On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:54:45 -0400, Rosalie B.
wrote something wonderfully witty:
>The Wolf With the Red Roses wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:50:27 -0400, Charles
>> wrote something wonderfully witty:
>>
>>>In article
>>>, Kurt
>>>Ullman wrote:
>>>
>>>> How long ago, though? With the advent of (profitable) non-smoking
>>>> hotel chains, it might be time to take another look.
>>>
>>>Times change and smoking bans are now spreading not only to hotel
>>>chains but also to internationally.
>>>
>>But it isn't a Smoking Ban, it is a Marketing strategy. If it doesn't
>>work out in the long run & improve the bottom line, it won't be
>>continued. As quickly as they went non-smoking, they can switch back.
>
>Depends on who you are talking about. If there are smoking
>regulations in a jurisdiction, then the business may not have the
>option to switch back. Not cruise ships, but land based businesses.
>
Sure a legislative degree is completely different then a Marketing
decision. The biggest problem I have with Legislative decrees is that
it stops the business that wants to cater to a smoking business from
doing so. In a truly free economy any business should be allowed to
offer the goods & services they think they can turn a buck on.
>
>It sounds like it is so much trouble to smoke now that it would hardly
>be a pleasure.
>
I think that part of the possible motivation behind some people
deciding to quit. They are simply tired of being treated like a
societal pharisee for engaging in the use of a legal consumer product.
What a lot of the anti's don't understand, especially the ones in
government driving these bans, is the loss of tax revenue. They are
more then happy to tax the living hell out of a product, pass bans on
its usage, then piss & moan about the lost tax revenue.
>
>I am mildly allergic to smoke, but I have a friend who goes into shock
>if he is exposed to smoke. Originally, the school had an enclosed
>faculty lounge area where faculty could smoke (now that's been done
>away with because of smoking regulations). My friend couldn't walk
>through the room next to the smoking room without having an asthma
>attack and he couldn't go to most restaurants and many businesses
>before there were regulations against smoking in effect.
>
You probably wouldn't believe this but I am highly allergic to ugly,
fat, dirty people. I go into shock every time I'm around them.
Therefore I don't watch the Jerry Springer show or visit trailer
parks.
>
>I am violently allergic to mold, and I have to wear a respirator where
>it is present, so perhaps folks who are allergic to smoke could get
>respirators to wear so that they could go to the lounges or casino or
>wherever smoking is allowed. (That's a joke - respirators are too
>uncomfortable to wear for that to be feasible)
>
Or perhaps they shouldn't go into them. Legislating to two % or less
of the population is always absurd. Yet it is the way we do most
things. An allergic person who doesn't something or goes somewhere to
advocate those allergy has no one to blame but themselves. We
shouldn't all have to live as if the Bubble Boy was coming for a
visit.
--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,
Just what you want to be, you will be in the end." -- Moody Blues |