The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
If smoke free and smoker bars were established, people would have a choice...
That is a worse position than smokers sections in a bar. Rather than have your friends go off a few yards they have to go to a different bar, OR you have to stay all night in a smokey bar.
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.
Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Because second-hand smoking is bad for our health.
The other way around - smokers avoiding smoking - is not bad for anyones health. Well, until their nicotine addiction kicks in.
But if there were smoke free and smoking bars... then it would be YOUR choice to risk your health or not. Just like you decide to risk your own health by drinking or eating things that are bad for you.
But if there were smoke free and smoking bars... then it would be YOUR choice to risk your health or not. Just like you decide to risk your own health by drinking or eating things that are bad for you.
Individual choice still doesn't enter into unless you have a homogenous group. You are forcing a social group to decide whether it will let individuals smoke or force them to be submitted to even more smoke.
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.
Originally posted by Big Crunch
Individual choice still doesn't enter into unless you have a homogenous group. You are forcing a social group to decide whether it will let individuals smoke or force them to be submitted to even more smoke.
The decision should be left up to the social group. If there is a single smoker, you can decide to be nice to him/her, or you can decide to be nice to yourselves... at least the decision is up to the social group and not made for them by the government.... Unless that is what you truely want... the government making decisions for you
Originally posted by Ming
First... ALL the studies you are refering to are from California... not your typical state by a long shot
Talking to bar owners here, where a ban also could happen, they are livid and think they will lose money. Restaurant owners are also fighting against the ban.
If they were "convinced" of all the studies, you would think they would be fighting for it
OK, you already know you're wrong about all the studies being from California. I've lived in New York, Ohio, Michigan, and now California, and I can tell you that the states are not so different as you must think. California bar and restaurant owners struggled desperately to prevent us from banning smoking in workplaces; they were livid and thought they would lose money. All the evidence shows they didn't. As I said, it was reasonable to guess they might lose money -- but they didn't. The same is true in NYC. The same will be true in most places.
So, if you won't accept the evidence of the studies, what will you accept? Find me some studies that have shown a negative impact on bar and restaurant profits, and then you'll have begun to make a case -- until then, don't make yourself look foolish.
We are talking about places where the STATE licenses them to sell booze... A far more serious health problem them second hand smoke... You can say a person doesn't have to drink... but they also don't have to work or enter a place that allows smoking... It's a CHOICE... not something dictated by the state.
You're deliberately ignoring the obvious. Choosing to drink alcohol, you endanger yourself. Choosing to smoke around other people who have no choice in your action, you endanger others.
Why do some people insist that no one, anywhere, ever, for any reason, has any right to limit their choices? Do you think you have a right to take a dump on my lawn? Do you think you have a right to spray E. coli on my salad? Do you think you have a right to shoot guns in a crowd? What makes smoking different from those actions?
The decision should be left up to the social group. If there is a single smoker, you can decide to be nice to him/her, or you can decide to be nice to yourselves... at least the decision is up to the social group and not made for them by the government.... Unless that is what you truely want... the government making decisions for you
No, I'd rather have the bars (carry on) be(ing) forced to provide adequate non-smoking sections. That way the social group is not forced to make a decision as both needs are catered for.
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.
Unless that is what you truely want... the government making decisions for you
Yep, that's exactly what I want. I want the government to decide that we can't shoot each other. I want the government to decide that we can't dump our toxic waste into the public water supply. I want the government to decide that we can't sell each other heroin. I want the government to decide that people with highly contagious deadly diseases must be quarantined. I want the government to decide that we must all pay taxes so that we can all be educated and have police protection and have roads and have sewage treatment plants.
Yes, I think that government is a good thing.
Think about the countries where government is small and ineffective. Do you want to live there, or here?
Originally posted by debeest
The same is true in NYC. The same will be true in most places.
Hmmmm... I will have to find a link to a study that shows that NYC bars and clubs lost about 30 to 50% of their business.
Restaurants were unaffected.
You're deliberately ignoring the obvious. Choosing to drink alcohol, you endanger yourself. Choosing to smoke around other people who have no choice in your action, you endanger others.
But you are ignoring the fact that people have the choice to NOT go into a room full of smoke... If there were seperate smoking and non smoking bars like some cities have, then you have a fair choice.
And you are also ignoring the fact that second hand smoke is no worse than car polution in major cities... In LA, you do more damage to your lungs walking the streets than being in a bar... yet the city hasn't outlawed cars yet... and you don't have a choice to avoid it unless you move out of the city
Smoking and non Smoking bars would solve the problem and not discriminate against anybody.
Originally posted by debeest
Yep, that's exactly what I want. I want the government to decide that we can't shoot each other. I want the government to decide that we can't dump our toxic waste into the public water supply. I want the government to decide that we can't sell each other heroin. I want the government to decide that people with highly contagious deadly diseases must be quarantined. I want the government to decide that we must all pay taxes so that we can all be educated and have police protection and have roads and have sewage treatment plants.
Yes, I think that government is a good thing.
But do you want them making decisions on where you hang out with your buddies
Originally posted by Ming
In LA, you do more damage to your lungs walking the streets than being in a bar... yet the city hasn't outlawed cars yet... and you don't have a choice to avoid it unless you move out of the city
The ban hasn't been introduced because the costs would outweigh the benefits. Besides measures to reduce emissions have been introduced and will be further extended in most countries.
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.
Originally posted by Ming
Hmmmm... I will have to find a link to a study that shows that NYC bars and clubs lost about 30 to 50% of their business.
Restaurants were unaffected.
Happy hunting.
But until you can find reputable studies supporting your point, you might want to acknowledge the validity of the whole collection of reputable studies that show you to be wrong. Remember, your friends are reading this, wondering whether you're a bullheaded idiot determined to ignore the evidence.
But you are ignoring the fact that people have the choice to NOT go into a room full of smoke... If there were seperate smoking and non smoking bars like some cities have, then you have a fair choice.
The laws are based on worker protection. It is long established that employers have greater power than workers and that workers must therefore be protected against them. If people were blowing asbestos around the room instead of smoke, would you still say "It's the owner's right?" Remember, your friends are watching what you say here.
And you are also ignoring the fact that second hand smoke is no worse than car polution in major cities... In LA, you do more damage to your lungs walking the streets than being in a bar... yet the city hasn't outlawed cars yet... and you don't have a choice to avoid it unless you move out of the city
Car pollution in major cities is a major health hazard. On days with high pollution, deaths increase detectably. And every toxic insult that you add to the mix adds to the hazard. Don't dismiss one because there's another one that we haven't yet been able to control. Ambient air pollution makes it MORE important not to have other harmful exposures.
Smoking and non Smoking bars would solve the problem and not discriminate against anybody.
Again, it's about the workers. There are good reasons why you can't put workers into the position of saying "OK, I'll work in the dangerous smoky bar."
No one is discriminated against by broad smoking bans. Only the activity, inside the place of employment, is prohibited.
Originally posted by Ming
But do you want them making decisions on where you hang out with your buddies
Your smilie suggests that you think you really scored a big point there. I don't see it.
I want the government making decisions that the places where people go to work and to hang out are safe -- that people are not allowed to fill the air with toxic chemicals. Do you disagree? Remember, your friends are watching to see whether you're susceptible to reason......
Is your hatred of government or your insistence on your own personal freedom so great that you can't see the virtue of protecting people from other people's choices?
Comment