Discussion Forums > Politics
2012 US Presidential Election
Burkingam:
The thing is, here at least, before the tobacco ban EVERY places allowed tobacco. If you only want a few specialized places to allow it, then I guess you'd need to establish a licence system who only allow a limited number of establishments to accept smoker provided that they pay for an expensive licence. If the licence is too cheap, then it'd give them a competitive advantage over other establishments and you want the places who accept smokers to be the minority so you can't give too many licences. At the end I think banning it from public places altogether is simpler though.
AceHigh:
Are you trying to convince me that there are establishments that cater to small demographics like gay bars and vegan restaurants and at the same time nobody would take the business opportunity to cater to large demographic like non-smoking population? Don't make me laugh, if this is how it looks from your perspective, then you must be living in an overwhelming smoker majority population or just happen to want to go to places traditionally catering for smokers.
Burkingam:
Sure, Acehigh the best way to help people quit smoking is to marginalize non-smokers and make sure the only smoke free establishments out there are a few specialize places about as rare as gay bars and vegan restaurants.
I'm sure there was a few restaurants banning smoking but lets just say I have never heard of such a place.
edi: you don't seam to be aware of Hotelling's law AceHigh. Here, watch TED's video about it.
jaybug:
There you go again. First thing after winning the election is step to the left and talk about unimportant shit that provides no jobs, no taxes, and somehow it is someone else's fault. How does that make you better than Todd Akin? Oh, right, you kept your mouth shut until after the election.
Oh, and that 47% number is actually low. Social Security recipients are included. This is what all those entitlements means. And those are the driving force of the federal budget.
And why should I care? It isn't as if the retirement age wasn't kept the same for when I retire.
How about this: Social Security currently takes in more than it pays out, what if we designed the federal budget to reflect that? Meaning, congress doesn't spend any Social Security, or Medicare money that are currently taken out of payroll checks. See what happens to everything else all of a sudden.
Ixarku:
--- Quote from: Burkingam on November 12, 2012, 10:31:43 PM ---The thing is, here at least, before the tobacco ban EVERY places allowed tobacco. If you only want a few specialized places to allow it, then I guess you'd need to establish a licence system who only allow a limited number of establishments to accept smoker provided that they pay for an expensive licence. If the licence is too cheap, then it'd give them a competitive advantage over other establishments and you want the places who accept smokers to be the minority so you can't give too many licences. At the end I think banning it from public places altogether is simpler though.
--- End quote ---
I have no problem with a license system for bars or restaurants that allow smoking. Establishments that serve alcohol already have to have liquor licenses, at least in the state of Florida, so it's not like it'd be much of a stretch. The logistics are solveable, the rest is just details. And local municipalities or counties should have the discretion to decide how many licenses to issue, so if one county wants to promote a non-smoking environment, they can choose not to issue any licenses at all, or very few. The point is to allow communities to decide for themselves.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version