Politics

Comments:

I am glad you enjoyed your dinner.

Doesn’t it bother you though that city council has set the precident for telling private companies what they can and cannot do with their business? I agree that it is nice to not have to walk through or sit near people smoking while I eat, but I am concerned that this decision will lead to more of the same on things that may or may not have to do with “public safety”.

1) I did enjoy my less poluted dinner.  Very much.  Thanks.

2) You seem to state that the city council has used this event to determine what is and is not save within a public building.  You use the word precident.  The precident was set 100’s or more years ago.  They set the hours that certain things can be served (no alcohol sales either always or during certain days or times, etc.).  They decide what things are legal or illegal and to whom (cigarettes being sold to minors, drinking age, etc.).  They have also defined what is “safe” for the public - health department sets rules stating that people with certain diseases cannot work certain jobs; the newspaper regularly reports the safety score and punishment, if any, associated with a low score that a resturant receives from the city.

One of the primary responsibilities of a city government is to promote the health and welfare of its constituents.  Allowing a person to poison another fails to meet this responsibility. 

Does it bother me, no.  I am excited.  I am encouraged.  Finally, I can point to at least one thing that this city government did that was right.

Now, does this mean I will blindly support anything else they do… heck no… I find that my basic attitude toward the government is that overall it will eventually do what is good for its constituents, but many times it does not put on a good face nor do it well.

BTW, a company, by nature, is public not private.  But that is a different discussion.

--Smokeless Moose

Surely you are at least somewhat bothered by the fact that this ordinance never even went to vote. Also doesn’t the fact that bartenders and servers are the ones who suffer the most from this ordinance in the form of lower tips. A lot of people who cannot smoke in a bar will simply stay home and have friends over. Really what the local government did was facism.

Your assumptions are:

1) an ordinance must have a vote (presumably by the people) to be fair;
2) People who smoke wont go to resturants
2.1) Ability to smoke is tied to tips.
3) Democratic-Republic government is facism.

Therefore, my responses are…

1) I *really* like the fact that I live in a Democratic-Republic where I vote for people and they vote on the issues.  This is the foundation of our government.  So, no, it does not bother me even a little that they did this. 

NOTE:  This does not mean that I would have voted the way they did on any particular vote.  If I don’t like the way my delegated leader votes, I have the option of either running for the position, voting for a different person, or just whining about it.  I don’t tend to be a whiner, and I am a voter, and I have a job, so I’m not a politician.  Therefore, I am proud that they have done a) what I deam is the right thing; b) that they voted the way I would have voted on this issue; There are many issues where this would not be true. 

2) People who smoke wont go to resturants

Having lived in a state (California) where there is no smoking at the state level, I can honestly say that your assumption here is FUD.  Of course people will go to resturants/bars/other public buildings. 

Food and Dining magazine (www.foodanddiningmagazine.com) states that Kentucky was projected to have $4.7B in restaurant-industry sales in 2003.  (It had $4.4B in 2002).  Kentucky is not full of obese people due to no reason.  We like to eat.  Also, before the FUD spreads, 90% of all restaurants fail in the first 5 years (Herald Leader, Sep 29, 2003 - www.realcities.com/mld/ kentucky/business/local/6880004.htm quoting the U.S. Dept. of Labor ), so don’t use that as an excuse.  Also, Lexington as 111 resturants per 1000 people according to the national Restaurant Association.

I think that there will be a short-term effect as people adjust their lives.  However, long term, I see this as only a GREAT thing for our community.  I wish the state would take up the gauntlet and follow Lexington down this path.

2.1) Ability to smoke is tied to tips.
I’m not sure where the ability to smoke effects tips.  Generally speaking, tips are given for proper service.  Obviously, the ability to smoke or not by the customer will not adversly effect the service of the waiting person. 

I cannot see some waitress in the back complaining, “Man, I really miss the buzz I get from that rat poison, lung suffocating tar and nicotine, and carcenigens that we used to have when we allowed smoking.”

Perhaps, you mean that when people smoke, they cloud their own heads and they give more than they would if they were not smoking.  If this is so, I would find it
3) Democratic-Republic government is fascist.
Facism is an exaltation of nation (and often race) above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader.

The United States (and Lexington, Kentucky) is a Democratic Republic.  In reality, the only thing standing between the liberty we have and enjoy and tyranny (such as that in China, the former Soviet Union, etc) is the freedom to participate in democracy. We must use it or run the risk of losing it entirely.  And this we do, through our voting and our encouragement of our elected officials. 

A democracy is government by the people as exercised through elected representatives.  A republic is where the soveign power is widely vested by the people either directly or through elelcted representatives. Unfortunately, in our society today, the “widely vested” has come to mean the rich - but that is a different soap box.

Finally, you say “simply stay home and have friends over” like that is some kind of bad thing.  I love my friends, I love going to their place. 

--Moose (still happy)

While I’m not actually unhappy with the results of this ordinance I feel that there are two issues to consider long term.

1.  Why does it include adult only locations such as bars or other adult entertainment clubs.  We have already choosen to participate in something that is not good for us and could hurt others by our actions.

2.  Why is public drinking still allowed?  This is, to me, a direct extension of the logic used for this no smoking ordinance.  People can go out and drink and thereby affect the health or lives of innocent people (and themselves).

As our species progresses throught time it is intersting to see just what makes it into our cultures and beliefs.  Sometimes we agree with changes and sometimes we don’t.

I believe that a citizen should have the right to form a business that specifically allows smoking on the premesis.  So long as all employees and patrons know this is the case then what is the real issue?  If you don’t like places that specifically allow smoking then spend your money or find employment at places that don’t allow smoking.  Or start your own place that is smoke free.  I guess I always prefer a direct approach to solving our little problems as citizens instead of creating more government to solve them for us.

As we all know government grows and very rarely contracts its presence in our lives.

Cy

Cyklopz…

1) It is only partially put into place to protect the customers.  It is equally put into effect to protect the employees.  I remember working at Boeing and kids (literally, scrawny 19 and 20 year olds) were getting “hazard pay” for crawling into the gas tanks and welding them.  The issue there was hazards location due to the limited air, space, etc.  I guess it really isn’t much different than a full bar on Friday night, huh? 

2) Smoking is a violation of others rights.  Drinking is only killing yourself.  (Ignoring drunk driving - which of course, is illegal.)

Concerning the forming a business and allowing smoking - see my second comment to this post.  This issue, to reiterate, is that the government has the obligation to protect its citizens - even if they don’t agree. 

I would say (in this case) the government did the direct approach in as much as they could politically.  They (and we) know that breathing in the smoke from today’s cigarettes are extremely hazardous to the health in many ways. 

Fortunately, the political process to directly remove smoking from society is such that if enough people whine, then the political process is halted.  I believe the government knows that to try to outlaw smoking all together would not (at this juncture in history) pass.  Therefore, they are doing it in small steps.

--Moose

Comments:

What amazes me is that *any* African nations believe any of our promises any more. I can’t think of one that we’ve actually kept.

So this week we’re sending a “team” to Liberia to assess whether we should send troops to “keep the peace,” and avoid chaos expected to ensue when Mr Taylor steps down. Our relationship with Taylor has been odd since the beginning. And now he’s acting as though we *owe* him troops. “I’ll step down, but only when you send peacekeepers.” Yeah. So, what if we don’t?

I remain very torn about our role in Africa. If we’re going to do something, we need to do something, not posture and play PR games. If we’re not going to do anything, we should be honest and say, no, we don’t care, we have no political or economic reason to care, and you should not expect us to care.

Why is Bush going to Africa? To “prove” to the world that he cares about Africa. Why? So that he can make it a bullet point in his campaign speech. If we care so much about Liberia, where there is a good and healthy revolution brewing (anybody read Jefferson lately? Sheesh.) why don’t we care about Congo and Zimbabwe where there is genocide (oh, I’m sorry, “ethnic cleansing") and Mousollini-esque fascism going on, respectively? Well, that’s an easy one too. It is cheap and safe to care about Liberia. Bush can go there, appear to care, and not actually have to put himself, or our young military men, in any real danger. It’s not the fact that we do nothing that bothers me, it’s the fact that we *pretend* to do something, purely for political advantage.

Oops. Got on the soapbox again.

"Dark Continent” compared to what?  Us?!  Yeah right! 

When Pres. Bush leaves Africa, he may look back and see what to him would be a sunset as he heads west.

Why would we have to do something about what goes on in another country? Nobody that is somewhere millions of miles away tells the U.S. what we need to do so why should we? It is a ridiculous idea and even if they are telling us what to do two wrongs never make a right.

Comments:

I found this post via a search for an open liquor store in Manhattan.  As of yet, all of the ones I’ve tried are closed despite the new law.

yeah--they’re not opening. cartel?