Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 shivas.wisdom
בּ וואלה
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 4,929
Loc: Turtle Island 
Last seen: 1 month, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
What would happen were such bans to be repealed? My best guess is that relatively little would change. When I think about my favorite local restaurants, I cannot see any of them allowing patrons to smoke even if the law were changed. There are one or two local bars, however, that I suspect might allow smoking on the premises, but they would be the exception. So whereas before the smoking ban here in Ohio, most restaurants and bars allowed smoking in a separate room or at the bar, were the ban repealed today I would be willing to bet that most restaurants and bars would remain entirely smoke-free.
What does this all mean? On the one hand, if most restaurants and bars would remain smoke-free, it seems to me the argument for allowing some establishments to adopt different rules is that much stronger. Remove the bans and us libertarian-types can still toast to the free market system in a smoke-free pub. But it is important to acknowledge that this state of affairs exists today because of the initial government intervention. The smoking ban appears to have helped solve a collective action problem that had kept a suboptimal norm in place. So even if a ban limited the ability of business owners to set the rules for their own businesses, it may have also helped them shift toward preferable business practices. Non-governmental efforts may have produced the same result eventually, but it would almost certainly have taken longer. So smoking bans have been beneficial, but it may also be the case that the maintenance of such bans is unnecessary to retain most of their benefits.
I think this is a great way to sum up smoking bans.
--------------------
 
|
psilyguy
Registered: 12/03/08
Posts: 3,305
Last seen: 4 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
The only argument that has had any logic is that of the rights of property owners, and the publics ability to either expose themselve to smoke or not (consent). In this case I see it as a toss up between public health and property owners rights. Would those against smoking bans also be opposed to our current seatbelt laws?
it is in no way a toss up between public health and property owners rights. the consent argument really is the only one that matters on either side of the issue. and there is no public health issue if people have the knowledge to consent to being in that environment when they don't have to. and they really don't have to.
and yes, current seatbelt laws are ridiculous. put on your seatbelt if you want to, but it literally hurts no one but potentially myself if i dont.
americans need to grow up and stop relying on the government to be the parents and make every little decision for them.
|
psilyguy
Registered: 12/03/08
Posts: 3,305
Last seen: 4 months, 6 days
|
|
and about that last paragraph, i can see where you are coming from if you are of the opinion that public smoke is a problem. but i reall agree with this statement
"So smoking bans have been beneficial, but it may also be the case that the maintenance of such bans is unnecessary to retain most of their benefits."
if they really were beneficial the way it was said, then we don't need them anymore.
|
 Entropymancer
Saint of Circumstance
Registered: 07/16/05
Posts: 10,206
Loc: Arrakis
|
|
Quote:
PassiveAgressive said:
When it comes to rights, Entropy seems to command some knowledge, yes...
No. I have no special knowledge on the subject. I have no legal training or background whatsoever.
What seems to set me apart is that I have a conscience. That's all. And that's all it takes to see that smoking bans are morally reprehensible and violate the fundamental concept of civil liberties.
|
PassiveAgressive
Sleepy-_-kinoko!
Registered: 10/16/09
Posts: 924
Loc: Tueri honorare saltus
|
|
Quote:
Entropymancer said:
Quote:
PassiveAgressive said:
When it comes to rights, Entropy seems to command some knowledge, yes...
No. I have no special knowledge on the subject. I have no legal training or background whatsoever.
What seems to set me apart is that I have a conscience. That's all. And that's all it takes to see that smoking bans are morally reprehensible and violate the fundamental concept of civil liberties.
I rest my case.
--------------------
(\___/)
(= ‘.’=)
(”)__(”) 
Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared. - Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.
|
 gnarfbuckle
Above The Ignorance
Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 805
Last seen: 1 minute, 3 seconds
|
|
Quote:
Entropymancer said:
No. I have no special knowledge on the subject. I have no legal training or background whatsoever.
What seems to set me apart is that I have a conscience. That's all. And that's all it takes to see that smoking bans are morally reprehensible and violate the fundamental concept of civil liberties.
QFT
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: veggie
2,288 topic views. 0 members, 9 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
