Illinois to Pass Statewide Smoking Ban

So long as the sign on the door states: "There are venomous cobras in the toilets. Enter at your own risk" I don't see why not.

Fine, so require Prop 65 warnings in bars and be done with it.

Well, let's be clear, correct in the case of what I wrote refers to the concept of correcting the market, which really just means an adjustment. So, there you go again, reading meaning out of your own definitions. I'll admit you made a reasonable (though wrong) assumption but context might have helped you a bit. So,

I deny the concept that bars represent a personal right. They represent a response to the mob.

Too bad you can't think in the world that actually exists. You can write platitudes 24 hours a day about the world you think should exist, but you don't live in that world. The real world requires a bit more pragmatism and compromise. Otherwise you just set yourself up for angry loneliness.

Warnings aren't enough. Our choices must be limited in order to protect us from ourselves.

Funny how you all only fixate on half of the whole "free market" transaction. There must be a willing consumer and a willing provider, or what you have is not a free market.

Not sure what the hell you mean with this. Property represents a personal right, regardless of the specific business.

Pragmatism and compromise do not require compulsion. Maybe you could try wrapping your head around that before you go presuming to define reality for others.

I can also tell you from anecdotal evidence from my visit to Ireland that it was literally a breathe of fresh air to go to the bars (pubs) / clubs there. And it wasn't just me, the tourist, that felt that way. I met many Irish folk that agreed with me. They could still smoke outside the pub on the patio (and many of them did), which I think is a fair compromise.

Now this is just anecdotal but I enjoyed going to the pubs there far more than I do here. So in contrast, I would ask, how much business have they gained from such experiences? From the article, city business seems to be on the rise.

As far as the rural aspect of the article, it could be that the culture is changing and that Ireland is becoming less rural. Honestly, I was surprised to see just how rural the country was. I wasn't expecting that from a country that has been established hundreds of years before America was.

The tech boom in Ireland and higher paying jobs are probably attracting more Irish (and foreigners) to the cities. In the end, it could be any number of factors that are affecting the rural community, I just highly doubt that the smoking ban is a primary reason.

Um... no shit? There's all sorts of proscriptions against various kinds of speech - false advertising, fraud, libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a theater, etc... Your right to remain silent ends where something you're providing can harm me. There's limits to that of course, where common sense takes over, ie knives don't need warning labels saying "Warning: sharp". But even if they did, it's better than a failure to disclose that, say, brand X chocolate cookies are processed in a factory that processes peanuts. So perhaps it should be said your right to remain silent ends where something you're providing can harm me more than might be expected given the nature of what you're providing. Since that could be vague, I'm willing to compromise with warning labels on everything.

Even if I accept your claims (which require elucidation) to be true, your conclusion does not follow.
Some interferance doesn't justify all interferance.

So you think dictating non-smoking policies is no different from simply requiring disclosure of what is permitted? Maybe, in the most superficially pedantic sense possible, they are degrees on the same scale, but a sign is a WAY lower standard of imposition, making this just one more in an endless series of bullshit comparisons.

Just eliminate bars entirely. That way you can reduce public second hand smoke, drunk driving, liver disease, alcohol poisoning, public intoxication, assault and battery, public disturbances, MIP's, vehicular manslaughter, and dehydration. For the good of the Many!!!!! Onward Christian soldiers!

If everyone has a right to a smoke-free bar provided at someone else's expense, shouldn't it then be a crime to close said bar in protest of the passage of a smoking ban?

I call bullshit. You do not have an inherent right to go to a tavern, if no one will provide one with the atmosphere you want. Such is the nature of the free market. I may want to buy a time machine, but the market has decided that it won't provide at the price I'm willing to pay, which is substantially less than the R&D into physics-breaking technology. Do I have a right to a buy a time machine anyway? Of course not. Requiring bars to be non-smoking is nothing more than an entitlement to non-smokers, a propagation of the welfare state, no different than if the government runs a non-smoking bar on taxpayer money, regardless of profit.

Though it would be interesting if the government had a specific profit-making arm, to fill in niches where voters perceive a gap in the market... it's first business could have its initial capex come from taxes, so long as it was paid back, and any further businesses' capex come from the profits of the first business, with the eventual goal of eliminating taxation completely.

And, given the current regulatory climate, this idea wouldn't necessarily be doomed to failure, as the government wouldn't have to pay regulatory costs, which are perhaps one of, if not the largest obstacle currently to filling in niches... Might even inspire the government to stop being so heavy-handed with the regulation. Dammit, the optimism's talking again. Bit I digress...

People cannot make rational decisions if some relevant facts are missing. That's why one of the assumptions of any economic theory, is perfect information, or at least adequate information, except for those which deal specifically with the deficiency thereof. So it's not a market at all, let alone a free market, if the information is not there.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Plutonium kills people. See the difference? Of course not.

Negative. Health is a private matter in 90% of the cases today where liberals want to regulate: obesity, lung diseases, heart disease, all the behaviorally-conditional diseases.

Of course, it's no wonder... best to regulate or manipulate behavior through taxation BEFORE instituting socialized medicine. That way, it'll just be a lots of quiet protests beforehand, and only mild grumbling when the government institutes 1984-like health requirements in order to keep medical costs down: x amount of calories, exercises every morning, etc. instead of massive protests that could result in an overthrow of the government.

