September 27th, 2006

Previous Entry Next Entry
01:51 pm - on banning public smoking...

(85 comments | Leave a comment)

on banning public smoking... - graffiti.maverick — LiveJournal

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile

Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at


[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:53 pm (Link)
yes... but at the cost that I as a smoker have less choices. Like I said, if we were talking about a bill where 50% of bars had to be smoke free, I'd be the first person to be in line signing it. But we're not. Its just like arguing that all country clubs should have to allow minorities. You have a choice to play golf at the white club or the desgregated club. Your lot in life doesn't improve by forcing the other white people to have to play with the niggers, spics and kikes.
[User Picture]From: apestyle Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:55 pm (Link)
But how would you legislate something like 1/2 the bars being smoke free? That would be some fucked up shit.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 07:59 pm (Link)
its actually quite simple. In order to be a bar you have to apply for a licquor license. The state of PA only gives out so many. And they regulate that based on plenty of factors. Including "how many other licquor licenses are in the immediate area?" That way they keep all of their finite number of licenses distributed among where the people are instead of say 998 of them being Pittsburgh, two in Philly and none anywhere else. it would be quite trivial to say "sorry, Pittsburgh 250 licquor licenses. 125 of the smoking ones are in use and 124 of the non-smoking ones. If you want the 125th non-smoking license, its yours but there's no smoking ones left."
[User Picture]From: apestyle Date: September 27th, 2006 - 08:06 pm (Link)
Someone else made this other point: "Why are 20% of the population (smokers) deciding, through their habit, where the other 80% of the population (non-smokers) can comfortably go?"

Now regionalism and percentages aside, I think its a good question.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 08:31 pm (Link)
They're not. That's the point. Your figures make the mistake that the entire 80% cares. They don't. If 80% of people aggressively hated being in bars where you could smoke then you know what we'd have? We'd have a bunch of bars where you couldn't smoke and a small select few which looked like an old fashioned Pittsburgh steel mill. And I'd be fine with that. That's free enterprise and its fine.

But that's not the case because in reality 20% of the population smoke. 10% are aggressively against it, and the other 70% just don't give a damn and are perfectly happy to go to whichever type of establishment is convenient. (percentages adn regionalism aside, again, of course).

In yesterday's world, both of these options were ok. In tomorrow's world, only the 10% get their way. Granted the the 10% are great and the 70% are still ambivalent. But not the 20% are fucked as they are without option, whereas before the 10% weren't without option, they were simply with limited options.

In my idea where we force half the bars to be one way and the other half to be the other, no one has any problems or reason to complain. But I actually expect that in practice what you would have is the bars which allowed smoking would have 55+% of the bargoers and the bars that didn't would have 45-% because the 70% who don't care are just going to go whereever their friends who do care want to go. And again, I'm ok with that.

• Go to Top