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

Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> on Tue Feb 5 15:19:39 PST 2008

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  

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

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.


> 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  

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.


More information about the FoRK mailing list