Covered in butts
9 Responses to “Covered in butts”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 1st, 2007 at 10:39 am
I am torn on this. Part of me is very happy and part of me is very sad. I used to smoke a little. At night in social settings, the neighborhood bar, that kind of thing. But like many people I didn’t get hooked and as time went on I stopped.
I don’t like smoke around me when I am eating. So on that level I am very pleased. But this seems to be a violation of the rights of both citizens and business owners. The fact that the new law is so draconian that businesses that wish to allow smoking cannot makes me a little ashamed of our government. In my opinion the Tennessee legislature overstepped its authority.
This same government now allows revenuers to seize vehicles if a person purchases 26 cartoons of cigarettes across the state line. Cigarettes are legal. But now they are treated like heroin. Of course the funny part is that TennCare is reliant on taxes from cigarettes.
Great point about the law of unintended consequences. How long will it take for people to bitch about the explosion of cigarette butts on the ground? I am thinking Tuesday?
October 1st, 2007 at 10:49 am
I think most establishments will invest in outdoor ashtrays. Of course, not everyone will use them, but people and businesses will adjust.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:39 am
I think most establishments will invest in outdoor ashtrays. Of course, not everyone will use them, but people and businesses will adjust.
Sean, that may not be the best choice. That means you have to run the gauntlet of smoke to get into the restaurant. No easy way to fix stupid.
October 1st, 2007 at 11:48 am
[…] Say Uncle points out yet another unintended consequence of the ban: [E]ffective today, there will be a substantial increase in littering. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
October 1st, 2007 at 12:29 pm
I remember when a similar nanny-state law took effect in Corvallis, Oregon – a person had to step over the mountain of butts at the entrance to whatever establishment they frequented – regardless of the outside ashtrays (that were perpetually stolen). Of course, upon entering, the delightful ambiance from decades of smoke was still very much present.
Also, doesn’t the very same government establishing these laws still subsidise the tobacco farmers?
October 1st, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Sean, that may not be the best choice. That means you have to run the gauntlet of smoke to get into the restaurant.
You’re right, the best choice would be to have some sort of beer garden where smokers could go to enjoy their tasty tobacco sticks. But hey, if people want to avoid smoke altogether, they might as well ban it altogether…which will probably happen within 10 to 20 years.
October 1st, 2007 at 1:05 pm
[…] Say Uncle believes there will be unintended consequences. […]
October 1st, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Also, doesn’t the very same government establishing these laws still subsidise the tobacco farmers?
Not really.
http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=tobacco
October 2nd, 2007 at 3:25 pm
#9’s outlook is not uncommon. That is why most high end eateries in Dallas did not allow smoking in the dining room, but did allow smoking in the bar (and did brisk business on cigars to go with the port too.) That wasn’t recent — it had been that way since the late 80s. Since (spit) Laura Miller pushed through a smoking ban in 2004 or so, they don’t have that option anymore.
So now many of the high end eateries have moved to or opened second (more profitable) outlets in Addison and other locales north of Dallas.