.

[thealamo]

So how do those stats give government power to do what you can do for yourself? If you can do it yourself, then government has no place...period. In fact there is not one thing that government should be allowed to do that you cannot do as an individual. This safeguards the lives and rights of all people. If you as an individual cannot accomplish a particular feat then government itself should not be allowed to...other than to protect your life from harm by another, and your property from others,....and the truth of the matter is they cannot do that either, only prosecute the crime after it has happened.

Sure, you can show stats. Hell I don't smoke, and I agree on the negative effects, but it is not my place to tell you not to do it. THAT is my point. If we go on your argument here, then we have to ban automobiles.
because we both know the stats are worse, and after all, money is not as important an issue as lives.

My disagreement is not with the negative effects of smoking, it is with the negative effects of governments forcing things upon their people via "majority will," in areas where they have no right to infringe. What would happen if smokers were the majority? This argument would disappear....into smoke.
Because, sooner, or later that "majority" will get to you as well. This is why the founders were so adament in making sure we were not a democracy, but a republic. In this way, everyone's rights were protected....even the minority. And, interestingly, the market did its job, and we grew into a giant of a nation. We are now declining, and 100% of that can be traced to government---not, the people.
In a free society, there is no doubt there is more risk than in a controlled one. However the rewards of freedom far outweight the life of government "regulation." And, the great thing is we can check history and see for sure....

[mulder]

Otherwise, I can promise you that turn about will come about. Maybe not this issue, maybe not affecting you personally....but sooner or later totalitarian type government edicts will foment disruption of one type or another. One need only study history to see that that is the case...it is not even a question of if...but only when.

-alamo

Try studying the industrial revolution and learn what legislative policy did to improve working conditions in North America and Europe. I think you would have had a hard time selling your "just go to school" policy against the concept of child labor laws.

[thealamo]

mulder

College classes? Are you for real? Some people cannot afford classes, some people do not have the capacity to complete classes due to physiological issues (mental illness, disability, etc ...).

So, you think that instead of imposing a smoking ban, we should just tell all of the people who work in the service industry to go to college and get better jobs that aren't around smoke?

I think you've been in too many rooms with the wrong kind of smoke.

Posted by: mulder | Monday, January 16, 2006 at 05:34 AM

Oh there you go with the personal attacks. I don't smoke.

You cannot tell me that even close to the majority of people working in these establishments are disabled.

So you think our society is too far gone to work and go to school at the same time? They are all poor little mentally crippled people that just cannot get their act together? I did it. I have had two knee operations and a spinal fusion....where are the pitty potty guys for me?

No thanks, I can do without help, and so can they...if they want to change their life. Otherwise, it is a choice, and they have made it. I have absolutely zero sympathy for somebody not willing to do whatever it takes legally to improve themselves. If ONE can do it then all can do it. If they are disabled, there are programs for that, and nobody would have a problem with those receiveing help, and you for sure cannot tell me there are no entities that do so. But some lazy punk....well that is not my fault---nor my responsibility.

[thealamo]

Try studying the industrial revolution and learn what legislative policy did to improve working conditions in North America and Europe. I think you would have had a hard time selling your "just go to school" policy against the concept of child labor laws.

Posted by: mulder | Monday, January 16, 2006 at 05:45 AM

I have studied the industrial revolution, and both sides of it...not just one. The answer to poor working conditions is simple. Establish a competitive business that has better conditions. You will soon have the workers at your disposal, and the other people are out of business.
I can tell you are not a history major, About 90% of "history" has been re-written...more than once to suit the purposes of the era. major events? Of course not, but the goings on in the background...different story.

Not only that, I am not against LOCAL or state legislation--only federal. Big difference. Do you know what it is and why it is better...(or worse, as is probably your opinion?)

[mulder]

Alamo,

I'm sure you do well with the fused spine and broken knees. I never meant to insinuate that you couldn't go to college or get a better job. I think you will do fine in life. Just keep a level head when talking to strange men at college and please, for the love of god, don't ever vote.

adios.

[thealamo]

I think this boils down to what I stated above. You have emotional ties to the attack on establishments that cater to some who you feel are undesirable.

You know, once alcohol was against the law in this entire state. We obviously had fewer acciddents and deaths when that was the case.
Would you care to try the same logic on that one today and re-ban alcohol?
You would lose, because the "majority" drink alcohol. So all of the arguments about health hazards are out of the window, since it is obvious that alcohol related problems are even larger than that of smokers.

It is your emotion that has obstructed your logic, else you need to get on the ban alcohol selling establishments as well. But, heck, the way things are going, it would not surprise me to see government get that one under its belt as well....then again, they like the people ahving an opiate to cloud their judgement as to what is being done to them.

gotta go....early day tomorrow.

[thealamo]

Alamo,

I'm sure you do well with the fused spine and broken knees. I never meant to insinuate that you couldn't go to college or get a better job. I think you will do fine in life. Just keep a level head when talking to strange men at college and please, for the love of god, don't ever vote.

adios.

Posted by: mulder | Monday, January 16, 2006 at 06:21 AM

I wasn't asking for your pompous sympathy lame brain or your immature, asanine response...
I have already done well...100% on my own. Had two of those before college....still managed to make it...working as well...wonder how?

Played football through college, then rugby for 8 years....but, heck nobody told me I couldn't...guess I should have asked someone whose emotions were "softer." I can say that I would have loved to run into you on the football or rubgy field....but that is a different story.

Don't worry about the voting....the new voting machines that have no record of my vote...and two parties that accomplish the exact same results...why bother anyway. But you, by all means, go ahead, keep fooling yourself....your vote counts. Prove it...... ROFLMAO!

You know, I have tried to avoid being personal despite your obvious stupidity and arrogance. But you just cannot deal with it, so you got just a little back. Next time, I may not be as cordial, but then, you like it hard and rough don't you....?