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: random_vamp Date: September 27th, 2006 - 09:55 pm (Link)
Since there's already been a lot of argument on this topic I'm not going to rehash things from above, just make a couple of points:

- I agree that this is a further restriction by the state that in a perfect world would be bropught about by market pressures. However its also well within the realm of what precedent allows the state to do. Bar owners certainly don't choose to stop selling liquor at 2AM (or whatever it is in PA).

- Additionally, market pressure has been ineffective at producing change while most studies (a couple links were posted to DPB last time this came up) of pre/post ban business show flat or increased profits after the ban. From the view point of the business owner this is logical, in that their current smoking customers will be highly against a ban and the increase revenue would primarily come from new customers.

Anyway, I love the lack of smoke and stinking clothes at CA night clubs...
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 27th, 2006 - 10:11 pm (Link)
I'll address the issues in turn:

1) I agree that its well within precedent. For instance, other states, like say California or New York or Washington have made similar bans. The point being I disagree with those as well. And to take this outside the artificial pigeon hole of smoking, I also disagree with laws that stop the bar from selling alcohol at 2am or bans against selling alcohol on Sundays.

2) My argument isn't really based on finances, hence my suggestion of the 50-50 split among liquor licenses. That said, California is a different state than PA. Gore would argue that increase reliance on public transportation and raising the price of gas would be good for us too as it works in other countries, but we aren't other countries, we're the United States. The point is a matter of personal freedom. Yesterday, I had the option, if I so desired, of opening a non-smoking bar and capitalizing on the aggressively anti-smoking clientele. Tomorrow I do not have the option of opening a bar and capitalizing on the aggressive smoker clientele. That market is simply lost. Furthermore, as I stated several other places. If tomorrow we illegalize abortion, it won't be the end of the world (despite what the pro-choice camps might say). People will adjust. For the most part people adjusted to the 18th ammendment. I have adjusted to living in PA and not being able to buy beer at the grocery store. That doesn't make it right, and that doesn't mean I agree with it.

3) And see, that's fine, as a personal choice you are welcome to go to non-smoking clubs. I for one (even when I was a non-smoker) hate the aggressive B.O. smell that came from dance clubs where no one was smoking and welcomed the tobacco-esque incense that cigarettes provided. My solution allows both of us options. A ban only allows you one.

• Go to Top