|
|
#21 | |
|
TWO THOUZAND COMBO
|
There's no way all restaurants could ever be monopolized by smoking. Basically anyone can make food and open a restaurant, and if all the restaurants allowed smoking for some reason, someone could just open a non-smoking restaurant and instantly get business from everyone who detests secondhand smoke, which would be an awful lot of people.
__________________
4th Official FFR Tournament - Master division champion! Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2005
Age: 33
Posts: 848
|
Yeah true but thats like saying "Hey! No blacks are allowed here! MAKE YOUR OWN RESTARAUNT!"
Some people like fast food like Tacobell, McDonalds, Burgerking, etc... and before laws were passed you had a smokers section in everyone of them. I quote my friends... "A smoking debate is combining the worst. Its like rolling a Global Warming and Religious debate all into one." Honestly, if they had a well ventilated, seperate room for smokers, I would be all for it. The only problem with that would be when a family goes out to eat the parents who smoke would probably end up dragging her kid into the room too. Like I said, you CAN go to an Non Smoking restaurant, sure... Most upclass restaurant are probably non smoking.. Business wise though, it would bad move. People are used to smoking sections... and smoking in bars... They wont leave because they know that it will be the same no matter where they go, so they wont leave. Opening one restaurant wouldnt really change that much... Now sure, if they did that nation wide, and it ended up evening out the ratio of smoking establishments to non smoking establishments thats cool... Right now it doesnt have enough support, and wont get enough support because society is too used to it. A smoker walks into a restaurant or a fast food place and sees a Non Smoking sign. He walks out and finds another one with smoking. They are losing business. A non smoker walks into a restaurant and sees people smoking. He wont walk out because he knows it will be pretty much anywhere he goes. In both situations the customer isnt happy, but in the first persons case, he can and knows he can just walk out and find a dozen other places with smoking. The person would lose business... In the second persons case though, he will end up staying because he knows this as well, and leaving would cut down his options a ton. The service industry knows this too, im sure. Think of it like this. -If we dont allow smoking, we will lose business from smokers and will hardly increase our business from non smokers. -If we do allow smoking we would hardly lose business from non smokers, because smoking is such a common place, and will keep our business with the smoking population. Its a downhill spiral, an uphill battle. It's pretty much a huge paradox. One thinks "I cant go anywhere else." and the other thinks "Well they wont go anywhere else so why change?". Same with gas. Last edited by Sir_Thomas; 07-11-2007 at 03:01 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 | |
|
MMM WATCHA SAY
|
Quote:
Drive Thru, take out, and they even have places to eat outside in most cases. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 | ||
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Quote:
With that said, it should be the owner's choice. Your ultimatum is wrong--it truly comes down to the right for a building owner to choose or not choose what the people inside are allowed to do. By allowing smoking in public space, it does not need to be granted everywhere. By all means, ban smoke from your own public space. Or allow it. Don't like the people smoking there? Don't go. It's as simple as that. You do not need to go anywhere you do not want to for any reason. And if people stop going because of the smoke, wouldn't it be good business practice to ban it from your restaurant? See how the whole system balances itself out without limiting the freedom for an owner to do what they want? In this model with more freedoms, they can do what is more practical for their business. This opens up competition--maybe X restaurant doesn't have a smoking section. That's the owner's choice. But, hey, Y restaurant does, and you want to go to a restaurant with a smoking section. To restrict or not promotes business and appeal to consumers, and you can give people more incentives to come to Y over X, even if X has slightly better food and prices and you'd get overran by them without your choice to open a smoking section. And, by the way, it is not crazy to assume people would go to a restaurant because it has a smoking section. I mean, some people wouldn't go to one because they have them. And that's the magic of capitalism and the free market--let people nitpick. No reason is a bad reason. Hyperbole is the greatest concept in the entire universe.
__________________
last.fm Last edited by lord_carbo; 07-11-2007 at 03:15 PM.. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Chronic Bud Toker
|
...
BzT |
|
|
|
|
|
#26 |
|
Mashes on every song.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: I'm a Gypsy.
Posts: 136
|
it kinda likes men when u here all of the stories about people dying, but then u realize most of them hung around smokers all of the time lol which is pretty funny when u look at it, but u shouldnt smoke anyway cause its crap 4 your body an the environment... oh screw this!!!! why do i care. yours truly,
__________________
Last edited by teh_masterers; 07-13-2007 at 10:44 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#27 | ||
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2005
Age: 33
Posts: 848
|
Quote:
While the blacks had no choice whether to stay or go whatsoever while smokers can.. but like I said before, we are back to the issue that both examples have in common "What other places?" Quote:
This breach of rights is to the extreme when people cant sit or eat where they want without enhaling non productive and harmful chemicals (That are not produced by natural minds, mind you...). |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#28 | |
|
MMM WATCHA SAY
|
Quote:
As for the health problems, I'm not saying that it should be allowed, I'm saying that it should be the choice of the private business owner on whether to allow it or not. By government interference and disallowing it at all, you effectively make it impossible for smokers to fully enjoy their time in a bar, club, restaurants, or even cafes. Why don't smokers have the right to have facilities in which they can both have a bite to eat and maybe a smoke afterwards? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
FFR Player
|
What? Newsflash: NOBODY IS INFRINGING ON YOUR RIGHTS! You have the right to go by them and they have the right to smoke. Don't like the smoke? Stay away from them! Your rights are infringed when they are taken away from you by the government.
