Exactly. And if I’m not mistaken, there ARE venues in California where indoor smoking is allowed, namely smoke shops. So it’s not that smokers “just want one place where they can be allowed to smoke”, it’s that they want to be able to smoke in places where it’s not an inherent part of the venue as well.
By the way, to give another example of what actually happens when the “free market” is allowed to reign, I took a trip to Reno, NV last weekend. I enjoy gambling on occasion, and I would enjoy it a lot more if I didn’t have to choke on other people’s smoke, but that option is simply not available. For the record, I did see ONE non-smoking blackjack table at ONE casino, but it was right next to a smoking table with no way to prevent the smoke from wafting over from the other table. In fact, in every casino, the entire building is permeated with smoke; it is impossible to escape it, even if they do provide a small token non-smoking section. But just doing a simple head-count, it was obvious that only a minority of the people in there were actually smoking. Now, according to this bogus “free-market” theory, non-smoking casinos should exist in proportion to the number of non-smokers who would enjoy such a venue. They do not. I suppose by some perverse stretch of the imagination, one could say that I, Blowero, am the ONLY person ever to visit Nevada who would enjoy smoke-free gambling, and that everyone else actually enjoys the smoke, so there is therefore no demand for smoke-free venues. But it seems awfully unlikely to me.
That is flat-out not how supply and demand works, and I have already explained that to you. The free market does NOT, for the second or third time, DOES NOT ensure that everyone’s preferences are met. For you to continue to argue that if non-smokers are in the majority, the free market must not be efficient if there are not mostly non-smoking bars betrays your ignorance of economic principles. It just doesn’t work that way, and you are arguing against a phantom point, not for the first time in this thread.
One can concede that most people are non-smokers and still assert that demand for non-smoking bars is weak. You do not appear to understand what demand means in economic terms. If you mean it some other way, don’t refer to “bogus free market theories” that are, in fact, well-established principles, proven over and over again. If you have some real point as to why demand doesn’t work as I’ve described, point it out. Here’s a hint: your argument shouldn’t be that most people are non-smokers. A majority of men might prefer to be massaged by super-models while they get their haircut. That does NOT mean there is strong demand barbershops with this feature. It just does NOT work that way.
Again, read Wealth of Nations or some basic econ text. This is not the world according to Bob Cos.
Sorry, I decided to enjoy my annual 4th of July picnic and then get some sleep.
I still don’t think this is a valid analogy.
NASCAR. by definition, produces fumes. Music does not produce smoke.
NASCAR is held outdoors, isn’t it? (Not my cup of tea; I’ve never watched it.) Then fumes dissipate.
Again, it is totally possible to experience live music without cigarette smoke. Some smokers may feel that a smoke enhances the experience of a live show, or of a drink, but the fact remains that the two are not inextricably intertwined. (And I maintain that their rights to smoke should not consistently trump those of other music lovers to breathe in an unobstructed manner, but obviously this is where we differ.)
Besides, I feel that a good cup of coffee or a slice of homemade pie would enhance the movie-viewing experience; others probably feel that a nice martini or a cigarette would enhance the movie-viewing experience. And yet we are not allowed to bring any of these items into a movie theater, or a regular theater for that matter. If I want to have a martini with my movie, I have to watch it in my livingroom on video. (OK, we do have a thing in Chicago called Brew 'n View at the Vic Theater, but they only show old movies. Plus there is smoke.)
How is smoking any more necessary to listen to a rock band than to watching a play or a movie, or even to watching the Chicago Symphony, where smoking is also not allowed?
**Eva, fumes dissipate indoors also, just not as quickly. And NASCAR needn’t subject me to the fumes; I’ve already proposed how they can remedy it.
The point is that fumes are concentrated (and quite unmistakable) at NASCAR racetracks. If you are arguing that you can go to a NASCAR event and not breathe in some concentrated fumes, you haven’t been to one. Some people won’t go specifically because the fumes give them headaches.
But, I’ll tell you what: just consider it a hypothetical if you’d like. If it can be demonstrated that NASCAR racetracks produce concentrations of car fumes that those present are breathing, do I get to demand that they create the fume-free environment I proposed, which is most certainly possible?
**Certainly it is inextricably intertwined for some. You might just as well argue that moviehouses don’t need to provide seats, that the basic experience is the movie projected on the screen. Some people might even agree. But for me, when I go to a theater, I want a seat and some popcorn. Given the choice, I will go to a place that provides both. Doesn’t matter that two different theatres may be showing the same features. It’s not the same. If none provide what I want, then I won’t go, and given the choice, I’ll go to the one that caters to what I prefer.
You may feel it’s not important, but others certainly disagree. You aren’t really suggesting that because you don’t see smoking and drinking as part of the same desired experience that others might not feel differently, right? (BTW, triple negative in that last sentence, no extra charge.)
Yes, the owner has decided that it is not profitable for him to permit you to bring your own food into the theater, just as some bar owners have decided that it is most profitable to let people smoke. Owners do that. Are you suggesting theater owners should let you bring in your own food and drink? I can assure you that that is not profitable for the owner.
I can drink at a bar, but not smoke. NASCARs produce fumes. Alcoholic drinks do not produce cigarette smoke.
Maybe moviehouses don’t need to provide seats. You’re not really arguing anything here, except that maybe you don’t want to go to a nonsmoking bar, I guess. Please, just argue the point, not the analogy.
(I removed “Eva, f” and replaced it with “F” there.) In a closed room, fumes will not dissipate. In a ventilated room, they will dissipate. The fact remains, however, if the dissipation is not as fast as the creation of smoke, the room shall have an amount of smoke in it. Like I mentioned, at the shows I’ve been to at this particular bar (The Big Easy, it’s called, though we’re some 1600 miles from N’Orleans) there’s in fact quite a bit of smoke. NASCAR, as mentioned by me and Eva both, PRODUCES FUMES. Alcohol does not. NASCAR could take steps to remedy this, however, there isn’t demand to or else somebody would have created a fume-free NASCAR track, wouldn’t they have?
What do you mean by closed? Airtight? A vacuum where we introduce car fumes? Are you actually arguing that if for ten minutes we pumped car fumes, say, into a bar, stopped doing so and came back the next day, the bar would still be shrouded in a haze of smog?
BTW, I think it’s safe to say you are completely missing my point.
**Hey, why didn’t I think of this logic? :smack:
Tell you what, just assume that most people don’t want to breathe car fumes. Make it a hypothetical if this seems unlikely to you. In this hypothetical, does NASCAR have to tow the line or not?
Toe the line.
This whole arguement is moot because smoling bans are sweeping the nation. Florida and Illinois have recently joined, with more on the way. Who knows, maybe even Nevada some day. The net effect of banning smoke is so overwhelmingly positive that it’s very unlikely that we’ll ever go back to pre-ban days. Short of a successful constitutiobal challenge, anyway.
So relax and enjoy the nice clean air.
I would like to say that I am a smoker and I think that this is all crap, why can’t we make everyone happy? What was wrong with smoking/ non-smoking sections? And Bars, c’mon, couldn’t we at least have a smoking section? Why take away our complete right to smoke inside. Everybody is so concerned with making the non-smokers happy and not stepping on their rights, but what about our rights? OK sorry, anyway…My main point for writing is to share that I’m in the US Air Force and 3 months ago I got stationed in Germany. Let me tell you I love it here! Not only the mountains, trees, villiages, buildings, history etc., But you can smoke EVERYWHERE! In the movie theatres, stores, doesn’t matter. (You can drink beer while you are watching your movie too!) The really funny thing was that when we got here we went to the electric company and just what? The guy was sitting at his desk as he set us up, with a cigarette in his hand and an overflowing ashtray on his desk! I lit up at that point too and I loved every minute of it. I think even the US could learn something from the Germans and stop whining.
You are probably right that this is inevitable, and I accept it as one of those things that occur in a democracy. ::shrug:: Doesn’t mean I have to like it, though (grumble, grumble)…
Hey, soulcandy_19. didn’t your boss tell you that we are to dislike the Germans?
Anyway, the non-smokers got what they wanted. Now it’s the smokers turn to whine. As you can plainly see.
BTW; did you start smoking after you enlisted?
Well, while you are on their soil and here for a long time, you have to be optimistic, and no I’ve been smoking for way too long. Age 14…This is Crap! : )
They didn’t work. You still had smoke in the non-smoking section. There was an International House of Pancakes across the street from my college. The dining area was one room. The non-smoking section was the two rows of tables in the center of the room. The smoking section was all the tables surrounding it. There was about 3-4 feet of seperation between the non-smoking section and the smoking section which entirely surrounded it. Yeah, that was fun.:rolleyes:
You have no inalienable right to smoke cigarettes in an enclosed place that is open to the public.
Who’s whining? You’re the one making the gripe. I’m perfectly happy with things the way they are.
