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.
Deflection. Country music has notbeen shown to be harmful to one's health.
I would strongly disagree with that.
So if we have restaurant that caters to people that enjoy chicken wings and we ban chicken wings do you think those people are going to move over the tofu restaurant?
So if we have restaurant that caters to people that enjoy chicken wings and we ban chicken wings do you think those people are going to move over the tofu restaurant?
I knew that comment on country music would get a response like that. Still, chicken wings are not likely to be banned. Any nutritionist worth her salt (no pun intended) will tell you any food can be worked into a healthy diet if used in moderation. So let's get off the deflections and talk about smoking in motel rooms.
You sure do use a lot of space just to let us know you really want to be able to smoke indoors when you go to a bar or restaurant, don't you?
Unfortunately -- with all due respect -- a lot of space is required to address your faulty analogies and non-sequituers.
Also, you obviously haven't read some of my earlier posts. I am a NON-SMOKER. I quit quite a few years ago and it was one of the best decisions I ever made. I don't like to breathe second-hand smoke, and really, even when I smoked I didn't really care for it.
BUT...I STRONGLY believe in traditional notions of freedom and private property rights.
Quote:
Since anything that impacts the health of the citizens of a state impacts the economics of that state, the citizens should have a say in mitigating that impact. That includes restricting smoking in businesses that serve those citizens.
You are just given the summative argument for the existence of a Nanny State. It is very akin to that used by activist courts in invoking the "Commerce Clause" to justify every government enroachment on said private property rights.
By your logic, there is really very, very, little that cannot be restricted/banned in the name of "public health."
Quote:
I owned a successful business, completely nonsmoking, by the way, and was able to retire early. My husband owns his business and it is also completely non-smoking. I am his office manager now.
That's wonderful (again, out of curiosity, what type business did you run and what is the one you and your husband run today?).
Now then, why can't you let other business owners make that decision (or not) on their own?
Quote:
I have no desire to run a bar, a restaurant, or a hotel. I'm happy being semi-retired. DH does not pay me very well, though.
Well (assuming DH = Dear Husband), I probably wouldn't pay my other half very well either! LOL
But seriously, point is, if you have never run a business of this type, then you probably have little idea of exactly how sucess is coorelated to catering customer wishes. And it seems -- in tandem -- that while you have no personal desire to run a place of that nature, you presume the credentials to tell those who do how to run it!
There was a great example in my hometown. Some years back, the local anti-smoking zealots got together and forced some restrictive smoking regulations. It didn't ban smoking completely (that attempt, predictably, was undertaken later) but it required eating establishments which didn't serve alcohol, to set aside seperate places for smokers and non-smokers. If that could not be done? Then smoking was banned by city ordinance inside the place.
As someone earlier pointed out, this can be easier said than done cost-wise. Many of the private businesses so affected by the ruling were small eating joints and run by "mom and pop" type folks who had been in business for years, worked their butts off for many years, and gradually built up a good following because of the great food and good folksy, friendly, atmosphere.
In this particular example (and there were more like it), these people made a decent living because of their loyal customers, but could hardly afford to add on an elaborate new room and ventilation system simply to accomodate the very few people who patronized the place who did not smoke. Besides, this was an old business, in a working class part of town, and most people DID smoke. Those who didn't had no problem with it. (how do I know this? Well, after the law was passed, the local paper did a feature story on it, and absolutely no regular customer who didn't smoke had a problem with others doing so. They were quoted. PLUS...I went to the place occasionally, and knew the owner and how things worked from personal experience.).
But that didn't matter to the anti-smoking zealots and those on the mission to save others from their own bad habits. Never mind these types didn't have to pay a personal price for the mandates they force on others, they were on a New Age Divine Assignment in the name of "Public Health."
LOL, it was your argument not mine. The very premise of every argument you have made is because it's not healthy...... Why is it different when the subject of the legislation is something other than smoking? Certainly if we can ban smoking under the guise of public health we can ban french fries as well.
So if we have bar that caters to those that enjoy country music and you ban country music you haven't handicapped them? Do you think the people that enjoy country music are going to move on over to the heavy metal bar?
The difference is that environmental smoke hurts people who do not themselves smoke. You can eat a pile of French fries and it will not hurt the health of anyone else. I would like you to be healthier, so I suggest you not eat French fries. I would like for non-smokers not to be harmed by second hand smoke, so I support smoking bans in places that accommodate the public. You have the right to eat French fries and you have the right to smoke. Your eating French fries hurts you only. Your smoking can hurt other people, too. Therefore you are told you cannot smoke around other people.
Unfortunately -- with all due respect -- a lot of space is required to address your faulty analogies and non-sequituers.
Also, you obviously haven't read some of my earlier posts. I am a NON-SMOKER. I quit quite a few years ago and it was one of the best decisions I ever made. I don't like to breathe second-hand smoke, and really, even when I smoked I didn't really care for it.
BUT...I STRONGLY believe in traditional notions of freedom and private property rights.
You are just given the summative argument for the existence of a Nanny State. It is very akin to that used by activist courts in invoking the "Commerce Clause" to justify every government enroachment on said private property rights.
By your logic, there is really very, very, little that cannot be restricted/banned in the name of "public health."
