Unemployed due to the nanny state
Rena Doss, another 20-year-old bartender who lost her job this week, said the smoking ban has left her in a difficult situation.
“I chose to work there. I don’t smoke, and nobody was blowing smoke in my face,” she said. “This was a good-paying job for me, and I have bills to pay. What am I supposed to do now?”
Well, I hear there’s good money in slightly less taxed smokes and booze across state lines.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:31 am
That’s unpossible! Why, our politicians here in Dallas assured us that smoking bans have no impact on businesses and that all the joints that closed here after they put in a ban where all part of the normal business cycle, even if they didn’t reopen or have any new competition!
October 8th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Phelps beat me to it.
October 8th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
I don’t smoke. I refuse to patronize an establishment that is in an area where laws forbid smoking in those establishments. I may patronize an establishment that prohibits smoking of its own accord as that is their right to do so. Most probably, I would not do so often, simply because I find smokers to much more outgoing and friendly than non-smokers. I have noticed this my whole lifetime. I inherently like smokers, in general, much more often than non-smokers.
For instance, Texarkana is only 35 miles from my home. I will not partake of any eateries on the Texas side because they have banned smoking by law. If I wanted to support that kind of interference of liberty I could move to any number of unfree countries. I do not choose to allow those venues that act so to garner any of my money, not even sales tax.
October 8th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
That’s right! A single anecdote! That’s better than gold! I am all for bring back smoking in every place up to and including elementary schools!
Good grief. Restaurants actually see increases in sales.
http://www.reflector.com/money/content/shared/money/stories/clark/0404/040804smokingban.html
October 8th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Well, metulj, just when I thought you couldn’t get anymore easy to make fun of, you criticize one anecdote with your own.
October 8th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Notice the things like percentages and what not. Whatever. Could it possibly be that the business was shitty in the first place? You don’t know that, but the ANECDOTE fits your style of reasoning: solipsism. You don’t like the “nanny state.” Smoking bans fit your model of the nanny state, therefore any evidence (no matter its quality) that supports your premise, derived from itself, is in support of your premise. Your reality is confined to your experience. Is it?
October 8th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Metulj misapplying philosophical terms again. Zzzz. Up next, cargo cult!!
Yeah, i noticed those percentages and whatnot. you know, in those mentioned localities.
And I’m sure the young lady mentioned here was the only person ever under the age of 21 to work at a bar. And I’m sure she’s the only person ever affected negatively by such a ban.
October 8th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Actually I am not misapplying it. I’ve got letters after my name that certify me and all that just like you. (And it isn’t a philosophical term. It’s a logical whatzit. While some philosophers may study and use logic, others don’t.)
She lost her job after the ban went into place. That does not mean that cigarette ban cost her the job. We do not know the facts behind her job loss other than it merely happened after a particular event. Unless there is evidence directly linking that event with the job loss and that evidence is presented (something like a P/L detail and a cash flow analysis), then assuming that the ban caused the job loss is post hoc reasoning. “After this therefore because of this” is an even more insidious fallacy than that of which you can be accused.
As for trying to apply, like your little buddy does, that I am a solipsist, I can offer evidence that I am not. I do not experience any benefit from gun ownership, but I can see that some people could. See the difference? No. I know you won’t.
October 8th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
It is real simple. These places endeavor to make money. If going non-smoking made more money, they would go non-smoking. The fact that they don’t and in fact try everything they can to avoid it, indicates that it does not make more money.
October 8th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Oh, and it is more than anecdotes. Money doesn’t lie.
And it means that the smokeeasy is now part of life in Dallas. I used to know where one was, but it closed down. I need to find another.
October 8th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
You are, indeed, over applying it. According to you, anyone who has developed a position and seeks out evidence or points to evidence supporting that position is in some sort of denial. And that’s just stupid. That pretty much covers all political debate. Does the internet know about this? If it did, there’d be little discussion of complex issues.
Complete hogwash. Well, except it’s possible she may not be truthy.
Not as loosely as you have defined, you cannot. You said to me that my anecdote fit my reason. But I reasoned nothing. I said the ‘nanny state’ cost someone their job. And, err, it did.
I experience no benefit from a bar allowing smoking but i can see that someone would. I just happen place more importance on the property rights of the owner than some nanny state mandating business owners ban otherwise lawful activities. And, you know, markets. And all that other freedom for those who can afford stuff your always yammering about.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:21 am
“I’ve got letters after my name that certify me…..”-Metulj
Are those letters “DUH!”