I really, really hate smokers

[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?

[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.

[Asher]

They are. Wake up.

[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.

[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

[Arrian]

Stop living in the 19th century.

Has he gotten that far?

-Arrian

[Boris Godunov]

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.

That some regulations are ignored or aren't effective and are silly isn't the issue. You're moving goalposts.

You stated a position that was completely anti-regulation--basically the ultimate free-market, Libertarian philosophy towards labor. You did this to rationalize your anti-smoking ban position. But when confronted with the absurdity of that position, you shift to saying regulation is OK, just not particular ones.

Well DUH. I don't think there's anyone alive who would say all regulations are good and sound ones. But you can't dismiss the potential harm of employee exposure to second-hand smoke at work as a matter of "employee choice" while fully accepting that in other health matters, employees should not be required to work in unneccessarily risky environments. If you accept that exposing employees to undue risk is wrong, then it's wrong, simple as that. This is a fundamental tenet of employment law.

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.

It's. Not. About. The. Patrons. I don't see how after three simple explanations of this you could keep repeating such nonsense, except for the obvious answer of blinking stupidity.

[Boris Godunov]

Has he gotten that far?

-Arrian

He might be too preposterous to have been even a Dickens character, true.

[Elok]

It just occurred to me: gay marriage does further the public good, since it encourages monogamy, VD's worst enemy after abstinence, and thereby reduces the public burden of healthcare. Has anyone brought up that particular point for BK to dodge yet?

[Jon Miller]

It is one of the major reasons I am in favor of gay marriage. I am pretty sure I have mentioned it before.

JM

[Kontiki]

IIRC, Ben maintains, among other things, that:

1) There are taxable benefits associated with marriage, so allowing gays to get married adds to the overall expense.

2) Allowing gays to get married cheapens straight marriage, and therefore fewer straight people will get married.

3) If gay people cannot get married, some may opt for straight marriage instead.

[rah]

I'm still trying to figure out how 2 guys 1500 miles away getting married cheapens my marriage. I would love to have it explained to me in a way that makes any kind of sense at all.

[Boris Godunov]

It just occurred to me: gay marriage does further the public good, since it encourages monogamy, VD's worst enemy after abstinence, and thereby reduces the public burden of healthcare. Has anyone brought up that particular point for BK to dodge yet?

Of course, many times.

[Ben Kenobi]

That some regulations are ignored or aren't effective and are silly isn't the issue. You're moving goalposts.

That is all I said. There is too much regulation, and some of them need to go, especially the ones that harm businesses. Among those is a smoking ban. I think businesses should be permitted to cater to smokers if that is what they want to do.

I already said, a ban on public areas makes sense, but I don't agree with the regulation of private businesses in this regard.

You stated a position that was completely anti-regulation--basically the ultimate free-market, Libertarian philosophy towards labor.

Yes, I believe labour has choices these days, and that if an employer does not treat his employees well, that they will go elsewhere. I'm not against benefits, just that I believe that the benefits a business provides will attract and retain talent, and generally go well beyond that which is legislated. Businesses prefer flexibility, and right now flexibility allows them to be profitable and survive in the face of a harsh economic environment. Regulations which curtail their flexibility just make things worse. How is labour better off losing jobs entirely?

You did this to rationalize your anti-smoking ban position. But when confronted with the absurdity of that position, you shift to saying regulation is OK, just not particular ones.

I've always said that not all regulations are bad. I suspect where we disagree is where the line should be drawn. I don't see the rationale for a minimum wage when the scarcity of labour ensures most make well beyond that figure.

Well DUH. I don't think there's anyone alive who would say all regulations are good and sound ones. But you can't dismiss the potential harm of employee exposure to second-hand smoke at work as a matter of "employee choice" while fully accepting that in other health matters, employees should not be required to work in unneccessarily risky environments.

There are many jobs I avoid and cannot do, as well as entire industries due to my disability. If someone cannot stand the smell of smoke then they should simply avoid occupations that would draw them into contact with smokers.

I really don't have any sympathy for folks who go into occupations such as a bartender and insist on imposing their own issues on the business. That would be no different then for me to impose such restrictions on a call centre just because I cannot hear. I can whine and complain that it's not fair, but at least a non-smoker has a choice. I don't have that option.

If you accept that exposing employees to undue risk is wrong, then it's wrong, simple as that. This is a fundamental tenet of employment law.

I think employees should be permitted to take on risks, and in many jobs they take risks which would be considered 'undue'. Look at police officers. The risks that they take as a part of their job are far greater then a bartender in a smoking bar. Would you say that it's exposing officers to undue risks provided they are made aware of the risks beforehand?

Look, just because you wouldn't take the job does not make it right to prevent others from taking the job too.

It's. Not. About. The. Patrons. I don't see how after three simple explanations of this you could keep repeating such nonsense, except for the obvious answer of blinking stupidity.

Again, I believe employees should have the freedom to accept these risks as a cost of doing business, provided they are informed ahead of time.

[Ben Kenobi]

It just occurred to me: gay marriage does further the public good, since it encourages monogamy, VD's worst enemy after abstinence, and thereby reduces the public burden of healthcare. Has anyone brought up that particular point for BK to dodge yet?

Welcome to my world, circa 2000.

The problem is twofold.

1. Gay people aren't very interested in marriage. We had an initial burst, but the only gay marriages done in Canada these days are done on folks from abroad.

2. Gay people's concept of monogamy is one at a time. The statistics have shown that 'committed' partners (ie, been together more then 3 months), have on average about 10 partners in a year.