(03-01-2019, 08:05 AM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 12:08 AM)ScarletHayes Wrote: A smoking ban for bars may be the most hostile act toward private business as a whole I can recall off the top of my head.  It's a B A R.  People go there to drink, smoke and socialize.  Again, it's a B A R!

Scarlett, a lot of people said that it would hurt business here at bars and restaurants when smoking was banned in them several years ago.  It did the exact opposite.

That's how capitalism/free market works.  If the government hadn't stuck their noses into the situation, restaurants/bars would have gotten to the point we're at now because the market would have demanded it.

(03-01-2019, 10:07 AM)zigbee Wrote: I thought the voters voted this into law in Ohio?  Would that be considered force?

I don't remember it that way, but maybe I'm wrong.  If so, what else should we put up for vote?  People with no stake voting on a matter where they have no skin in the game.  Govt force or mob rule. Take your pick.  Federal, state or local.  Force is force.  I don't even smoke and it pisses me off.

(03-01-2019, 10:11 AM)ScarletHayes Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:07 AM)zigbee Wrote: I thought the voters voted this into law in Ohio?  Would that be considered force?

I don't remember it that way, but maybe I'm wrong.  If so, what else should we put up for vote?  People with no stake voting on a matter where they have no skin in the game.  Govt force or mob rule. Take your pick.  Federal, state or local.  Force is force.  I don't even smoke and it pisses me off.

Well, you are entitled to opinion and so forth.   Let me check on this...

(03-01-2019, 10:09 AM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 08:05 AM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 12:08 AM)ScarletHayes Wrote: A smoking ban for bars may be the most hostile act toward private business as a whole I can recall off the top of my head.  It's a B A R.  People go there to drink, smoke and socialize.  Again, it's a B A R!

Scarlett, a lot of people said that it would hurt business here at bars and restaurants when smoking was banned in them several years ago.  It did the exact opposite.

That's how capitalism/free market works.  If the government hadn't stuck their noses into the situation, restaurants/bars would have gotten to the point we're at now because the market would have demanded it.

I doubt it.

(03-01-2019, 10:11 AM)ScarletHayes Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:07 AM)zigbee Wrote: I thought the voters voted this into law in Ohio?  Would that be considered force?

I don't remember it that way, but maybe I'm wrong.  If so, what else should we put up for vote?  People with no stake voting on a matter where they have no skin in the game.  Govt force or mob rule. Take your pick.  Federal, state or local.  Force is force.  I don't even smoke and it pisses me off.

Ohio's Statewide Smoking Ban. On November 7, 2006, Ohio voters overwhelmingly endorsed State Issue 5, which banned smoking inside of all public places in Ohio, including all restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, and work places. Almost sixty percent of Ohio voters supported the measure, while forty percent opposed it.


There you have it.   If you wanted to ban you voted yes....if you wanted to keep smokey bars etc you voted no.  Makes sense

(03-01-2019, 10:14 AM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:09 AM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 08:05 AM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 12:08 AM)ScarletHayes Wrote: A smoking ban for bars may be the most hostile act toward private business as a whole I can recall off the top of my head.  It's a B A R.  People go there to drink, smoke and socialize.  Again, it's a B A R!

Scarlett, a lot of people said that it would hurt business here at bars and restaurants when smoking was banned in them several years ago.  It did the exact opposite.

That's how capitalism/free market works.  If the government hadn't stuck their noses into the situation, restaurants/bars would have gotten to the point we're at now because the market would have demanded it.

I doubt it.

No reason to doubt.  It would have - 100% certainty.  Gilbert AZ, because they're mostly Mormon, was basically a "dry" city for decades - not ONE bar in the town.  Then nearby cities started re-doing their downtown areas with nice bars and breweries.  Gilbert has now redone it's entire downtown/surrounding area which includes at least 3 micro breweries and over a dozen bars/restaurants.

(03-01-2019, 10:23 AM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:14 AM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:09 AM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 08:05 AM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 12:08 AM)ScarletHayes Wrote: A smoking ban for bars may be the most hostile act toward private business as a whole I can recall off the top of my head.  It's a B A R.  People go there to drink, smoke and socialize.  Again, it's a B A R!

Scarlett, a lot of people said that it would hurt business here at bars and restaurants when smoking was banned in them several years ago.  It did the exact opposite.

That's how capitalism/free market works.  If the government hadn't stuck their noses into the situation, restaurants/bars would have gotten to the point we're at now because the market would have demanded it.

I doubt it.

No reason to doubt.  It would have - 100% certainty.  Gilbert AZ, because they're mostly Mormon, was basically a "dry" city for decades - not ONE bar in the town.  Then nearby cities started re-doing their downtown areas with nice bars and breweries.  Gilbert has now redone it's entire downtown/surrounding area which includes at least 3 micro breweries and over a dozen bars/restaurants.

Yeah maybe 100 years from now but even that is not certain.  The reality is the people have spoken and most want smoking gone in restaurants and bars.  It has been a huge success and a great example of our form of government in action that improves the quality of life and does not involve wealth redistribution or some phony social justice issue.

(03-01-2019, 10:29 AM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:23 AM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:14 AM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:09 AM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 08:05 AM)Hightop77 Wrote: Scarlett, a lot of people said that it would hurt business here at bars and restaurants when smoking was banned in them several years ago.  It did the exact opposite.

That's how capitalism/free market works.  If the government hadn't stuck their noses into the situation, restaurants/bars would have gotten to the point we're at now because the market would have demanded it.

I doubt it.

No reason to doubt.  It would have - 100% certainty.  Gilbert AZ, because they're mostly Mormon, was basically a "dry" city for decades - not ONE bar in the town.  Then nearby cities started re-doing their downtown areas with nice bars and breweries.  Gilbert has now redone it's entire downtown/surrounding area which includes at least 3 micro breweries and over a dozen bars/restaurants.

Yeah maybe 100 years from now but even that is not certain.  The reality is the people have spoken and most want smoking gone in restaurants and bars.  It has been a huge success and a great example of our form of government in action that improves the quality of life and does not involve wealth redistribution or some phony social justice issue.

Separating/removing smoking from inside restaurants/bars has been a good thing and it would have happened on its own when market demand warranted it.  There wasn't a law saying that bars had to provide free wifi, but how many bars/restaurants now have free wifi?

(03-01-2019, 10:33 AM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:29 AM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:23 AM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:14 AM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:09 AM)P1tchblack Wrote: That's how capitalism/free market works.  If the government hadn't stuck their noses into the situation, restaurants/bars would have gotten to the point we're at now because the market would have demanded it.

I doubt it.

No reason to doubt.  It would have - 100% certainty.  Gilbert AZ, because they're mostly Mormon, was basically a "dry" city for decades - not ONE bar in the town.  Then nearby cities started re-doing their downtown areas with nice bars and breweries.  Gilbert has now redone it's entire downtown/surrounding area which includes at least 3 micro breweries and over a dozen bars/restaurants.

Yeah maybe 100 years from now but even that is not certain.  The reality is the people have spoken and most want smoking gone in restaurants and bars.  It has been a huge success and a great example of our form of government in action that improves the quality of life and does not involve wealth redistribution or some phony social justice issue.

Separating/removing smoking from inside restaurants/bars has been a good thing and it would have happened on its own when market demand warranted it.  There wasn't a law saying that bars had to provide free wifi, but how many bars/restaurants now have free wifi?

One could say the exact same thing about race and why there was no need for civil rights laws forcing businesses to serve blacks.

(03-01-2019, 10:19 AM)zigbee Wrote: Ohio's Statewide Smoking Ban. On November 7, 2006, Ohio voters overwhelmingly endorsed State Issue 5, which banned smoking inside of all public places in Ohio, including all restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, and work places. Almost sixty percent of Ohio voters supported the measure, while forty percent opposed it.


There you have it.   If you wanted to ban you voted yes....if you wanted to keep smokey bars etc you voted no.  Makes sense

Yes, and I mentioned I disagreed with this ("mob rule"). Pretty soon there might be a vote regarding something on your or my property.  PRIVATE property.  Just like the bars and restaurants.  Oh I forgot, they "serve the public."  Well so do I.  People come in and out of my house all the time.  What's next, a smoking ban at my house?  Seemed crazy 20 years ago.  Not so much now.

(03-01-2019, 10:35 AM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:33 AM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:29 AM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:23 AM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:14 AM)Hightop77 Wrote: I doubt it.

No reason to doubt.  It would have - 100% certainty.  Gilbert AZ, because they're mostly Mormon, was basically a "dry" city for decades - not ONE bar in the town.  Then nearby cities started re-doing their downtown areas with nice bars and breweries.  Gilbert has now redone it's entire downtown/surrounding area which includes at least 3 micro breweries and over a dozen bars/restaurants.

Yeah maybe 100 years from now but even that is not certain.  The reality is the people have spoken and most want smoking gone in restaurants and bars.  It has been a huge success and a great example of our form of government in action that improves the quality of life and does not involve wealth redistribution or some phony social justice issue.

Separating/removing smoking from inside restaurants/bars has been a good thing and it would have happened on its own when market demand warranted it.  There wasn't a law saying that bars had to provide free wifi, but how many bars/restaurants now have free wifi?

One could say the exact same thing about race and why there was no need for civil rights laws forcing businesses to serve blacks.

One could say that and it's very interesting that you're completely onboard with the government telling businesses how they're allowed to run their business (smoking), but not tell them who they need to serve (discrimination).

The difference regarding civil rights was that it involved local governments that were actively discriminating against tax paying American citizens.  It went on for far too long and the feds had to step in and protect their civil rights.  Did they likely go too far?  Of course!  It's the govt.

(03-01-2019, 10:42 AM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:35 AM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:33 AM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:29 AM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:23 AM)P1tchblack Wrote: No reason to doubt.  It would have - 100% certainty.  Gilbert AZ, because they're mostly Mormon, was basically a "dry" city for decades - not ONE bar in the town.  Then nearby cities started re-doing their downtown areas with nice bars and breweries.  Gilbert has now redone it's entire downtown/surrounding area which includes at least 3 micro breweries and over a dozen bars/restaurants.

Yeah maybe 100 years from now but even that is not certain.  The reality is the people have spoken and most want smoking gone in restaurants and bars.  It has been a huge success and a great example of our form of government in action that improves the quality of life and does not involve wealth redistribution or some phony social justice issue.

Separating/removing smoking from inside restaurants/bars has been a good thing and it would have happened on its own when market demand warranted it.  There wasn't a law saying that bars had to provide free wifi, but how many bars/restaurants now have free wifi?

One could say the exact same thing about race and why there was no need for civil rights laws forcing businesses to serve blacks.

One could say that and it's very interesting that you're completely onboard with the government telling businesses how they're allowed to run their business (smoking), but not tell them who they need to serve (discrimination).

No.  I was showing you the inconsistency of your position.

(03-01-2019, 10:48 AM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:42 AM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:35 AM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:33 AM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:29 AM)Hightop77 Wrote: Yeah maybe 100 years from now but even that is not certain.  The reality is the people have spoken and most want smoking gone in restaurants and bars.  It has been a huge success and a great example of our form of government in action that improves the quality of life and does not involve wealth redistribution or some phony social justice issue.

Separating/removing smoking from inside restaurants/bars has been a good thing and it would have happened on its own when market demand warranted it.  There wasn't a law saying that bars had to provide free wifi, but how many bars/restaurants now have free wifi?

One could say the exact same thing about race and why there was no need for civil rights laws forcing businesses to serve blacks.

One could say that and it's very interesting that you're completely onboard with the government telling businesses how they're allowed to run their business (smoking), but not tell them who they need to serve (discrimination).

No.  I was showing you the inconsistency of your position.

And I was showing you the inconsistency of yours.  You want citizens to tell other citizens how they need to run their business, but you don't want the government to tell business that they can't discriminate.