A bar is a private space. But because of the ban in my town smokers have to leave the bar to stand on the sidewalk exhaling on innocent passers-by. Then we throw or cigarette butts on the ground. Enjoy.

In my town, if the bar is owner-operated, they can decide to allow smoking indoors. This is actually quite a successful avenue, I think.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

That's more reasonable. What bothers me more (OK almost as much) as the inconvience and ruining of my bar experience is how accepting people are of the government bossing them around in an area where it's none of the governments business.

That's more reasonable. What bothers me more (OK almost as much) as the inconvience and ruining of my bar experience is how accepting people are of the government bossing them around in an area where it's none of the governments business.

Seriously. I will admit that I honestly enjoy a "bar experience" that has no smoking. However, since it is private property I would rather the bar owners be allowed to do as they see fit since tobacco is legal for all old enough to enter a bar. If there simply must be a government mandate then I would rather there be a required "no smoking" section of a certain percentage of the floor, or various rooms in the bar set aside for no smoking than a total ban. But I too would rather see it open up more, on the principle of the thing and the bar owner can set a policy that works for their business and customers. If a place allows universal smoking or does not provide an area with clean air for those of us who do not wish to smell awful the next day then I will patronize another establishment, or drink at home. Alone*.

*Actually, not really, but it just sounded so much more dramatic that way.

Because it's actually a labor regulation, I agree with it. It's not a ban on smoking and it isn't enforced as such. It's designed to ensure that all laborers are as free from work place toxins as possible. Just because the public goes somewhere doesn't make it a public place. So long as employees are laboring in a specific place, then I do believe the government has an interest in protecting them. Public space is, to me, a wholly separate issue.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

What is a non owner-operated bar?  Some sort of sentient bar?  Advanced AI?

Corporate?

Like a corporate owned Ruby Tuesday's franchise bar/grill. Which I will never drink in again.... they know what they did.

The law against smoking in California bars and restaurants is actually a labor regulation, specifically California Labor Code Section 6404.5(b). If the only people who work the bar are the bars owners and they have no employees, then neither they nor their patrons can be cited for smoking or allowing smoking in the bar or restaurant. I believe the same applies in New York City.

In California, the only exemptions to this law are tobacco shops and private homes not used as child care facilities.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

The law against smoking in California bars and restaurants is actually a labor regulation, specifically California Labor Code Section 6404.5(b). If the only people who work the bar are the bars owners and they have no employees, then neither they nor their patrons can be cited for smoking or allowing smoking in the bar or restaurant. I believe the same applies in New York City.

This does provide an out for a mom & pop type bar, but how many of those are left in NYC? I would imagine with the prices of real estate the number of places that can gain this exemption are between none and zero.

Unless... the bar is operated as a publicly traded company with millions of shares and each worker is issued one share upon starting their employment. Unless the law states the owners have to be majority holders of the company this would be a great way around the regulations. (Note to any bar owners: If you use this idea, all I ask for is a simple royalty. Thank you).

This does provide an out for a mom & pop type bar, but how many of those are left in NYC?

In Los Angeles, I know of 3. But then almost everywhere here also has a patio where you can smoke.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

But then almost everywhere here also has a patio where you can smoke.

That would be an acceptable compromise IMHO. Of course, that might not work as well on the east coast in the winter, especially in windy areas, but many bars around here have awnings and such on their patios during the winter with space heaters, so I would think it should be allowed for those who wish to smoke to do it out there. Should take care of the worker safety concerns as well.

Libertarians are crazy not because they don't have enough followers, but because most Libertarians seem to not have the faintest idea about how human motivation works.  Much like the communists, they assume that people will, as my toddler was taught "get what they get, and not throw a fit."  People are naturally selfish and materialistic.  Assuming that without external pressures people will cooperate gracefully and give up a good chunk of their own benefits for others is pretty unlikely.   In a "libertarian" world most of the people who now advocate libertarian philosophy would become effective slaves.

I consider Libertarians & communists both to be rather deluded, but not necessarily evil.  Greens are a different class all together.  Most Greens are basically liberal, socialist types who want to value the environment above other benefits.  Perfectly achievable goals if you're willing to accept government/external forces to make it happen.  So despite their low membership in the political context, they're not crazies.

Thalia

Much like the communists, they assume that people will, as my toddler was taught "get what they get, and not throw a fit."  People are naturally selfish and materialistic.

Generally people are not selfish, but jealous -- they want what everyone else has. 'Justice' is so important that people will choose to have a smaller salary as long as they are as well off as everyone else, instead of having a larger salary, but everyone else having a much larger one. However, in this society, how do we define what everyone else has? If the TV shows lifestyles that are available to none but the very richest, but also portrays those lifestyles as normal, won't we want those lifestyles too?
It's our nature to be communal animals, and to want to be equal to others.

Assuming that without external pressures people will cooperate gracefully and give up a good chunk of their own benefits for others is pretty unlikely.

I agree that external pressure is important, and in large societies that external pressure can not come purely from gossip and social retribution. However, local pressure certainly helps in supporting state-wide pressure. Libertarians do seem rather idealistic here, but I'd say that communists generally accept the role played by government. (Note that I denounce Stalin, and authoritarian governments, blah blah blah)

Communists would benefit a lot from paying attention to modern research in human motivations. Previous movements have had big failings in that area. But so have those who advocate the free market, etc., so I don't feel that is reason enough to brand all communists as crazies.

Given that marijuana has been illegal for quite a lot of years, it's a schedule I drug (stating it has no medical uses whatsoever) having 11 states pass laws legalizing the use of medical marijuana over the last 10 years is pretty broadly indeed.  Especially if you consider the reaction of the federal government.

Thalia

I wasn't thinking the random signers so much as the person who starts the initiative going... but if nobody firebombed the house of the guy who started the gay marriage initiative, it's probably a moot point.  Thanks.

Humorless. Cretinous. What'd you expect?

   If you drive more than two miles off of I-5, it used to be that you could step back into the '50s rather easily. Democrats who want to thrive in this setting tend to be more conservative than those from  the Seattle area, which is why I'm not surprised at all that marijuana legalization never really caught on. Having Oregon leading the way on the issue probably took the steam out of similar efforts in Washington, though I can't say for sure.
    Thanks for the correction on the primary year.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

That and jury nullification has been successfully used to acquit people accused of lynching blacks in the South.  Be realistic about the power of jury nullification.  It's not about protecting turf.

I consider people who deliberately try to get out of jury duty at the same level as people who deliberately avoid voting.  I wish you'd do your civic duty.  

Thalia

The handbill I like to pass around talks about the history of juror abuse, racism, and so forth.  It's pretty balanced and historically accurate as far as I have determined.  The basic point of the literature is that our system is built so that two houses of the legislature, the executive branch, and 12 ordinary people all must be in agreement before the power of the law can be used against somebody, and it reminds people to carefully consider their place in the system of checks and balances.

I would be happy to serve on a jury if the jury system would be happy to have me.  Before I started my leaflet act, I was turfed off of juries three times for, as far as I can tell, having studied engineering.  It seems to me that the jury process requires mainly people who haven't been trained in rational thinking.

I doubt it very highly that it was because you were an engineer.  And I say this as someone with not only an engineering degree, but also a law degree.  Around here, every jury has an engineer on it, unless the engineer deliberately gets off the jury (like you).

Well I've reported for jury duty four times.  Three times I was not selected for any jury after answering only basic questions about my identity, education, and occupation.  The fourth time I got thrown out for pamphleteering.

Funny thing.  Since I haven't had any registered vehicles, I haven't been called for jury duty in years, and neither has my wife.  I guess they get their list from the DMV.

   I got called once, and served, even though they misspelled my last name. (After I corrected it at the courthouse, the next summons was still misspelled. I didn't respond.) Masters degree in English, and I've never had a license or owned a car in this state. My guess was voter registration; I signed a list outside grocery store, just so I could vote in the 2004 election. After three years of residence, I finally got the paperwork. This is in Arizona, but I don't know if states are allowed to do things differently, though on guess they can.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

(After I corrected it at the courthouse, the next summons was still misspelled. I didn't respond.)

So now the truth comes out, Mr. Incuvée Blick!