Beautiful!! I like it. Then we can have a bar code tattooed on every person for easy identification; certain zones of the city where you're allowed to travel. The government can have 5 year plans. I can't wait for the Ministry of Truth.
Smoking at tournament matches
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
Beautiful!! I like it. Then we can have a bar code tattooed on every person for easy identification; certain zones of the city where you're allowed to travel. The government can have 5 year plans. I can't wait for the Ministry of Truth.
$200,000?? LMAO...it is to be assumed from this point forward, that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Stop it, Sean! Slide Rule was actually liking something I posted for once. (Even though he didn't really see the point....)
Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.
This is how the free-market system of economics works. Simple as that. You can complain about some need of yours not being filled, but until you step up and open your own place, then you have no actual right to cry about it. This is the basis for the entire study of economics, the history of economic theory going back to Adam Smith, and the entire basis of our western economy. Supply and demand, and a self-correcting free-market system. As for a lack of selection, there's a little thing called the "invisible hand" of the market, meaning, if there is enough demand, someone will open such a business and prosper. If there is not enough demand, then you have to live with your own situation and take a long hard look at your own priorities in business transactions. Non-smoking businesses (even bars and clubs!) existed long before neo-fascist smoking bans came along, so why is using the government to artificially infringe on people's property rights suddenly ok just because some blue noses think that's all right? This is exactly how Prohibition got passed back in the day, but people get so upset when their totalitarian ideas get pointed out for what they are. "Me? No.....I'm all for freedom! (except this thing I personally dislike/think is icky)." And these same people wonder why we have turned into a big nanny-state society with intrusive ridiculous laws intruding on so many facets of our lives.
I think de Toqueville said it best: "In a democracy, people get the government they deserve". If you believe in totalitarianism, and intrusive government, you deserve every bit of it. The rest of us? We'll have a beer, thanks.
Sean, thank you. Thank you for being the first person in any of the OMG SMOKING threads ever posted here that came out and said what exactly they believe in, and was honest about it. In that statement you have cut through all the appeals to emotion, all the smoke-screens, all the BS, and said exactly what these laws are about.
I don't agree with you, I'm completely opposed to that entire mode of thinking, but at the same time, I absolutely respect you for being honest, and having the foresight and thinking ability to see the end goal for laws like this and cut through the typical short-sighted BS that fills these threads.
Cheers man, that's a great post. As I said, I don't agree with your ideals there, but I can respect someone who is honest and forthright!! :smile:
Last edited:
Spider1:
Well, I appreciate that -- hopefully honestly -- you're giving me accolades for cutting to the chase, and not, well, "blowing smoke" up my rear.
Cutting to the chase, and by definition, what are laws? They *are* a method of control. Are they not? Of controlling minimum-acceptable behavior, of controlling minimum-acceptable conditions to conduct business, of controlling damage that might be caused if the "control" didn't exist in the first place. Control, in a lot of societies (not just ours here in the U.S.), is a baseline to ensure stability. I mean, I understand what you're saying about the BS, but my question is how can people dance around this basic concept?
People by and large don't like control (or to be thought of as a subject "being controlled"). But it's an unfortunate circumstance when you get a bunch of human beings from all different backgrounds living together. A minimum standard has to be set.
But enough of that -- it's not something I wanted to get into, only to help explain a certain point a little further.
Bottom line: I wish all human beings didn't need to be told what minimum acceptable behavior is, or what behavior annoys (or even endangers) his/her peers. But unfortunately they do. I just shrug my shoulders and say, "it is what it is."
I just go about my life, my business, and be the best human being I can possibly be to my fellow human beings.Thanks again for the kind words,
-Sean
Spider1:
Well, I appreciate that -- hopefully honestly -- you're giving me accolades for cutting to the chase, and not, well, "blowing smoke" up my rear.
Cutting to the chase, and by definition, what are laws? They *are* a method of control. Are they not? Of controlling minimum-acceptable behavior, of controlling minimum-acceptable conditions to conduct business, of controlling damage that might be caused if the "control" didn't exist in the first place. Control, in a lot of societies (not just ours here in the U.S.), is a baseline to ensure stability. I mean, I understand what you're saying about the BS, but my question is how can people dance around this basic concept?
