Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yooper, actually there was a MUCH larger smoking ban reversal in 2011 as well: The entire country of The Netherlands completely reversed its ban for small bars/cafes. The move was backed by the Dutch Minister of Health (who was rewarded for her efforts by an instant campaign from the Antis over there who called for her resignation and renamed her as "The Minister Of Death"!)
2011 also saw a good number of failed attempts to get new smoking bans in a number of towns, counties, and cities around the US. The Smoking Prohibitionist movement is starting to fall apart despite its unique position among such movements of having enormous background funding.
If that funding were yanked the entire thing would fall apart and we'd be back in the normal sort of situation where there'd be a small group of fanatics and neurotics pushing their belief and that group being ignored by the great majority of normal people. Take a look at history and the motivations for, the growth of, and the eventual collapses of Prohibition movements and you'll see what I mean. British historian Christopher Snowdon has written an excellent book in that area titled "The Art Of Suppression" and I'd highly recommend it as background reading to anyone interested in the subject.
The Antismokers have over-extended themselves. Most people, even most smokers, were accepting of and content with reasonable accommodations being made for people who wished to avoid the smell of smoke. Once they stepped beyond that, entering into the realm of government-mandated universal bans in private businesses, private hotel rooms, condos, and apartments, outdoor locations such as beaches, patios, and parks, and began encouraging such things as job discrimination against smokers -- once they began dipping their paddles into all of that they began losing support despite the thousands of paid professionals pushing their agenda. The various lies and media sound bites that they were so dependent upon began falling apart as some of the wilder claims about things like third hand smoke made people begin questioning some of the older claims they'd earlier just accepted as established "fact." The Internet has played a significant part in all of this: it's the one area of public outreach that's been beyond the control of antismoking-earmarked money, and the one area where the opposition actually has "a level playing field" to lay out its arguments, submit its own facts and references fully for examination, and demand similar facts and references from those who in other media just get away with sound bites or with dominating the stage.
2012 may mark some prominent reversals for the antismoking movement: we'll have to wait and see.
In 2011, the Texas legislature once again failed to pass a state-wide, indoor smoking ban. As in 2009, it failed because the anti's weren't willing to accept a provision which let individual business owners opt out if they so desired. Once again, their all or nothing approach led to nothing. I think the same thing happened in Missouri, one of the states which values individual liberty above group hugs.
In 2010, Galveston, TX moderated it's smoking ban because it was hurting business.
San Marcos, TX today: The City Council backed off putting an indoor smoking ban on the November ballot because the anti's were afraid they might lose. Right now, smoking is allowed in bars, restaurants, hotels and even in government offices.
In 2010, Galveston, TX moderated it's smoking ban because it was hurting business.
San Marcos, TX today: The City Council backed off putting an indoor smoking ban on the November ballot because the anti's were afraid they might lose. Right now, smoking is allowed in bars, restaurants, hotels and even in government offices.
Remind me not to book a business trip there or plan a vacation there.
If a business owner does the math and decides it's in his best interest to allow smoking, why shouldn't he have the right to try it?
What if a business owner does the math and decides it's in his best interest to only cater to white people or Christians, why shouldn't he have the right to try it?
If a business owner does the math and decides it's in his best interest to not follow fire codes, why shouldn't he have the right to try it?
If a business owner does the math and decides it's in his best interest to serve rejected meat, why shouldn't he have the right to try it?
Businesses that are open to the public must follow rules that government decides for the public benefit. You may not like the rules and they may impinge upon your profits but they are legal and have a rational basis. Businesses have an obligation to maximize profit and the government has the responsibility to set the rules of the road.
What if a business owner does the math and decides it's in his best interest to only cater to white people or Christians, why shouldn't he have the right to try it?
If a business owner does the math and decides it's in his best interest to not follow fire codes, why shouldn't he have the right to try it?
If a business owner does the math and decides it's in his best interest to serve rejected meat, why shouldn't he have the right to try it?
Businesses that are open to the public must follow rules that government decides for the public benefit. You may not like the rules and they may impinge upon your profits but they are legal and have a rational basis. Businesses have an obligation to maximize profit and the government has the responsibility to set the rules of the road.
MTA, as far as fire codes and bad meat go, they are both "hidden dangers," dangers that the general public would not be able to ascertain by themselves so government is needed to step in and protect them. Allowing smoking in a business is most certainly not a "hidden danger" -- I'm sure some of the Antismokers here would swear on a stack of bibles that they'd be able to smell the smoke pouring out from the cracks around the door before they even opened it! In addition, fires and food poisonings produce thousands of real dead bodies every year without a doubt in the world as to what caused those deaths. The same can't be said for exposure to secondary smoke.
In terms of discrimination based upon religious preference or skin color, those are both well covered in the Constitution. At the moment, businesses are free to invite both smokers and nonsmokers to enter (and virtually all of them do so), but technically they could probably refuse permission to either if they wanted. After all, just look around the country at how the antismoking groups are encouraging employers to discriminate against hiring smokers!
Last edited by Michael J. McFadden; 01-05-2012 at 08:16 AM..
Reason: Added a sentence.
What if a business owner does the math and decides it's in his best interest to only cater to white people or Christians, why shouldn't he have the right to try it?
If a business owner does the math and decides it's in his best interest to not follow fire codes, why shouldn't he have the right to try it?
If a business owner does the math and decides it's in his best interest to serve rejected meat, why shouldn't he have the right to try it?
Businesses that are open to the public must follow rules that government decides for the public benefit. You may not like the rules and they may impinge upon your profits but they are legal and have a rational basis. Businesses have an obligation to maximize profit and the government has the responsibility to set the rules of the road.
Deflection.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
