National Smoking Ban?

[Bortaz]

If I own a restaurant, a private business, I can restrict my business to just white people, right?

What? Why the hell not? Huh? The government is telling me who I can and cannot let into my own restaurant? That is dumb.

Huh? The government has a right to do that? Weird. But it is MY business?

Strange, I guess the government has certain rights in restricting operations in private businesses. That stinks.

I wonder...could a white congressman join the Congressional Black Caucus?


EDIT: It saddens me that the 'beating a dead horse' animated tar I stole from that racist girl band's site doesn't animate when I saved it or when I used it as a tar.

 

[Yaboosh]

I wonder...could a white congressman join the Congressional Black Caucus?


EDIT: It saddens me that the 'beating a dead horse' animated tar I stole from that racist girl band's site doesn't animate when I saved it or when I used it as a tar.

Ummm, I don't know if you are being serious, but yes, I imagine he could.

 

[Bortaz]

I was being serious. I honestly don't know if their bylaws allow anyone other than a black congressman to join the Congressional BLACK Caucus.

 

[Yaboosh]

Yeah, I caught that the word Black was in the name of the organization. I highly doubt that they officially (or even unofficially) do not allow non-blacks into their organization.

Aside: What is a direct link to the animated original of the horse beating girl?

 

[Bortaz]

http://www.officialprussianblue.net/images/smilies/beatdeadhorse.gif

 

[Dondrei]

http://www.officialprussianblue.net/images/smilies/beatdeadhorse.gif

Gives me a forbidden message. Can you imageshack it?

 

[KillerAim]

Yaboosh:

If I own a restaurant, a private business, I can restrict my business to just white people, right?

You should be able to if you’re stupid enough to do it.

What? Why the hell not? Huh? The government is telling me who I can and cannot let into my own restaurant? That is dumb.

It’s the law, but it’s a bad law. Laws that force us to sell to or work with certain groups maybe morally correct but they are no different then laws that forbid us from selling to or working with certain groups when it comes to being a restriction on our freedom.

And did you ever wonder why Jim Crow laws existed in the first place? I mean if the South were as racist as we have been led to believe, why would the Government have to make it illegal to serve blacks in a restaurant or to allow them to sit in the front of a bus? Wouldn’t all the bus companies and restaurants that were owned by whites have refused to serve blacks and forced them to sit in the back of the bus?

In certain ways, Jim Crow laws are similar to the anti-smoking laws. Both are examples of minority viewpoints forcing their beliefs on the rest of Society because not all people will adhere to their demands.

Yea, I can almost here what some of you are thinking. “That is an outrageous opinion that you just pulled out of your derriere.

Well, I’ve got just two words for you: “Rosa Parksâ€. The media and our good ol' education system have given you only half of the story. From here.

The death of Rosa Parks has reminded us of her place in history, as the black woman whose refusal to give up her seat on a bus to a white man, in accordance with the Jim Crow laws of Alabama, became the spark that ignited the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

Most people do not know the rest of the story, however. Why was there racially segregated seating on public transportation in the first place? "Racism" some will say -- and there was certainly plenty of racism in the South, going back for centuries. But racially segregated seating on streetcars and buses in the South did not go back for centuries.

Far from existing from time immemorial, as many have assumed, racially segregated seating in public transportation began in the South in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Those who see government as the solution to social problems may be surprised to learn that it was government which created this problem. Many, if not most, municipal transit systems were privately owned in the 19th century and the private owners of these systems had no incentive to segregate the races.

These owners may have been racists themselves but they were in business to make a profit -- and you don't make a profit by alienating a lot of your customers. There was not enough market demand for Jim Crow seating on municipal transit to bring it about.

It was politics that segregated the races because the incentives of the political process are different from the incentives of the economic process. Both blacks and whites spent money to ride the buses but, after the disenfranchisement of black voters in the late 19th and early 20th century, only whites counted in the political process.

It was not necessary for an overwhelming majority of the white voters to demand racial segregation. If some did and the others didn't care, that was sufficient politically, because what blacks wanted did not count politically after they lost the vote.