People by and large don't like control (or to be thought of as a subject "being controlled"). But it's an unfortunate circumstance when you get a bunch of human beings from all different backgrounds living together. A minimum standard has to be set.
But enough of that -- it's not something I wanted to get into, only to help explain a certain point a little further.
Bottom line: I wish all human beings didn't need to be told what minimum acceptable behavior is, or what behavior annoys (or even endangers) his/her peers. But unfortunately they do. I just shrug my shoulders and say, "it is what it is."
Thanks again for the kind words,
-Sean
The problem is that "minimum acceptable behavior" means different things to different people. Is smoking crack minimally acceptable? How about prostitution? How about abortion, gambling, or suicide? None of these behaviors affect anyone other than yourself, yet they would all spawn multi-page threads in an online forum. So I have to ask, who gets to decide what is minimally acceptable and what is not?
...and before you say anything along the lines of majority rules, remember that, once upon a time, majority deemed some people be slaves and some people have less rights than others and some people be stoned to death in the public square...
Spider1:
Well, I appreciate that -- hopefully honestly -- you're giving me accolades for cutting to the chase, and not, well, "blowing smoke" up my rear.
-Sean
No man, not being facetious, sarcastic, none of that (unlike the norm for posts in these threads!), being 100% honest. I can totally respect someone who 'says what they mean' and is honest about their perspective, without clouding or trying to hide their thoughts/agenda behind the typical appeals to emotion, bs, etc. I think one of the great things about our society and western thought in general is our ability to "agree to disagree"! We can disagree with each other but respect each other for pleading our cases and being honest about our beliefs....which sadly is awful rare today.
Cheers bud!
-Spider
Drew:
What you propose is extremely difficult to answer. It's roughly analogous to asking the question, "what is human nature?" Yes, it is that ambiguous.
Rather than ask "who" determines what's minimum acceptable behavior, why not ask "why" there's minimum acceptable behavior? I think that's a more root-level question than asking who.
Yes, you are correct that in different times in history, different situations (than now) were deemed acceptable. Why?
Not easy, is it?
-Sean
a few points of interest
All these things that only "affect yourself" impacts all of the people around you and society as a whole. Some of these things in moderation indeed do no detectable harm, moderation being the issue. Gambling seems the least harmful yet I saw a widow lose her home she had lived in at least 30 years because her husband gambled. I have seen three generations of a family damaged by some of your "victimless crimes" working on a fourth generation. Society as a whole pays also because these people can't cover the costs of their mistakes. Their children and their entire families pay for their mistakes, victimless crimes make me laugh but it isn't a happy laugh. Even in groups of animals "laws" exist for the benefit of the group. No surprise that we need laws for the good of the group also. In a perfect world we wouldn't.
Your second paragraph is kinda funny simply because every one of these things that you say once existed still exist today. Not one of those things has went away. They aren't as common as they once were because of laws governing most societies. Without law might makes right. Being moderately large and far better than most with any type of firearm I'd fair pretty well in such a society with a little luck. Young children, the old, and the weak wouldn't fair so well.
When the people that commit all the victimless crimes can cover the real costs of their crimes I'll say that people can do as they please. Some things seem ridiculous, why should you have to have a front brake on a motorcycle if you don't want it? I knew a guy that built and rebuilt his bike three times and wrecked it within two days each time. I also remember a handful of deaths in one small group of slow learners from no front brakes. I hate riding with a helmet on a nice day. However I knew people that died, I knew a couple more that started drooling a lot in their twenties or early thirties. The doctors said that they would probably live long lives, longer than most. They would just need people around to change their diapers and hand feed them. I still remember seeing a pregnant wife with two small children at a funeral, her husband had committed a victimless crime.
Live free, die young, leave a beautiful memory behind. The Hank Williams syndrome is alive and well. Never think that others don't have to clean up the messes left behind though.
Hu
All these things that only "affect yourself" impacts all of the people around you and society as a whole. Some of these things in moderation indeed do no detectable harm, moderation being the issue. Gambling seems the least harmful yet I saw a widow lose her home she had lived in at least 30 years because her husband gambled. I have seen three generations of a family damaged by some of your "victimless crimes" working on a fourth generation. Society as a whole pays also because these people can't cover the costs of their mistakes. Their children and their entire families pay for their mistakes, victimless crimes make me laugh but it isn't a happy laugh. Even in groups of animals "laws" exist for the benefit of the group. No surprise that we need laws for the good of the group also. In a perfect world we wouldn't.
