[FoRK] Welcome to the American Totality. You've been warned.
<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?
>> Right, and that's exercising YOUR FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Too bad the
>> prohibitionists and their apologists can't let everyone else do the
> 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
All the rationalization and the justification in the world doesn't
make it right.
More information about the FoRK