Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun May 04, 2025 8:00 am



Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 Ban on Smoking 
Author Message
Post 
dolcevita wrote:
Krem wrote:
dolcevita wrote:
Mises? Hmmmmm, is this libertarian lit? My roommate in Rome was, and she gave me some stuff to read. I did, but I don't remember who wrote it.

-Dolce

Yes. Mises and Heyek are two leading Austrian-school libertarians.

I was alluding to the fact that you're a closet-libertarian, but you still lack the confidence in the free markets, hence you should read some of Mises's stuff :lol:


Listen, I think I've made it pretty clear that I am alot more comfortable addressing social issues than economic and international ones. Yes, in the social realm, I believe to each his own, and I don't believe it is the government's job to advocate some of it over the other's. But as to labor, education, etc. No, I'm not so sure where I stand on what the government should or shouldn't be doing. Though, as of late, I am getting more and more sure of what it shouldn't be doing. I guess I let the candidates set the discussions on that and I just listen. While most people's hiearchy of voting issues tended to put stuff like gay marriage and stem cell research at the bottom of the list, that's still ontop of mine. Probably because I have a stronger vision of where I think this ocuntry should be when it comes to civil liberties. Something I don't have as clear an image of in other situations.

-Dolce


One of these days I'm going to have to start posting on the gay marriage/stem-cell research topics.

And it won't be pretty.


Tue Nov 16, 2004 12:51 pm
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts: 16061
Location: The Damage Control Table
Post 
Krem wrote:
dolcevita wrote:
Listen, I think I've made it pretty clear that I am alot more comfortable addressing social issues than economic and international ones. Yes, in the social realm, I believe to each his own, and I don't believe it is the government's job to advocate some of it over the other's. But as to labor, education, etc. No, I'm not so sure where I stand on what the government should or shouldn't be doing. Though, as of late, I am getting more and more sure of what it shouldn't be doing. I guess I let the candidates set the discussions on that and I just listen. While most people's hiearchy of voting issues tended to put stuff like gay marriage and stem cell research at the bottom of the list, that's still ontop of mine. Probably because I have a stronger vision of where I think this ocuntry should be when it comes to civil liberties. Something I don't have as clear an image of in other situations.

-Dolce


One of these days I'm going to have to start posting on the gay marriage/stem-cell research topics.

And it won't be pretty.


:lol: I find it incredibly hard to believe that we practically disagree on every single issue and you still think I'm in the closet of your political ideology. Maybe you're just a closet Democrat???? Ever think of that? I mean, you did vote Nader originally right? Lat I checked the Greens weren't all that closely associated with the Rupblicans. :lol:

-Dolce


Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:19 pm
Profile
Post 
dolcevita wrote:
Krem wrote:
dolcevita wrote:
Listen, I think I've made it pretty clear that I am alot more comfortable addressing social issues than economic and international ones. Yes, in the social realm, I believe to each his own, and I don't believe it is the government's job to advocate some of it over the other's. But as to labor, education, etc. No, I'm not so sure where I stand on what the government should or shouldn't be doing. Though, as of late, I am getting more and more sure of what it shouldn't be doing. I guess I let the candidates set the discussions on that and I just listen. While most people's hiearchy of voting issues tended to put stuff like gay marriage and stem cell research at the bottom of the list, that's still ontop of mine. Probably because I have a stronger vision of where I think this ocuntry should be when it comes to civil liberties. Something I don't have as clear an image of in other situations.

-Dolce


One of these days I'm going to have to start posting on the gay marriage/stem-cell research topics.

And it won't be pretty.


:lol: I find it incredibly hard to believe that we practically disagree on every single issue and you still think I'm in the closet of your political ideology. Maybe you're just a closet Democrat???? Ever think of that? I mean, you did vote Nader originally right? Lat I checked the Greens weren't all that closely associated with the Rupblicans. :lol:

-Dolce

I was stoopid back then (and I didn't vote anyway).

In any case, I was alluding to the fact that Bush gets a lot of bad rap over the stem-cell issue that is completely unwarranted. As for gay/straight marriages, I find it utterly hypocritical of liberals to want to define marriage their way, yet crying foul when others want to do the same.

I also laugh at both sides, and wonder when we'll get away from the government being involved in the marriage business.


Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:21 pm
You must have big rats
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
Post 
Krem wrote:
Dr. Lecter wrote:
dolcevita wrote:
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Krem wrote:
BTW, my aunt in Germany smokes in her office. On a government job, no less.

Germany needs to be liberated.


It is very interesting that you bring it up. I saw an interesting report on smoking at work in Germany and how it is going to change soon.


In Italy you'd wait hours in line at the bank and the teller would just sit back, relax, and suck down a ocuple cigs. Honestly, it doesn't bother me too much, so I'm with Tony on this one. I think its pretty unappetizing when eating, but frankly, that's the restaurant's call. If all they do is get smokers, and everyone else who could appreciate their cooking has gone elsewhere, then they'll have to make the call to keep it that way of not. I've never seen a restaurant where the plates are really expensive, that allows smoking. The restaurant considers it something that could ruin subtle tastes of food, etc. Mostly, smoking I've seen (In Chicago, because Boston and NY didn't have it) has been in diners and some coffee shops. It didn't bother me, I just went elsewhere if I didn't want to deal with it. I guess I don't have nearly as big an issue with banning smoking in restaurants and public buildings as I do in bars. Public buildings, people are not their by choice. If you need to get your drivers license, you can't just up and go somewhere else to get it if you don't like breathing second hand smoke. So there shouldn't be smoking there. But privately owned businesses. Its your call. Bars...I've just noticed that in bars were a couldn't smoke I end up drinking waaaaaay more (I know...shocker). So bars probably would do it on purpose just to make more money, lol. But I do think there should be some recreational spaces for it, and late night establishments that 11 year olds don't wonder into would actually be the best place. Plus, I could not picture a rockabilly bar with The King playing in the background not being at least a little bit smoky.

-Dolce


Well, the report presented a following calculation.

An employee works 36 hours a week and earns around €2,880 a month. He smokes about one cig an hour. That means around 36 cigs a week. Smoking one cig takes him about 4-5 minutes. With these (more or less realistic) calculations the the company he works for loses around €2,850 just because of the time he spends smoking and not working. Considering Germany's economical situation at the moment, companies cannot afford that.

That's gotta be the dumbest reason for banning smoking. It's actually approaching in stupidity France's decision to cut the workweek to 35 hours to reduce unemployment.

The report assumes that if an employee wasn't smoking, he'd be working during those 4-5 minutes, which is not at all a valid assumption to make. And it fails to take into account that employees who are not allowed to smoke during work hours are likely to become disgruntled.


Well, this is true. However, it is a fact that they don't work when they smoke. Would they work in these 4-5 minutes if they were not allowed to smoke? Maybe they do, maybe not. Do they work in this 5 minutes when they are allowed to smoke? Definitely not. Therefore, the companies are more inclined to ban smoking.

_________________
The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!

Image


Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:32 pm
Profile WWW
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts: 16061
Location: The Damage Control Table
Post 
Krem wrote:
dolcevita wrote:

:lol: I find it incredibly hard to believe that we practically disagree on every single issue and you still think I'm in the closet of your political ideology. Maybe you're just a closet Democrat???? Ever think of that? I mean, you did vote Nader originally right? Lat I checked the Greens weren't all that closely associated with the Rupblicans. :lol:

-Dolce

I was stoopid back then (and I didn't vote anyway).

In any case, I was alluding to the fact that Bush gets a lot of bad rap over the stem-cell issue that is completely unwarranted. As for gay/straight marriages, I find it utterly hypocritical of liberals to want to define marriage their way, yet crying foul when others want to do the same.

I also laugh at both sides, and wonder when we'll get away from the government being involved in the marriage business.


Oh c'mon. There's a big difference with saying marriage is open ended and can be defined by the individuals and religious institution that they are constituents of, and saying "Marriage is only between a man and a woman." Excuse me but those liberal's definitions are more open ended, and do in fact remove the government from making the decisions, instead placing it in the hands of the institution. The government's job is just to respect that institution's ultimate decision. That is a bit different of a definition of marriage than a constitutional amendment that pretty much says, "Hey Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, we don't care what you decided is okay for your followers. We're not going to recognize it on a civic level."

-Dolce


Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:33 pm
Profile
Post 
dolcevita wrote:
Krem wrote:
dolcevita wrote:

:lol: I find it incredibly hard to believe that we practically disagree on every single issue and you still think I'm in the closet of your political ideology. Maybe you're just a closet Democrat???? Ever think of that? I mean, you did vote Nader originally right? Lat I checked the Greens weren't all that closely associated with the Rupblicans. :lol:

-Dolce

I was stoopid back then (and I didn't vote anyway).

In any case, I was alluding to the fact that Bush gets a lot of bad rap over the stem-cell issue that is completely unwarranted. As for gay/straight marriages, I find it utterly hypocritical of liberals to want to define marriage their way, yet crying foul when others want to do the same.

I also laugh at both sides, and wonder when we'll get away from the government being involved in the marriage business.


Oh c'mon. There's a big difference with saying marriage is open ended and can be defined by the individuals and religious institution that they are constituents of, and saying "Marriage is only between a man and a woman." Excuse me but those liberal's definitions are more open ended, and do in fact remove the government from making the decisions, instead placing it in the hands of the institution. The government's job is just to respect that institution's ultimate decision. That is a bit different of a definition of marriage than a constitutional amendment that pretty much says, "Hey Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, we don't care what you decided is okay for your followers. We're not going to recognize it on a civic level."

-Dolce

I'll believe the liberals' intentions of being more "open-ended" once they argue for the government to stop giving married couples monetary benefits and other priviliges.

The government=the people, and if the people choose not to respect something, that means the government doesn't have to either (as long as the government is in the respecting business, which I don't believe it should be to begin with).


Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:38 pm
Post 
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Well, this is true. However, it is a fact that they don't work when they smoke. Would they work in these 4-5 minutes if they were not allowed to smoke? Maybe they do, maybe not. Do they work in this 5 minutes when they are allowed to smoke? Definitely not. Therefore, the companies are more inclined to ban smoking.

That analysis does not take into consideration the intangible benefits of giving workers more freedom of going about their daily routine.

It's up to each individual company to weigh the pros and the cons of such a business decision; it shouldn't be up to the government.


Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:40 pm
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts: 16061
Location: The Damage Control Table
Post 
Krem wrote:
dolcevita wrote:

Oh c'mon. There's a big difference with saying marriage is open ended and can be defined by the individuals and religious institution that they are constituents of, and saying "Marriage is only between a man and a woman." Excuse me but those liberal's definitions are more open ended, and do in fact remove the government from making the decisions, instead placing it in the hands of the institution. The government's job is just to respect that institution's ultimate decision. That is a bit different of a definition of marriage than a constitutional amendment that pretty much says, "Hey Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, we don't care what you decided is okay for your followers. We're not going to recognize it on a civic level."

-Dolce

I'll believe the liberals' intentions of being more "open-ended" once they argue for the government to stop giving married couples monetary benefits and other priviliges.

The government=the people, and if the people choose not to respect something, that means the government doesn't have to either (as long as the government is in the respecting business, which I don't believe it should be to begin with).


You bring up a good point about tax breaks for marriage in the first place. I've always found it silly that the gov't literally encourages only one particular way in which people should interact with eachother. If you live together til death but without some church certificate, that's not good enough. I f you never find someone whom you're compatible with, and don't want to force it, well, you just don't make the (tax) cut. Yes. Either the government extends the novelty to all, or it just treats everyone over the age of 21 as an independant.

-Dolce


Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:44 pm
Profile
2.71828183

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:16 pm
Posts: 7827
Location: please delete me
Post 
It is not the job of the government to ban smoking, it should be decided by the business, and I wil continue to patronize places that don't allow smoking over those that do.


I have to add, I always hated that smokers got more breaks then non smokers, this is very true in both retail and the restuarant industry and its irksome. I would have loved to have been able to go outside every hour durng a nine hour day, as the smokers were allowed to do. The five minutes of peace and quiet and fresh air would have been very nice. I have always hated that, it encourages you to smoke.


Last edited by Ripper on Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:47 pm
Profile
2.71828183

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:16 pm
Posts: 7827
Location: please delete me
Post 
dolcevita wrote:
You bring up a good point about tax breaks for marriage in the first place. I've always found it silly that the gov't literally encourages only one particular way in which people should interact with eachother. If you live together til death but without some church certificate, that's not good enough. I f you never find someone whom you're compatible with, and don't want to force it, well, you just don't make the (tax) cut. Yes. Either the government extends the novelty to all, or it just treats everyone over the age of 21 as an independant.

-Dolce


True, however marriage in the best interest iof the governemnt since the cost of single parent households falls on teh government and thus the tax payers. Part of encourging marraige is a monetary thing, single parent households are mostly female, and women make less money then men.


I am not saying we should support marriage, its just a comment.


Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:50 pm
Profile
You must have big rats
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 92093
Location: Bonn, Germany
Post 
Krem wrote:
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Well, this is true. However, it is a fact that they don't work when they smoke. Would they work in these 4-5 minutes if they were not allowed to smoke? Maybe they do, maybe not. Do they work in this 5 minutes when they are allowed to smoke? Definitely not. Therefore, the companies are more inclined to ban smoking.

That analysis does not take into consideration the intangible benefits of giving workers more freedom of going about their daily routine.

It's up to each individual company to weigh the pros and the cons of such a business decision; it shouldn't be up to the government.


The workers have been given way too much freedom and benefits in the last years and the current situation in Germany shows where it all has led. You know, there was an Europe-wide survey and one of the questions was "What is the most hard-working nation in Europe". 45% said "Germany". Well, it is a myth. It has been true some decades ago, but by far not now. All people want is more and more paid vacations. Money for Christams from the employer, more holidays etc. Well, these days will be over very soon.

_________________
The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!

Image


Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:50 pm
Profile WWW
Post 
dolcevita wrote:
Krem wrote:
dolcevita wrote:

Oh c'mon. There's a big difference with saying marriage is open ended and can be defined by the individuals and religious institution that they are constituents of, and saying "Marriage is only between a man and a woman." Excuse me but those liberal's definitions are more open ended, and do in fact remove the government from making the decisions, instead placing it in the hands of the institution. The government's job is just to respect that institution's ultimate decision. That is a bit different of a definition of marriage than a constitutional amendment that pretty much says, "Hey Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, we don't care what you decided is okay for your followers. We're not going to recognize it on a civic level."

-Dolce

I'll believe the liberals' intentions of being more "open-ended" once they argue for the government to stop giving married couples monetary benefits and other priviliges.

The government=the people, and if the people choose not to respect something, that means the government doesn't have to either (as long as the government is in the respecting business, which I don't believe it should be to begin with).


You bring up a good point about tax breaks for marriage in the first place. I've always found it silly that the gov't literally encourages only one particular way in which people should interact with eachother. If you live together til death but without some church certificate, that's not good enough. I f you never find someone whom you're compatible with, and don't want to force it, well, you just don't make the (tax) cut. Yes. Either the government extends the novelty to all, or it just treats everyone over the age of 21 as an independant.

-Dolce

I prefer the latter solution (I find it immoral that the government gives a union of any number of people a preferential treatment over an individual).

Apart from the benefits issue, most of the other issues about marriage can be resolved via private contracts (living will, will and testament, medical power of attorney, etc.)

This is why I'm very cold to the idea of the courts deciding who gets to be able to marry and who doesn't. Not that I approve of the Marriage amendment either, I do not. I just think liberals need to take a long hard look in the mirror before accusing anybody else of using the government to dictate how to lead their lives.


Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:51 pm
Forum General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:16 pm
Posts: 6499
Location: Down along the dixie line
Post 
There is a ban here in Lexington, Kentucky. We are no longer allowed to smoke in resteraunts or bars :( I think its sorta ridiculous. I dont udnerstand why places cant just make the smoking and non-smoking sections "better" if you will.

_________________
Image


Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:24 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 49 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.