The incentives of the economic system and the incentives of the political system were not only different, they clashed. Private owners of streetcar, bus, and railroad companies in the South lobbied against the Jim Crow laws while these laws were being written, challenged them in the courts after the laws were passed, and then dragged their feet in enforcing those laws after they were upheld by the courts.

These tactics delayed the enforcement of Jim Crow seating laws for years in some places. Then company employees began to be arrested for not enforcing such laws and at least one president of a streetcar company was threatened with jail if he didn't comply.

None of this resistance was based on a desire for civil rights for blacks. It was based on a fear of losing money if racial segregation caused black customers to use public transportation less often than they would have in the absence of this affront.

Just as it was not necessary for an overwhelming majority of whites to demand racial segregation through the political system to bring it about, so it was not necessary for an overwhelming majority of blacks to stop riding the streetcars, buses and trains in order to provide incentives for the owners of these transportation systems to feel the loss of money if some blacks used public transportation less than they would have otherwise.

People who decry the fact that businesses are in business "just to make money" seldom understand the implications of what they are saying. You make money by doing what other people want, not what you want.

Black people's money was just as good as white people's money, even though that was not the case when it came to votes.

If you get anything out of that article, remember one of his last statements.

"You make money by doing what other people want, not what you want."

Business owners allow smoking in their establishments becuase they believe that their customers want to smoke. If a large enough percentage of them decide that being around smokers is unhealthy, then the business owner will be forced to change his smoking policy.

So many of you think that second-hand smoke has been proven harmful. Fine. The right thing to do then is to educate the public by proving your allegations. If you can persuade enough of people that you're right then bars and restaurants that allow smoking will dwindle away.

The wrong thing to do is to force your opinion on others. If you're willing to override the personal decisions of people who disagree with you for the "good of society", then don't complain or be surprised when another group of people overrides your personal choices because they feel that it's "good for society".

 

[WildBerry]

"You make money by doing what other people want, not what you want."

You do good job illustrating your point, but you're leaving one thing out. Not all money is equal in this sense: the money you are getting is much more significant than any you might be getting. One of the rules of RelMa or relations marketing is to keep onto your good, paying, productive costumers and this is just doing that.

Now let us suppose, that there is a conflict of interests in the bars issue: the bars mainly have smokers now, and the non-smokers are unwilling or reluctant to become customers in general. The enterpreneurs could have more income by trying to make non-smoker's bar, but according the above principle, who's dumb enough to alienate all who come in now? Even if the non-smokers would potentially have more dough to give him, that is always uncertain until you put you behind on the line.

This does nothing to invalidate your example, which was good - it's bottom line being basically that in politics inequality is easier create than in an economy where everyone has at least some money, which is true. But as you probably know, the laws of supply and demand have their caveats as well as any laws of jurisdiction. That's just what I wanted to point out. "The blacks'/non-smokers' money's just as good" is not actually the whole truth either.

 

[Bortaz]

Gives me a forbidden message. Can you imageshack it?

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/8997/beatdeadhorse6nh.gif

 

[Talga Vasternich]

Kind of begging the question seeing as the whole debate is about whether or not smokers have the right to smoke when it either inconveniences or damages the health of (that point is in contention) the people around them.

The whole debate, IMO, is about the government's right to dictate to a private property owner: "You are now banned from allowing a legal activity on your property."
I do not think the government has that right.

 

[WildBerry]

The whole debate, IMO, is about the government's right to dictate to a private property owner: "You are now banned from allowing a legal activity on your property."
I do not think the government has that right.

If it's illegalised in certain, defined public areas which have descriptions that would cause that aforementioned property to fit to bill and this causes the property to be included among them, or the property itself, then it cannot very well be banning something legal, or am I wrong?

But otherwise, you make a good point. As an aim, a wholesale illegalising of cigarettes and other tobacco products would make much more sense and be far more coherent, if this was truly a question of public health. Then again, this might just be people setting realistic goals - do you think that tobacco will ever be banned? Me neither. So non-smokers are just reaching to what they think they can grasp.

 

[PFS]

I was under the impression that, in a free democracy, the rights of a non-smoker shouldn't be more important than the rights of a smoker. Have I been misled?

Likewise the rights of a smoker should not be more important than the rights of a non-smoker. So what is the result?

Solution A - the non-smoker has to put up with the smoke or go somewhere else.

Solution B - the smoker has to not smoke or go elsewhere.

In either case someone loses.

But that is beside the point which is that this law is based on Employee Health and Safety, not the convienence of bar patrons.

As someone else pointed out - if they ensured good ventilation and smoke extraction then the Employees are at almost no extra risk and it should be an option for a bar. Decent Ventilation, Seperate Smoking areas with ventilation or No Smoking. If the Smokey Doller is really worth that much they will invest in either of the ventillation options and write it off as a tax deductable business expense.

 

[Talga Vasternich]

Likewise the rights of a smoker should not be more important than the rights of a non-smoker. So what is the result?

Solution A - the non-smoker has to put up with the smoke or go somewhere else.

Solution B - the smoker has to not smoke or go elsewhere.

In either case someone loses.

But that is beside the point which is that this law is based on Employee Health and Safety, not the convienence of bar patrons.

As I posted earlier, employee health and safety are covered by OSHA, and second-hand smoke is not a hazard recognized by OSHA. Invalid point.

 

[WildBerry]

As I posted earlier, employee health and safety are covered by OSHA, and second-hand smoke is not a hazard recognized by OSHA. Invalid point.

Uh, then you should've posted this to Bortaz, to whom PFS was replying as he posted, and who, in this particular short chain in a long thread, first made that invalid point. Or is the point invalid just because it's proponing smoke-free environment? :smiley:

 

[PFS]

As I posted earlier, employee health and safety are covered by OSHA, and second-hand smoke is not a hazard recognized by OSHA. Invalid point.

Not really - it just is not recognised yet. Asbestos was not always recognised as a health risk, now it is. Unless the OSHA list has a note that says something like "This list is full, final and will apply to all employment for ever after and no additions can ever be made to it regardless of future evidence" that is.

As i edited in - I am not pushing for a full ban, and agree with your earlier post that the employer should be able to just fit a decent smoke extraction system rather than ban smoking outright.

 

[Talga Vasternich]

Not really - it just is not recognised yet. Asbestos was not always recognised as a health risk, now it is. Unless the OSHA list has a note that says something like "This list is full, final and will apply to all employment for ever after and no additions can ever be made to it regardless of future evidence" that is.

As i edited in - I am not pushing for a full ban, and agree with your earlier post that the employer should be able to just fit a decent smoke extraction system rather than ban smoking outright.

Thanks for editing then!
I likely come across as ham-fisted with some of these arguments, but I use extreme (but valid) cases to make my point. I am a law-abiding citizen who smokes. I do not smoke in theaters, elevators, hospitals....etc. If it is against the law to smoke in a certain place, I don't.
Yet, if something isn't illegal, how can it be banned? If it's that bad, then make it illegal, and these haphazard bans won't be necessary.

 

[Talga Vasternich]

Uh, then you should've posted this to Bortaz, to whom PFS was replying as he posted, and who, in this particular short chain in a long thread, first made that invalid point. Or is the point invalid just because it's proponing smoke-free environment? :smiley:

I said the point was invalid because an argument was made that bans were being put into place to protect employee health and safety. Currently, the organization responsible for protecting employee health and safety does not recognize that hazard. Until that organization recognizes the hazard, you are only speculating about protecting employees.
Neither smokers nor non-smokers have any more rights in comparison to one another. This thread started, not as a smoker's rights thread, nor as a non-smoker's rights thread, but as a question concerning banning smoking. I do not think it should be banned (by the government) and will support my beilefs.

 

[Dondrei]

The whole debate, IMO, is about the government's right to dictate to a private property owner: "You are now banned from allowing a legal activity on your property."
I do not think the government has that right.

That's a different issue and I would prefer if businesses were allowed to make the decision themselves. It does annoy me though when people act like one side or another in the debate has no argument, I'd say both sides have at least one leg to stand on.

 

[Dondrei]

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/8997/beatdeadhorse6nh.gif

I think it's because it was 3 pixels too tall. I cropped it, try this:

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/577/beatdeadhorse6nh1qm.gif

Worked for me.

 

[Bortaz]

Woot! Thanks, Dr. Drei!