The fact is, public, tax-funded medicine and freedom are ultimately incompatible, one way or another. Either the government will have to pay doctors very little and imprison them and force them to work if they do not, and eventually take the brightest children from their parents and force them to become doctors when the previous generation dies, or they will have to reduce demand for medicine a la the previous paragraph. TANSTAAFL. Someone has to pay. Oh sure, you can put it off... borrow money, print more money... but eventually the devil must be paid.

FDR put the frog in the water. Medicare, Medicaid, etc., and redefining public health - from things like preventing the spread of communicable diseases, to preventing obesity and the like - is merely turning up dial to medium-low. Ironically, the analogy only works with the human half... frogs actually do jump out of the water by this point.

Who is to say what is correct? Who the hell are you to decide what other people derive utility and happiness from? What the hell kind of inferiority complex must you have to decide your behavior with regards to yourself must be put to a vote?

And who are you? See the problem?

I'm not. I'm trying to make sure you can, for yourself. An alien concept to the New England liberal mind, but give it time.

Unless you meant who am I to decide for myself? I am an adult, mentally-fit human being. If that's not enough, I don't see why 200 million others are any better.

Now, respond to the rest of it, dodger.

That has more to do with people not wanting to impose said bans on business owners. Honestly, I don't like it either. If the market did regulate itself and there were ample numbers of smoke-free bars/clubs, I wouldn't even entertain the idea, but there are not and it doesn't here, and when that happens, I'm not opposed to gov't stepping in.

Go start one yourself, or quit going to smoking bars and encourage others to do the same.

The refusal of some owners to bow to every whim of every segment of his customer base is a functional element of the market. Does a free market only require that all exchanges be voluntary and free from interferance, or must it be extended to unconditional subservience to the market forces?

From another direction, is it really that powerful and important a market segment if they're able to stay in business and profitable while ignoring it? Why should he change if he's making money the way he's doing things now?

DD&B, is that your argument now?

You can always start a private club that serves alcohol and allows smoking. Other bars are publicly licensed facilities, operating under the rules the public determines most appropriate.

That we argue different viewpoints does not mean one of us is a dodger. The reality of this debate is that you are an extremist. Because you are completely convinced of the morality of your position, you are willing to accept nothing less than that. But there really isn't a moral question here regarding private property. We crossed that Rubicon a few hundred years ago, so your tilting at wind mills is nothing more than an exercise in rhetoric.

Funny, most people don't like that response when anti-war advocates tell war supporters to go fight in the war themselves.

I now feel the need to open a bar that caters only to smokers.

The fact that we have a populace that's grown complacent with a history of ignoring property rights does not negate the point.

And you can under this law.

Actually, DR&B: Deny, Rebut, and Belittle. SOP when one's opponent is annoying or pedantic.

Actually, I can't. Because people like you have come up with laws that mean I get arrested if I do so.

All well and comforting, except it's illegal not to have a license.

No, you're a dodger because you ignored 80% of the post.

Who happens to be right.

Obviously untrue, as I was willing to compromise on a warning label where common sense normally applies.

"But there really isn't a moral question here regarding slavery/women's suffrage/freedom of speech/guarantee of habeas corpus. We crossed that Rubicon a few hundred years ago, so your tilting at wind mills is nothing more than an exercise in rhetoric." -gul, circa 1788/1867/1774.

Is it criminal to close down in protest to other gov't regulations?

I simply don't understand the whole "all regulation is bad so I'll rail only against this one," argument. O2C and UA, here's a challenge. Get out there and reform alcohol licensing, get rid of it if you can, then we can talk about smoking. But as long as bars are licensed operators, they exist within the public realm and are suitable for regulation. Sorry, but that's an immutable fact that neither of you seem to get. So change it, and I will very likely join you in protesting smoking bans, but for now, we have a mixture of private and public at a place like a bar, and public has rights, too. Now, I'm through with this, since you are both going to go off on smug rant 56 about private property, but the argument really has nothing to do with that.

The very nature of bars under current law is that they are not private property. Perhaps that is wrong, but until you get people to agree with you, the smoking bans stay.

Depends on the industry and the regulation, obviously. It would have to be a specifically-legislated entitlement to access to a privately-offered service under terms dictated by one element within the customer base to be a valid comparison. Say, like a local cable provider shutting down their entire network because they don't like the local community's content and censorship requirements. Would it be a crime then?

The point your sidestepping is that, if you have an automatic right to access the bar under terms of your choosing, it would be an infringement of that right to deny you access for any other reason, and that, if you can be denied access conditionally, there's no reason why a condition that you tolerate tobacco smoke should not be among the stipulations.

Uncle Albert can't take the world as it is. He is driven to enforce a model that suits his own desires, whether or not anybody else wants that.

And the point you're missing is that smart business owners adapt to gov't regulations, not just throw their hands up and quit. It is the nature of doing business in this country. You would think all your droning on about the power of the market would have included this rather crucial caveat...

Wouldn't "taking the world as it is" include accepting bars for what they are, rather than what non-smokers want them to be? Isn't imposing smoking bans "enforcing a model that suits the desires" of non-smokers whether or not everyone else wants it?