I don’t know how else to explain it. If there is a demand, someone creative enough will break the ice and meet it. If there is a large demand, a single downtown bar will be packed to the rafters with people enjoying martinis and fresh air. That single instance will attract the attention of other suppliers who will rush to get their share of the attractive profit.
If there is not enough grassroots, heard-it-through-the grapevine, lost-business, editorial-page scuttlebutt to make opening a single non-smoking bar attractive, then the demand is weak. If there’s enough demand for one bar, it will open. After it opens, watch what the market does in response. It will be predictable and based on the results.
No, YOU are over-estimating it. The average club-owner does not do extensive market research before opening their venue. You are failing to look at people’s inclination to avoid risk, even when it’s irrational. When all the clubs allow smoking, club owners tend to avoid banning it out of fear of alienating any potential customers. They are going to stick with the status quo, which is to allow smoking. So even though the majority of people do not smoke, business owners fear bucking the trend. Look how vehemently business owners complained in California that nobody would go to bars anymore and that they would all go out of business. But it didn’t happen; the fear was groundless.
With all due respect to your Econ 101 class, at what point do you look at a situation where the majority of people do not smoke, yet non-smoking venues are a tiny fraction of what’s available (in the absence of legislation), and conclude that there’s no demand for it? Does it make more sense to toss out the data in defense of the theory, or should you perhaps consider that the theory does not apply in this case?
Besides, if we are going to argue basic theories in a vacuum, I could just as easily argue Poli-Sci 101, and say that if enough people object to non-smoking laws, then they will vote those legislators out of office, and the laws will be overturned. So to the extent that the laws stay on the books, there obviously is very weak demand for smoking environments, right?
Now you’re just switching arguments. The assertion we have made is that it’s the government’s role to protect the public against what is a health threat and a nuisance. YOU are the one who asserted that the “free market” will magically cure all. We simply refuted that assertion.
Should we rely on the “free market” for fire exits and wheelchair ramps?
**Talk about overstatement. Unless every bar went out of business, the fear was groundless?
**Why would we ever abandon a well-accepted and logically supportable notion like the Law of Supply and Demand? Why, if there is a large demand for a particular profitable service, would there not be a single non-smoking bar opened in response. Not one. It defies belief.
**You have an absurd definition of demand, if this is your argument. Political activism does not equal commercial demand.
**This is utter nonsense. I responded to a direct question regarding demand, then to a counter argument regarding demand. Eva absolutely is arguing for government intervention in this instance because the market does not recognize the demand that she feels exists. Not a single sentence in this ongoing exchange (none from me) suggested that the health risk argument did not exist or that it was mutually exclusive to the discussion regarding free markets. Why don’t you let Eva speak for herself? She’s doing fine.
No. Of course, that’s not apropos here. Wheelchair ramps do not prevent other people from using the stairs. More importantly, a bar is not a wheelchair ramp. It is a trivial establishment, not a necessity. There is a compelling state interest in having wheelchair access. What, exactly, is the compelling state interest in requiring smoke-free environments for people tying a load on?
I didn’t say every bar had to go out of business. Even if just a lot of bars went out of business, it would have supported their fears. But the fact is that bars are still doing quite well in general, in spite of the fears of many pro-smokers.
Yes, I suppose you will fight to the death to support it, no matter what the actual facts are.
Bullshit. The point regarding demand was in response to your assertion. Again, YOU are the one asserting that supply and demand will cure the problem of people being exposed to cigarette smoke. We are saying it will not. And you are basing your whole argument on an overly simplistic interpretation of basic economic theory, NOT on the actual facts of the matter.
Nor does limiting smoking to outdoor areas prevent people from using the bar.
Preventing lung cancer, emphysema, headaches, and shortness of breath, to name a few. I mean seriously, I can’t believe you don’t recognize a compelling interest in having clean air to breathe.
**How about if a lot of bars earn less money? Or is that no concern of yours?
**Jesus Christ, how difficult is this to understand? I didn’t invent this concept, and greater minds than mine have demonstrated the predictability of certain patterns in the free market. The fact that most people are non-smokers is not at all inconsistent with the fact that there may be weak demand for completely smoke-free bars. A majority of people may even prefer smoke-free bars, but not enough to stay away if a smoke-free environment is not provided. But bottom line, if there is any sort of material demand, it is reasonable to expect that a single fucking smoke-free bar would open in response.
As an example, I may prefer fast-food restaurants that provide hot towels after my meal. I might be part of a vast majority of people with that preference. But that doesn’t mean we’d all be willing to pay for it. If we were willing to, and if there was a lot of heated discussion regarding this that made this demand common knowledge, you can bet that McDonald’s would be providing hot towels. That is simply how it works, period.
You have not introduced a single fact to show why widely accepted free market patterns would not work for smoke-free bars. So yes, I’ll continue to believe that strong demand for a profitable service will produce a supply, much in the way I’ll continue to believe that people will buy more of a product at a lower price than at a higher one. I’m funny that way when it comes to firmly established principles of economics. That fact that it doesn’t make you happy won’t change the strength of this expectation.
**Your dishonesty in the interest of scoring some non-existent point is getting infuriating to the point where I’m not sure it’s worth discussing anything with you. I did not and do not deny that I asserted an argument regarding the effect of the free market.
And I have readily conceded that the free market could very well NOT provide an environment that eliminates this particular health risk. Try to keep up; it’s exactly what I’ve been discussing, genius. So to say that I have argued that supply and demand will cure the problem of people being exposed to smoke is flat-out bullshit, another typical blowero strawman.
I have not based my entire argument on supply and demand. For example, I have in this very thread discussed the right of an owner to decide the environment of his place within certain limits, and I have argued that the trivial nature of a bar should also make it less than a compelling state interest. You can disagree with these notions, but to assert that I have argued only based on the free market is just more of your bullshit, bullshit flatly contradicted by the rest of the thread. Your dishonesty is exceeded only by your piss-poor debating technique, apparently.
And you can describe supply and demand as “overly simplistic” and continue to display a profound ignorance regarding economic theory; but your strong wish that it be otherwise will not change the indisputable fact that strong demand for a profitable service will naturally create a supply. Read Wealth of Nations, for Christ’s sake. I’m not making this shit up to annoy you. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re being willfully ignorant.
Just another blowero post: meaningless, snarky bullshit attempting unsuccessfully to score some non-existent point.
Yet another strawman! I have on multiple occasions in this thread recognized the right to a smoke-free environment, so your “point” here is just that much more dishonesty. You may disagree with my point of view, but why don’t you engage it rather than the point you’d prefer to argue against? I have continually asserted that your right to a smoke-free environment should be respected. You should not, for example, be forced to go to a smoky bar. There should not be a law that requires all bars to be smoky. But you can have a smoke-free environment even if no bars are smoke-free. Just don’t go to bars. We are not discussing the public library or a hospital. You don’t have to go to a bar.
The state does not have a compelling interest to regulate to this degree frivolous venues like bars. You don’t have an unalienable right to tie a load on anywhere you want in a smoke-free environment. You can disagree, but do you really not get this simple point? Is it possible for you to engage this argument without taking an “Aha, so you’re in favor of cancer then!” counter argument? :rolleyes:
Why is it philosophically important to have wheelchair access to bars, if they are so trivial? I mean after all, the wheelchair-bound don’t need to do vodka shots in order to survive, or if they do, they can have them in the privacy of their own home. The same goes for music; has anyone ever died from being prevented from hearing the Chicago Symphony? Mankind can survive without music, so why should the disabled have special accommodations made for them? I swear, the more I read this thread, the more militant I get.
There are far fewer people in wheelchairs than people with pulmonary conditions that are aggravated by cigarette smoke, as the asthma statistics I posted earlier in the thread show. Millions of Americans have specific medical conditions that are aggravated by cigarette smoke, and that doesn’t even take into consideration the potential health risks faced by otherwise healthy non-smokers who will have to breathe secondhand smoke if they want to enter the overwhelmingly vast majority of bars, clubs, or music venues. Bars, and especially music venues, are vital parts of American culture.
Should I, and millions of other Americans, essentially be prohibited from taking part in a facet of American culture that is extremely important to me because I have a medical contraindication to exposure to cigarette smoke? Is there something about smoking which is a necessary part of the act of experiencing live music? Why do the two always, or nearly always, have to go together? Why is this more true of rock or pop music than of classical music?
Why should smoking be an inherent part of the musical experience and not, say, going to the theater or to a movie? People used to smoke in movie theaters; why did we make them stop? I mean, they should be able to smoke wherever they want, right?
Anyone have any stats on how California has weathered the smoking ban, economically? Can anyone present one shred of evidence that, all in all, the entertainment industry has lost money because of California’s smoking ban? Then we might actually have some hard facts to talk about.
You also don’t have to go to the public library or a hospital. Nevertheless, I’m fond of the public library. I also happen (for the reasons of this argument) to be fond of bars. Clean air is a certifiable public interest. I was sick for almost a week after attending a Big Head Todd and the Monsters show; between the cigarettes and marijuana, the smoke was thicker than a Maryland fog (to use a country colloquialism.) If the free market doesn’t latch on to this public good, it’s the state’s mandate (as voters have decided via their elected representation) to do it for the market. We did this with child labor. I’m really hard-pressed to attend many shows; I went to Ben Folds, They Might Be Giants, and BHT (as mentioned) in the past two years, and each time, in fact, I didn’t do very well after the fact, and given my symptoms (incl. pretty severe coughing) I’ll blame it on smoking. This is all quite anecdotal and feel free to ignore it, but it did in fact happen to me. However, I don’t think you’ve addressed that smoking is harmful, nor have you tried to refute it (thumbs-up to that; you’d have a hard time doing it.) Your argument is that vis-a-vis Wealth of Nations’ principles, if there was enough demand for a non-smoking establishment in Chicago, one would be created. But I don’t think that’s valid. If an existing smoking establishment became nonsmoking, reason would stand that they would alienate not only their existing smoking customers but also all other smoking customers. Not all nonsmoking customers would patronize the establishment; some of them maybe don’t mind the smoke, some like the smoke, others have friends that smoke and don’t want to go to seperate bars. Maybe they wouldn’t know about this Shangri-La’s existence. If a new, nonsmoking bar was to be created, it first faces the problem of getting recognition out (as would any business) and then having to deal with its image as being the only nonsmoking bar in town. That would strike me as kind of lame. (This is all, again, speculative, but I’m among the target audience of a bar–especially a non-smoking one, given that I’m a white male between the ages of 21 and 40.) I’d frequent bars more often were there more nonsmoking bars, but I don’t want to create my own nonsmoking bar, so I tolerate the smoke on occasion, with as mentioned sometimes bad results. A nonsmoking bar might be successful, but it might not be successful, for any number of reasons. A bar and smoke are not the same as a quiet vacuum or a non-black painted automobile.
I think the “straw man” term has been kind of overused here, so I’ll post the Atheism Web’s definition:
Some of the arguments are invalid because they’re red herrings, petitio principii, and probably the most often, ad nauseum arguments. But anyway.
All I know is, they started the ban, and now the governor is facing a recall election and they have a $38 billion debt.
How weird. So many people have come in to say something to this effect: 1 nonsmoking bar = bad. Alienate old customers who were smokers, alienate potential new customers who were smokers, hard to get the word out. ALL nonsmoking bars = good. Reason: they would not face competition from bars where people would smoke.
All or nothing.
If a nonsmoking bar would fail . . . oh well.
Eva Luna, move to Denver! Lots of music, mostly in nonsmoking venues. I will admit that at concerts in the Pepsi Center, which is supposedly nonsmoking, there is in fact some smoking going on at certain concerts. Not cigarette smoke, and not enough to form a haze, or even a contact high. In the cheap seats where I sit you can get a whiff every now and then. Denver Symphony, smoking outside only.
Of course then you’d be in Denver, and stuck listening to the Denver Symphony Orchestra, instead of in Chicago, listening to the Chicago Symphony. That might not be a tradeoff worth a smoke-free environment.
Goddamit, Bob Cos, that was by far the most assholish post I have seen in a long time. Did you think you were in the BBQ Pit? I am done with your lies, epithets, strawman arguments, and outright denials of what you have said earlier. That was just 3 screen of utter crap. Your strategy seems to be to make some absurd assertion, then when when someone calls you on your fallacious reasoning, you accuse them of lying. Or you ask a direct question, like “What, exactly, is the compelling state interest in requiring smoke-free environments for people tying a load on?”, but when I directly answer the question, you claim I have invented a strawman. You obviously don’t know what a strawman is. You are the weakest link, goodbye.:wally
You are too much, bub. Nope, sorry, I am not letting this little hissy fit go by without comment.
In your last post–just the one post, mind you–you, (1) indicated that my entire argument rested on a “free market” premise and was consequently weak…
**…and, (2) stated that I had argued that the free market would eliminate any potential health hazard…
**…and, (3) chided me for not recognizing the right to a smoke-free environment…
**All 3 “counter arguments” are in response to points I have not made or have flatly contradicted as my position in this thread. I have, (1) made more than one non-free market argument in this thread, (2) explicitly discussed the fact that the free market may not create smoke-free bars, and (3) acknowledged more than once the right of an individual to a smoke-free environment. Your attribution of those positions to me are the very definition of strawmen–you were creating an argument for me that you argued against as weak–and you were either dishonest or incompetent in constructing them. You can choose. Personally, the distinction is not important to me.
You then rush in, blowero style, indignantly huffing and puffing over the fact that I called you on your bullshit. After I have responded to your snarky post that calls my position bullshit and states flatly that I am blindly ignoring facts, you are shocked–SHOCKED, I say–to see that I have actually reacted and responded to your snarkiness.
And also in typical blowero style, you believe that asserting that I have created strawmen is a substitute for actually pointing out where I have done so. You believe that saying I have denied a position I took (which, BTW, is a matter of fact for YOU in this very thread, by your own admission) somehow will make that true. You say my posts have violated GD decorum (they have not) and in the same breath called me a putz. You believe that stating that I have responded to your “strong logic” by calling you a liar (as opposed to actually having, well, pointed out where you lied) will imply a weak position for me. I suppose it would for anyone who has not kept up with the thread, which is why I am responding and will continue to respond if you post any more of your unfounded bullshit or weak-ass insults.
Not a surprise: Just more blowero dishonesty and harrumphing, apparently to fill the void where a real argument might reside. My assertions are absurd? Why don’t you try countering only my points then? Tell you what, don’t bother. :rolleyes:
**Eva, actually, I think I’m with you on this. I believe wheelchair access as a general policy is more compelling than smoke-free bars, but if you were to argue that wheelchair access to a bar specifically is not compelling for the state, I might agree with you. I’ll have to give it more thought.
If the government can make some drugs, such as cocaine or heroin, completely illegal, then why can’t they make a drug that actually has harmful effects on everyone around you illegal in enclosed public places where it will have a particularly harmful effect?
Of course they can. It has already occurred. The question is whether or not is justified. This thread is filled with arguments against a ban, which you may not agree with. But the fact that a potential hazard exists does not mean the state, by definition, is justified in intruding.
I’ll ask again, since I don’t believe anyone has responded (if someone has, I missed it): does the state have the right to ban automobiles at NASCAR racetracks, since some people who venture there might not want to be subjected to noxious carcinogens emitted from the race cars? Surely the state can ban such activity. They have done so elsewhere. If the de facto existence of a possible health hazard is reason enough for the state to interfere, can I demand that NASCAR racetracks not have those nasty autos running 'round and 'round fouling the air? I have as much right to attend those events as I do to go to a bar.
**Maybe you’re right. But I have a different definition of “have to,” I think. If someone has to do research, for work or for school, he may have no reasonable alternative to the library. A person trying to make a living or obtain a degree can abandon those objectives, I suppose, but to me these are not “frivolous” places in the way that a bar or a moviehouse is. And I believe people (particularly in emergencies, but not only then) sometimes are forced to go to the hospital.
Some poor schlub trying to go to work, where the subway is the only affordable alternative he has, has the compelling need that permits him to say, “Look man, I just want to stand on the subway platform without breathing smoke. Can’t I just get to work?” Someone doesn’t like the bar down the street because it’s too smoky? Don’t go there. It’s a bar. IMO, of course.
That NASACAR analogy is faulty because auto fumes are inherent to the experience of auto racing. Can’t have one without the other; the activity/venue literally cannot exist without the fumes.
Again, there must be some reasonable way to encourage the creation of smoke-free bars and music venues without forcing all venues to be smoke-free. I don’t want to deny smokers the ability to smoke in certain public venues, even if I think smoking is completely idiotic. But by the same token, the near-total lack of analogous smoke-free venues is essentially denying me access to such venues.
And given that there are far more people affected by the presence of cigarrette smoke than by the absence of wheelchair ramps, and that the effects of breathing smoke are frequently immediate and severe (up to and including hospitalization and death), I do think there is a compelling public interest in encouraging smoke-free public venues of ALL kinds, including bars and clubs. Cigarettes are neither an inherent part of consuming alcohol nor an inherent part of enjoying live music.
Cigarettes are an addictive drug, unlike car fumes. They are an addictive drug that causes harm to the user and those around them. Just on that alone, I see a justified reason for the state to restrict their use. For instance, kids should not be allowed to use them.
Incidentally, why can’t a smoker get their drug through a patch instead of through smoke? It seems that smokers are not even being banned from using their drug of choice in bars, they are just being banned from using their drug in enclosed public spaces by a method which harms those around them.
But Eve, that’s the point. Suppose for some people the experience they wish to purchase, the bar they want to go to, is one that combines drinking and smoking. The two are inextricably intertwined; it’s the whole reason they go out. Just suppose. Why then can’t there be bars that cater to this clientele, bars that people who are vehemently opposed to smoky venues can choose not to go to?
The “non-ban” scenario already permits smoking and non-smoking environments. IMO, that’s all we can ask of the government. That the two alternatives may not exist equally (or at all) in a given locale does not mean, to me anyway, that someone’s God-given right has been violated.
But, just for giggles, let me pursue the NASCAR analogy. Why must the fumes and the experience be married? I want a smoke-free environment, and I expect the racetracks to cover the stands with an air-conditioned, air-filtered dome, one with a glass-front like the superboxes in stadiums. That’s all I ask. What say you to that?
Nightime, I don’t know the answer re: patches. Your first point, however, seems to ignore the point I raised. Whether it’s addictive or not, I don’t want to breathe car fumes. People don’t object to second-hand smoke (I don’t think) because they believe it addictive. They just don’t want to breathe it. I don’t want to breathe car fumes. I want all racetracks to create an environment where I can enjoy the spectacle without breathing fumes. Certainly that’s possible. Do I have the right to make that demand?