That's wonderful (again, out of curiosity, what type business did you run and what is the one you and your husband run today?).
Now then, why can't you let other business owners make that decision (or not) on their own?
Well (assuming DH = Dear Husband), I probably wouldn't wouldn't pay my other half very well either! LOL
But seriously, point is, if you have never run a business of this type, then you probably have little idea of exactly how sucess is coorelated to catering customer wishes. And it seems -- in tandem -- that while you have no personal desire to run a place of that nature, you presume the credentials to tell those who do how to run it!
There was a great example in my hometown. Some years back, the local anti-smoking zealots got together and forced some restrictive smoking regulations. It didn't ban smoking completely (that attempt, predictably, was undertaken later) but it required eating establishments which didn't serve alcohol, to set aside seperate places for smokers and non-smokers. If that could not be done? Then smoking was banned by city ordinance inside the place.
As someone earlier pointed out, this can be easier said than done cost-wise. Many of the private businesses so affected by the ruling were small eating joints and run by "mom and pop" type folks who had been in business for years, worked their butts off for many years, and gradually built up a good following because of the great food and good folksy, friendly, atmosphere.
In this particular example (and there were more like it), these people made a decent living because of their loyal customers, but could hardly afford to add on an elaborate new room and ventilation system simply to accomodate the very few people who patronized the place who did not smoke. Besides, this was an old business, in a working class part of town, and most people DID smoke. Those who didn't had no problem with it. (how do I know this? Well, after the law was passed, the local paper did a feature story on it, and absolutely no regular customer who didn't smoke had a problem with others doing so. They were quoted).
But that didn't matter to the anti-smoking zealots and those on the mission to save others from their own bad habits. Never mind these types didn't have to pay a personal price for the mandates they force on others, they were on a New Age Divine Assignment in the name of "Public Health."
I did miss that you are a non-smoker. Sorry.
I still do not believe that smoking bans infringe on the rights of individuals or business owners any more than other regulations on business activities do. Smokers are still free to smoke. There are just places where they cannot do it, because it is unsafe for other people sharing those spaces. Would you say it is up to a convenience store to decide whether to allow someone to smoke while he places gasoline in his car?
I am going to respectfully decline to give any details on my business or my husband's, as that would infringe on my anonymity here. Let us just say we are both familiar with the ins and outs of running a small business, even if it is not in the hospitality sector.
And the clue to the solution for your home town restaurant lies in the phrase I have highlighted in your anecdote. Total smoking bans make it much easier for business than partial bans. Compliance with a total ban does not require any large investment. Probably all you have to do is make a few no smoking signs and you are set to go.
Total bans also level the playing field. No business gains an advantage because it has the financial resources to put in totally separate smoking areas with fancy ventilation systems. Such facilities are not needed.
Please note that smoking bans are not "to save others from their own bad habits." They are to save bystanders from the effects of the smoker's bad habit.
I knew that comment on country music would get a response like that. Still, chicken wings are not likely to be banned. Any nutritionist worth her salt (no pun intended) will tell you any food can be worked into a healthy diet if used in moderation. So let's get off the deflections and talk about smoking in motel rooms.
This what is called an analogy, if you can't handle the discussion and come up with a good argument as to why it's not similar then I've guess you've lost the argument.
Let's try another one...... We have a business that caters to people that like peanuts, as we know peanuts can be fatal to some people. Do you think the people are going to move over to the hot pepper place when peanuts are banned? You want more analogies? I have one for every argument you can make on this subject.
In any event as has been stated numerous times....... You are an adult, act like one and make adult decisions on your own instead of having the government hold your hand. Be responsible for yourself.
This what is called an analogy, if you can't handle the discussion and come up with a good argument as to why it's not similar then I've guess you've lost the argument.
Let's try another one...... We have a business that caters to people that like peanuts, as we know peanuts can be fatal to some people. Do you think the people are going to move over to the hot pepper place when peanuts are banned? You want more analogies? I have one for every argument you can make on this subject.
In any event as has been stated numerous times....... You are an adult, act like one and make adult decisions on your own instead of having the government hold your hand. Be responsible for yourself.
No, I don't want any more of your lame analogies. As with most analogies, they don't really fit what we are discussing. And of course you're full of them. All you pro-public smokers are. You deflect and deflect and deflect again by going off topic about peanuts and hot wings and Gawd knows what.
Once again, the topic of this thread is:
"Wisconsin, Michigan -- No Smoking Rooms In Hotels -- Period. Thank Liberals"
Not peanuts, or hot wings, or country music or air pollution by automobiles or anything else. It is what it is!
No, I don't want any more of your lame analogies. As with most analogies, they don't really fit what we are discussing. And of course you're full of them. All you pro-public smokers are. You deflect and deflect and deflect again by going off topic about peanuts and hot wings and Gawd knows what.
Of course it fits. Its "principle". Why do you insist on trying to silence people who disagree with you?
Of course it fits. Its "principle". Why do you insist on trying to silence people who disagree with you?
I'm not trying to silence anyone. He asked if I wanted to see some more analogies, and I answered his question. Analogies about country music, fried chicken, etc have nothing to do with cigarette smoke which is a hazard to OTHERS!
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.
