I really, really hate smokers

[Arrian]

I'll agree with that, once govt starts social engineering its impossible for govt to treat us as equals under the law as every special interest now seeks "benefits" at the expense of others.

I tend to agree...

And hell, if it's really about having kids, then the benifits should only kick in once you have kids. Childless married couples (such as, say, my wife and I) shouldn't get anything. Of course, benifits for having kids create some incentives I'm not altogether sure are good.

-Arrian

[rah]

I call bull****.

They banned that kind of stuff in bars here years ago. Everyone said it'd kill the bars. Afterwards we heard about how all these bars are closing.

Yet I know of none that have actually closed, and most of them are so ****ing busy all the time (especially during hockey games) that there's lineups to get in.

It's all drama, lies, and spin. to rah.

If you read carefully I excluded resturants from my arguement and even conceded that there was probably no long term impact on resturants. A lot of sports bars have a high percentage of their income from food.
Casino's in Illinois have considerable documentation of an almost 20 percent decrease. (Any simple simple search will find that) Now as Snoopy and others have stated the economy is probably also a factor and a more long term look will be needed to add certainty but when you look at attendance vs revenue it's interesting. Attendance is only down slightly when revenue is down a lot more. People leave the casino to take smoke breaks reducing their time at the tables or slots, and since the house wins more the longer you play, every minute a person is smoking is costing the casion money. To deny that is just silly.
A buddy of mine that works at a bowling alley says league play is down but the biggest difference is in the bar. He said their bar revenue Decreased 33% within 3 months of the ban and has since decreased so it's only about a 25% reduction now. I also found considerable articles pointing at resturants that while a lot of resturants have had neutral impact the ratio of food/booze revenue has tilted toward higher food. Which makes sense to me since I started drinking less when in resturants since it made me want to smoke more. So places that rely mostly on booze are the ones that have been hurt. (mostly the corner ma and pa bar)
So to ignore certain studies and just generalize that there is no and never has been negative impact is just ignorance. As with everything else, there's some truth to both sides.

[Asher]

They are. Wake up.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'll agree with that, once govt starts social engineering its impossible for govt to treat us as equals under the law as every special interest now seeks "benefits" at the expense of others.

So you are against tax exemptions for charity?

I agree with you in the case of subsidy, but I don't think tax exemptions are the same thing.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you think the factory owners stopped mistreating their workers because they felt like being nice all of a sudden? They suddenly "saw the light"?

Don't you think the pendulum has swung too far?

[Berzerker]

While we're on the topic, I don't see why churches need government benefits or why straight marriages need government benefits.

I'll agree with that, once govt starts social engineering its impossible for govt to treat us as equals under the law as every special interest now seeks "benefits" at the expense of others.

[Berzerker]

*blink blink* What was wrong with Wiggy's posts? He's hilarious.

I didn't see what was deleted but jumping all over Asher was

I'm still laughing

[snoopy369]

Ben, times changed THANKS TO EMPLOYMENT LAW. Do you think the factory owners stopped mistreating their workers because they felt like being nice all of a sudden? They suddenly "saw the light"?

Please consider posting on here when you aren't smoking whatever you are smoking.

[Ben Kenobi]

Gay marriage is marriage.

And penguins live in the arctic.

Is it not in the public good to be healthy? So you are also in favour of public healthcare. Universal insurance -- also a public good.

It's an argument according to effectiveness. If you give a dollar to a church charity or a dollar in taxes to the government, which is better at achieving the same end? The church. Therefore, the church does not pay taxes on their contributions, because the church carries a load that the government would have to carry.

Do you have the intellectual capacity to understand your inconsistencies?

These aren't even good challenges.

[Ben Kenobi]

I sincerely doubt you do. You're not a LOLitarian, so you clearly are A-OK with regulating private businesses.

Just because one favours some regulation doesn't justify a particular regulation.

Wrong. The reason for smoking bans isn't to protect people who choose to smoke from themselves, it's to protect those that do NOT choose to do so. I pointed this out at least twice already.

If the business clearly labels that there is smoking permitted, then it is sufficient. If a patron choses to still attend then that's their responsibility.

If there were no tax benefits associated with legalized marriage, you'd therefore drop your opposition to it being legalized I take it. I guess you'd also be opposed by attempts to enact a Constitutional Amendment to prevent states from recognizing gay marriages. Good to know.

No, I wouldn't. Like I said in my first post, it makes about as much sense as having our national bird as a penguin. I don't believe it is in the power of the government to change what marriage means. One of the obligations that the government took on when it was first formed is to recognise marriage. That presumes there is already a definition of marriage that existed prior to the state. If that's the case, then changing what marriage means is no different then Canada having the penguin as our national bird. It makes no sense. You can call a square a circle, but that doesn't change the nature of the square.

[Ben Kenobi]

The fact that some business skirt regulations isn't relevant, the regulations still exist, and they exist for reasons that aren't related to sticking anything to anyone.

Regulations are routinely ignored as a part of doing business effectively. Regulations are drawn up by bureaucrats who have no idea of what it's like in the field.

The worst jobs we ever had were the government ones, because they just didn't make sense. The big mills who had a primary concern for profit were far more careful because these trees were their big investment. They were stricter in where and how we could plant, and better at maintaining the quality control over the entire job.

The government on the other had, would require us to hike in 5 miles to plant trees.

If you had gotten injured on the job thanks to a company violating OSHA standards or what have you, I've no doubt you would have been suing their asses off.

If you had seen the mountain of regulations we had to follow, it just gets a bit silly.

[Boris Godunov]

I have no issues with prohibition of smoking in publicly owned areas. I have issues with the regulation of private businesses.

I sincerely doubt you do. You're not a LOLitarian, so you clearly are A-OK with regulating private businesses.

Hence the term 'Nanny state'.

Wrong. The reason for smoking bans isn't to protect people who choose to smoke from themselves, it's to protect those that do NOT choose to do so. I pointed this out at least twice already.

You failed to understand my argument. My argument is that marriage is a public good. You need to be arguing that gay marriage provides the same. Saying that it doesn't cause harm is insufficient in saying that it deserves tax support.

If there were no tax benefits associated with legalized marriage, you'd therefore drop your opposition to it being legalized I take it. I guess you'd also be opposed by attempts to enact a Constitutional Amendment to prevent states from recognizing gay marriages. Good to know.

[Asher]

Hence the term 'Nanny state'.

You failed to understand my argument. My argument is that marriage is a public good. You need to be arguing that gay marriage provides the same.

Gay marriage is marriage.

Also, the public good argument is, how you say...a slippery slope.

Is it not in the public good to be healthy? So you are also in favour of public healthcare. Universal insurance -- also a public good.

Do you have the intellectual capacity to understand your inconsistencies?

[Ben Kenobi]

Hence your hypocrisy, as you only think "the public good" is a sufficient rationale when it supports issues *you* deem worthy, while you reject it for others, like smoking prohibitions.

I have no issues with prohibition of smoking in publicly owned areas. I have issues with the regulation of private businesses.

There's no evidence gay marriages are bad for societies that enact them, there's plenty that smoking causes significant damage, if just in healthcare costs alone.

Hence the term 'Nanny state'.

You failed to understand my argument. My argument is that marriage is a public good. You need to be arguing that gay marriage provides the same. Saying that it doesn't cause harm is insufficient in saying that it deserves tax support.

[Boris Godunov]

I've treeplanted. 'Workplace regulations' are laughable compared to that job. The only way they make money is by ignoring them.

The fact that some business skirt regulations isn't relevant, the regulations still exist, and they exist for reasons that aren't related to sticking anything to anyone.

If you had gotten injured on the job thanks to a company violating OSHA standards or what have you, I've no doubt you would have been suing their asses off.

Times have changed. Stop living in the 20th.

This makes no sense and is utterly meaningless. What?