[FoRK] Welcome to the American Totality. You've been warned.

[Jeff Bone]

On Feb 5, 2008, at 2:23 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 06:49:53PM -0600, Jeff Bone wrote:
>
>> Nobody's forcing you to go anywhere that allows smoking, are they.
>
> Let's invert that. Nobody would force smokers to go anywhere where
> nonsmokers go. Wait, it didn't work.

Let's clarify:  I'm not terribly pissed about restaurants.  I'm  
pissed about *BARS.*

I'll make this very simple.  Smokers on average spend longer and  
spend more money in a bar than non-smokers.  Furthermore, they are  
FAR more represented among regular customer bases than non-smokers.   
Yet you want to legislate in favor of the whiny non-regular non- 
customer low-spenders?  How is that fair to the bar owner?  How is  
that fair to the regulars?  Why *shouldn't* that be left to market  
forces?

Of course prohibition makes perfect sense.  It's a perfect example of  
the self-righteous, arrogant political correctness that's ruined this  
country.

Let's think of some other things we should prohibit:  hmmm...   
alcohol, coffee, caffeinated sodas, transfats, processed sugar, gay  
sex, pornography, lights on after 10pm, skateboarding, motorcycles,  
Ford F-150s, guns, knives, box cutters, shoestrings, being naked in  
public, being naked in private, extramarital sex, the F word,  
Democrats, Republicans, Jews, "coloureds", failing to attend services  
on Sunday,  etc.

Anything dangerous, unpleasant, ugly, offensive, outside of our own  
personal preferences and tastes, etc.

Right.

> A single guy ruins it for a
> whole room, and he's completely oblivious about it. He's the asshole.
> The others are victims.

No, the single asshole prohibitionist ruined it for the bar owner and  
for the regulars.

> What about drink-and-drive? Surely, there should full freedom, and
> let market forces pick the winner? What about nuclear weapons?

Non sequiter.

>> Right, and that's exercising YOUR FREEDOM OF CHOICE.  Too bad the
>> prohibitionists and their apologists can't let everyone else do the
>> same.
>
> Why are you so fucking pissed and irrational about it?

I'm am pissed.  I'm not being "irrational" about it.  I think I've  
supported my position very rationally.  I don't believe it's in the  
best interests of the widest group of constituents (bar owners and  
regular patrons) to enact smoking prohibition.  I also don't  
generally favor government nanny-ism in general.  I advocate  
individual rights, particularly property rights.  It all follows from  
principle.

BTW, I'm not a smoker anymore.  Gave it up ages ago.  I'm still pissed.

> Much good does it to you, to have a smoking and nonsmoking section
> in the same room.

Generally where they even had these in Austin, it was a separate room  
with separate ventilation.  Nonetheless even when I smoked I didn't  
like sitting in the smoking section --- they're nasty.

>> oh I dunno, the dawn of history, and most have been completely non-
>
> Not really. It's a couple years at most.
>>

Well, at least in Austin and most of the cities in the US that I  
visit frequently, most restaurants (as opposed to bars) have been non- 
smoking for most of the last 20 years.

>> What about my buddy Jimmy's right to smoke in the BAR HE OWNS, and /
>> or let his guests do the same?
>
> It didn't work. He lost. I hope he's not going to fucking whine  
> about it.

This is a BAD call.  Just you wait and see how far this stupid nanny  
bullshit goes.

All the rationalization and the justification in the world doesn't  
make it right.



jb