Up in smoke

As promised, the answer to the bonus question:
Hyperpolysesquipedalianistic: The overuse of long words.

And now.......today's dim-witted entry!

You've probably heard by now that the SGOTUS has come out with a report saying that second-hand smoke is really, really bad. Locally, the head of the Taussig Cancer Center at the Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Derek Raghavan, has been quoted as saying that "Politicians need to have some balls" and pass a smoking ban in Cleveland to protect the people. The good doctor's comment is fine with me. If he were saying the opposite in his position, I'd be a little worried.

The issue here, once again, is government interference. Just as with the seatbelt law, it's not the government's job. The difference here is that they are interfering with people and market forces. Proponents of a smoking ban have said that when businesses such as bars and restaurants go smoke free, their business goes up. There is still debate on this point, but, for the sake of discussion, let's say it does. Why not then offer a tax credit to businesses that go smoke free? Then, they can decide for themselves, based on the numbers, if it makes more sense to ban smoking and take the credit, or decline the credit and allow smoking.

Or, better yet, don't do anything at all. If enough people really had that much problem with smoke when they walked into, say, TGI Friday's, they would eventually stop going there and start going to a smoke-free establishment like Red Robin. (Which is an outstanding restaurant, by the way. Really, really good food.)

Then, free markets would function without interference. [pause]

Whiny Liberal: I love to eat at TGI Friday's.
Theo[logical] Thug: Then go. Enjoy. Eat, drink and be merry.
Whiny Liberal: But I can't. It's smoky in there. I'm offended by smoke. I think I'll ask the government to pass a law to ban smoking.
Theo[logical] Thug: Why don't you just not go there? Why trouble everyone else?
Whiny Liberal: Because I don't like the smoke.
Theo[logical] Thug: Then don't go.
Whiny Liberal: But I like the food.
Theo[logical] Thug: Looky here pal. You can't have it both ways. Either you eat there and put up with the smoke, or you don't eat there and put up with the withdrawl. Oh, by the way......King Bush rocks!

If I go into a restaurant and they're playing really loud music, I just go find another restaurant to eat at. Suppose we ask the government to pass a law banning loud music in public places?? Hmm??? How about it.

What too many people don't understand is that a business is not really a public place, per se. The owner can refuse service/entry to anyone he wants. He can make pretty much any rule,regulation etc. that he wants. (Provided that it is not illegal, of course.) Remember the lady who got kicked off the plane for the t-shirt she was wearing? She sued because she said the airline violated her 1st amendment rights. [BUZZER] Wrong. It was a private business, and absolutely had the right to tell her to cover it up or get off.

The 1st amendment says that the government cannot regulate free speech. This also ties in to the controversy at Gino's restaurant in Philadelphia. I would like to shake that guy's hand!

At any rate, the overriding point is that the government just needs to quit meddling. There are far too many examples of the government screwing up what it was trying to fix. If they would let market forces and people's voices determine what happens here, we'd all be a lot better off.

This rant brought to you by the letter 'Q' and the number '6'.