__________________
last.fm |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 | ||
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2005
Age: 33
Posts: 848
|
Quote:
You need to take legislation classes. Read my arguement because THE REBUTTAL ALL YOU SAID IS THERE! Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Quote:
Owners are infringing on peoples rights because they are enabling customers to infringe on non smokers rights. Smokers are infringing on others rights because they are hurting the well being of others around them. Owning a business does not make you immune from the constitution, hence why the JIM CROWE LAWS were banned. And for the last time. WHERE ELSE CAN YOU GO? Before smoking laws were being past, almost EVERYWHERE had smoking sections. By extremely limiting someones choices of where someone can go, the owners are infringing on your rights. The Jim Crowe laws were bant because of the same thing. While the owners have the right to choose what or who they want, they cant do so if it is over riding others rights. Last edited by Sir_Thomas; 07-12-2007 at 05:42 AM.. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#31 | |||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
FFR Player
|
This is a very good subject. Myself being a smoker I understand how non-smokers feel about second hand smoke and I do agree with banning in public places. But for private place I don't understand.
__________________
![]() Tier Points: 109 (109 + 0 for 81 AAAs) Engler's School Of FFR: Drop Out |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Seen your member
|
I agree with Jewpin and Guido in that smoking in privately owned businesses should not be regulated. People are knowledgeable enough of the dangers and unpleasantnesses of second hand smoke - but there will always be alternatives and options.
That's how the free market works. If you don't like what one private business is doing, you use the services of another. If second hand smoke was enough of a problem for individuals to warrant making laws about it - then some competitor would start making a killing off of smoke free environments and a balance would be established. The desires of people dictate how the services market behaves - and should also dictate how the law behaves. If there aren't enough smoke free private facilities then it's not because the law isn't protecting the interests of individuals - it's because the number individuals that care enough to go somewhere else are outweighed by the people wanting to smoke, and so the private owners see no reason to change their policy and decrease their traffic. Naturally the same distribution of people who are annoyed by smoke to people who are annoyed by lack of a place to smoke should also determine the outcome of a vote to implement a non-smoking bylaw. In a way, the market already held the vote. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Er...they -aren't- banned from private places. They aren't even banned from "ten feet outside a public place" either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 88
|
Trust me if you were a bartender that was around it almost every day you'd have a different outlook on it. This thread is completely useless seeing as the governments not going to decide laws based on what the computer nerds on FFR think. It's already illegal in my state and it's eventually going to be illegal in almost all of them to smoke in bars and restaurants. But as far as private businesses go f.uck that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 88
|
Quote:
well you do bring up a good point. . .i'll give you that ![]()
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 | |||
|
FFR Player
|
You need to learn the workings of the free market including and not limited to how giving businesses more options and not legislating them promotes more competition by allowing businesses to appeal to smaller crowds that would otherwise go to an otherwise better place. You ALSO need to learn more about your own darn free will along with your rights and privileges as a person in the USA.
Quote:
Quote:
Lastly, that last sentence makes no sense. Erm, you told me to take courses on legislation? I suggest you do. Or listen to your professor better. Or get a better professor. Or use better clarity. Quote:
Secondly, this is debate. No **** we are not out to change the law. We are here to enlighten each other.
__________________
last.fm Last edited by lord_carbo; 07-12-2007 at 06:20 PM.. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#38 | |
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2005
Age: 33
Posts: 848
|
Quote:
While I was a bit clear last night on that one... I would consider limiting someones options on where he/she can eat or drink in an industry where almost every placed allowed smoking (before laws started getting passed) is a breach of someones rights. Essentially, by saying they have a choice to be there or not, you are saying they should just cut themselves off from using the service industry, or die from second hand smoke... when allowing second hand smoke in an establishment is a violation the ones constitutional rights in the first place. This is not the half of it. Just trying to make that bit unclear.. More later ![]() Last edited by Sir_Thomas; 07-14-2007 at 04:19 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#39 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Much sexier than Hayden Panettiere
Age: 30
Posts: 629
|
Quote:
Just because all businesses are private doesn't mean you have to go to the ones that allow smoking. You don't have the right to go where ever you damn well please with encountering something you don't like. Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that "Non-Smokers have nowhere to go, because all businesses allow smoking. To not allow it would be a bad business move." I guess you can't see how many things are wrong with that statement. To reinforce what lord_carbo already said: 1. That is false! There are SO many private businesses that don't allow smoking. In fact, I'd venture to say that move businesses don't allow smoking than do. 2. It can be seen as a bad businesses move to ALLOW smoking, because no non-smokers will want to go there. 3. Visa-Versa: It can be seen as a good business move not allow smoking, because non smokers will go there. That's how capitalism works. 4. If you're saying that all businesses will have a smoking section, then what's the problem? You're not in the same area as the smokers anyway. The fact that you said parents would bring there kids into a smoking section just because they smoke shows you have prejudice against smokers to start. You think that just because someone smokes they don't care about there kids health? The Main Point: None of that even matters. Why? Because, NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO GO TO A PLACE WHERE SMOKING IS ALLOWED. There will always be places you can go that don't allow smoking. End of discussion.
__________________
Violent Skank is Violent!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|