View Single Post
Old 01-19-2013, 08:10 PM   #260
suzzer99 suzzer99 is offline
suzzer99's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: L.A.
Casino cash: $34384
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
of course, so now non-smoker is a protected class? Don't be a ****ing moron.

I could just as easily say... "do you think it is ok for a majority racist, white town to pass a law saying bar owner's aren't allowed to serve blacks or mexicans." See the problem?

Smokers and non-smokers aren't protected in that way so it is idiotic to try to take the argument down that road.

Let's try to stay away from protected classes and instead look at optional behavior that could offend (ie smoking). As I pointed out before. Let's pretend you live in Texas and open a bar. The majority in town are Cowboys fans.. they find it offensive to be around fans of other teams. Is it ok for that majority to pass a law making it illegal for the bar in question to display Chiefs gear? What about not even displaying Chiefs gear but just ALLOWING patrons to wear Chiefs gear? It would be a RIDICULOUS law. The very idea that someone would be ok with that is ludicrous. That's the exact same situation with smoking bans except that smoking has been demonized to the point that people no longer feel any outrage when private property owner's get ****ed by laws like this.

Yes, you can argue... WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDRENZ!!! WHAT ABOUT THE WORKES HEALTH!!! As I have pointed out... if ETS levels get high enough to violate OSHA's workplace air quality standards then you'd have an argument. They don't, so you don't.

No one really cares about the workers. It's just an excuse to get their way, push their agenda and to bully private property owners. Period. They want non-smoky bars to go to and don;t want to let the MARKET decide. They'd much rather just FORCE private businesses to do what they want.
But what about the lowest common denominator concept? A majority of businesses in a given industry might want better workplace safety laws. But they're afraid they'll lose out in terms of profitability to companies who violate those laws. And don't give me the idea of the companies of violent those laws will go out of business because it just doesn't work that way. Otherwise sweatshops would never exist. Most consumers don't give a crap where there are items comes from, they just look at the price.

So what happens is everybody gets together and decides on a base set of rules, and then the companies that do things right are punished.

Now extend this concept to the idea that a majority of citizens want to eat and hang out in a smoke-free environment. But all bar and restaurant owners are too scared to be the first to prohibit smoking. So years and years go by and nothing happens.

Also you have a whole cultural stigma where people can't imagine a bar without cigarette smoke. It seems like a fern bar or something really really lame. I thought the exact same way when the smoking bans when in CA. I thought they were stupid and were going to ruin some of my favorite bars. At first I kind of felt they did. But now I love them and enjoy going into these places so much more. And I really notice it when I go to state/country that allows smoking in restaurants or bars. The food and beer doesn't taste as good.

Sometimes people need a little nudging to get over cultural stigmas. Like not serving black people.

Fast-forward to today. We have smoking bans (for 15 years in CA). They haven't hurt anyone's business. If anything they've helped business by bringing out more people who wouldn't have set foot in a bar before the ban. There's a bar near me called Hermosa Saloon that still lets people smoke surreptitiously. Two or three of the girls in our group refuse to set foot in the place. So you can't tell me smoking bans have destroyed business in any way.

Therefore no one has really had their rights violated. So while I'll grant you that the theory part of your argument that property owners rights have been violated might hold some water, the harm part of your argument is complete horse pucky.

People have been claiming that the next right to lose is going to be the road to totalitarianism since the inception of this country. This country is orders of magnitude more socialistic now that was 100 years ago. And yet we've seen the greatest economic expansion the world is ever known, and everyday people's lives are by and large massively better than they were 100 years ago. When I go to Europe which is even more socialistic than us I don't see a lot of unhappy people walking around in a gray Soviet hellscape. They seem ok.

So I guess I'm much more of a pragmatist than you are about these things.
Posts: 15,480
suzzer99 has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.suzzer99 has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.suzzer99 has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.suzzer99 has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.suzzer99 has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.suzzer99 has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.suzzer99 has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.suzzer99 has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.suzzer99 has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.suzzer99 has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.suzzer99 has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote