This is a very good explanation. While I was reading this, it occurred to me that if one or two airlines, prior to 9-11, started making everyone go through metal detectors and be physically searched, that airline would have gone out of business. Now they all do it, no-one objects, and we are all better off for it. They would never have done this voluntarily, even after the nation recognized the danger from terrorists.
Cigarette smoke is more of a danger than terrorists, it kills way more people. Our government should step up and protect the nonsmoking majority, because individual business CANNOT do it on their own. In a previous post, I also suggested that one of the reasons a bar does not go non-smoking is because of the cost of getting that message out to the public, and keeping it in peoples minds. It would be a big ongoing advertising cost. Mary Baker said: > > > The question is: "if restaurants will see a benefit from voluntarily > becoming completely non-smoking, why haven't they already?" > > I would guess the answer is the same principle (but in opposite) as for a > soldier standing on the front line against the enemy. It is to the > benefit > of each individual soldier to turn and run away. This guarentees he will > survive, if he is the lone man to flee and the rest remain. However, if > every soldier flees, then the entire force and their country is guarenteed > to be overrun and destroyed. Thus, although it is individually in the > best > interest of a soldier to flee, it is in the best interest of the group for > each soldier to remain. If all stand fast, the number of losses will be > smaller than if they all break and run, or if only a few break and run > (even > though those few will survive). > > How does this apply to smoking? I think it is the same principle in > reverse. If one bar goes non-smoking, then that bar suffers while the > rest > benefit. People who have smoking friends will put up with a smoking > atmosphere to see them, thus avoiding a non-smokers only place. Yet if > all > go non-smoking, then all bars benefit, as the smokers will smoke at home > and > still go out, and more non-smokers will go out (and more frequently). It > is > individually in the best interest of a bar to remain smoking if the other > bars do. Yet if all bars do away with smoking, then it is a net gain (or > at > least no loss). > > There are practices that reward an individual and a group differently. > It's > to my reward to rob someone, assuming I can get away with it. It's to > society's detriment if everyone starts doing this. It's to GSE's benefit > to > pollute the air. It would be to everyone's downfall if we all polluted as > much as GSE did. It's to a smoker's benefit to smoke in a bar. It would > be > to everyone's downfall if we allowed smokers to smoke in any bar. > > The "first adopter" of a practice is often punished by the market or > reality. No bar or nightclub wants to be the first adopter of a > non-smoking > policy. They'd suffer for it. What they might not see is that if we > mandate the change for all bars, then no one is a first adopter. If they > all change at once, then no one gets punished by the market. > > At least that's my theory. > > Mary Baker > East Side > > _________________________________________________________________ > Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee� > Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > > _____________________________________________ > NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: > http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul > > Archive Address: > http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/ > > -- Bob Treumann, