Forums | MacLife

I found it interesting to read that, after two years of the non-smoking ban in New York City, none of the doom-and-gloom scenarios put forth by businesses, politicians and smokers before the ban had materialized.  Also, while smokers whined at the beginning a recent article
source with a, albeit unscientific, group of interviews with patrons showed overwhelming support even among smokers.

I may be wrong but I believe this ban was the largest of its kind when implemented and opened the door to other similar bans or proposed bans.

Last edited by bedstuy (2005-03-04 5:13 pm)

registered_user wrote:

bratboy wrote:

registered_user wrote:

I'm claiming that we've identified an occupation with a frivilous hazard and that it needs to rememdied.  RI put the wheels in motion (altough not as thoroughly as it could have).  I wish we could eliminate all hazards with one law, but it's just not that easy.

What about a smoke shop?  Should customers of a smoke shop be allowed to smoke in the shop?  Surely someone has to work there, too?

I think you know the answer to that.  A public place is not the place for smoking -- especially if it's also someone's workplace.

So if I own a smoke shop or bar, and I'm the only employee....I cannot smoke in my OWN business, nor allow my customers to smoke...because of your concerns for my health?

registered_user wrote:

Perhaps if you were the only employee, and you sold only tobacco products, you might have case for exception.
But only because smoking hasn't yet been banned outright -- and it surely will be.

...and you would support such an outright ban?  On alcohol too?  What else would you ban?

registered_user wrote:

I didn't say alcohol. 

I would support a tobacco ban willingly if the majority supported it.  It would obviously be for the best.

That isn't obvious to me....and I don't understand why an outright ban on alcohol would be any different.

Of course, such a ban would create a black market.  Hey, I'm sure it would work as well as the war on drugs, or as prohibition did in its day.

freecat wrote:

Um, you can start anytime now.  How is a market a leviathan?  Is it not a state of nature?  I guess it might not be.  But you just compared it to the state of nature, the war of all against all.  See what I mean about incoherence?  Well, I guess you don't.

Again, you accuse me of saying something I didn't.  I'm not saying anything about Max-Utility/self-interest here.

you are incoherent.  i said the "free market" was myth, and accused no one of anything.  go back to your cave of rationalization, troll.

more or less wrote:

registered_user wrote:

Perhaps if you were the only employee, and you sold only tobacco products, you might have case for exception.
But only because smoking hasn't yet been banned outright -- and it surely will be.

so who owns that air that we breathe?

It is a natural resource to be shared by all.

registered_user wrote:

more or less wrote:

so who owns that air that we breathe?

It is a natural resource to be shared by all.

Awww....how cute.

it is if you are intelligent.

i'm sorry, i don't classify grammar trolls as intelligent.  just fascist.

if you have a question, ask it.

otherwise, you stated "the natural resource" - i EXPLAINED the natural resource as a product of the aggregate of individuals rights - or freedoms.

in other words, people have the right - the freedom - to breathe the resource that is air without suffering from the others persons right - the freedom - to smoke.

its the basic doctrine of lockean natural rights.  ones individual rights must not suffer due to anothers.

otherwise, look up mancur olsen and collective action theory.

Last edited by more or less (2005-03-04 6:34 pm)

more or less wrote:

freecat wrote:

Um, you can start anytime now.  How is a market a leviathan?  Is it not a state of nature?  I guess it might not be.  But you just compared it to the state of nature, the war of all against all.  See what I mean about incoherence?  Well, I guess you don't.

Again, you accuse me of saying something I didn't.  I'm not saying anything about Max-Utility/self-interest here.

you are incoherent.  i said the "free market" was myth,

more or less wrote:

yes, its the tyranny known as the LEVIATHAN, now instead of a soylent green leviathan,

You said it's Leviathan.

more or less wrote:

and accused no one of anything.  go back to your cave of rationalization, troll.

Yet you said,

more or less wrote:

you propse one on the myth of self-interest maximization.

And I proposed no such thing, which is why I said:

freecat wrote:

I'm not saying anything about Max-Utility/self-interest here.

And soon I really will be drunk, so goodnight.

i wish you would keep drinking and posting and calling me incoherent.

Okay, back to the sauce.