Your second paragraph is kinda funny simply because every one of these things that you say once existed still exist today. Not one of those things has went away. They aren't as common as they once were because of laws governing most societies. Without law might makes right. Being moderately large and far better than most with any type of firearm I'd fair pretty well in such a society with a little luck. Young children, the old, and the weak wouldn't fair so well.
When the people that commit all the victimless crimes can cover the real costs of their crimes I'll say that people can do as they please. Some things seem ridiculous, why should you have to have a front brake on a motorcycle if you don't want it? I knew a guy that built and rebuilt his bike three times and wrecked it within two days each time. I also remember a handful of deaths in one small group of slow learners from no front brakes. I hate riding with a helmet on a nice day. However I knew people that died, I knew a couple more that started drooling a lot in their twenties or early thirties. The doctors said that they would probably live long lives, longer than most. They would just need people around to change their diapers and hand feed them. I still remember seeing a pregnant wife with two small children at a funeral, her husband had committed a victimless crime.
Live free, die young, leave a beautiful memory behind. The Hank Williams syndrome is alive and well. Never think that others don't have to clean up the messes left behind though.
Hu
Now I know how to get an advantage Friday. Muhuahahaha.
I asked that when I saw a room owner make someone put it away. He said that from across the room, you don't see it's a smokeless cigarette and you end up doing double takes and having to drop what you're doing to see if someone didn't just light up. Also other people see them and don't realize it's smokeless, they think the owner is just relaxing the rules and decide to light up too.
Smoking threads boil down to this idea... "the property owner should decide what happens on his property"... "even if it puts me at risk?"..."sure, because you can simply go somewhere else, nobody forced you to go to that spot". At first glance this seems pretty reasonable... his house, his rules, I'll just go elsewhere. If there are hordes of non-smokers looking for a place to go (restaurant, pool room, etc.) then business owners should open up a place to accomodate them and make some money from it.
The problem is that for certain businesses, if the city/state won't ban it, no room owner will either. It's not the same for a pool hall as, say, a gym. In a gym maybe only 20% of the patrons want to smoke. You can risk losing that 20%. But in a pool hall, maybe it's more like 60%. Pool halls already seem to have a tough time getting by. The owner won't take the risk of losing such a large group. So you end up with a situation where a nonsmoker literally just has to suck it up. He has zero options, unless you consider "quit playing pool" an option.
What the owner figures is that a non-smoker can choose to put up with it, but a smoker won't choose to put up with the ban. He'll have so many other options, and he has an addiction to satisfy. That's really what it boils down to... how far will the room owner go to humor someone else's addiction? If smoking weren't addictive, only a handful of people would willfully spend tons of money and stink up themselves and their property just to... what? look cool? If one dude out of any group of fifty people smoked, dealing with him is no problem and a ban never ever comes up. But when it's 20 or 30 guys, you start getting the blue cloud of death and it goes from minor rare annoyance to a real problem.
Smokers argue "Everyone has a choice... the owner can choose what happens on his property... the non-smoker can choose to go somewhere else" but that concept breaks down when an addiction takes away someone's choice to not smoke.
But we've had at least one room owner on this forum report that even without a blanket ban they bought a room, went non-smoking, and business went up! People in the area still had the choice, and everyone profited (owners AND customers).
As for regular bars going non-smoking, I've seen some bars go non-smoking before bans came in, and they did fine. If there is demand, someone will build, and they will prosper. It really is that simple.
Times are changing, smoking is declining every year, so it is just a matter of time before demand for non-smoking bars outweighs demand for smoking bars without any government interference. That's the "invisible hand" of the market, once again. And even someday when 95% of the bar-going population hates and refuses to be around smoke, isn't there still room for the one little blue collar dive bar to allow smoking?
Stop it, Sean! Slide Rule was actually liking something I posted for once. (Even though he didn't really see the point....)
Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.
Appreciated.
:grin: :grin: :grin: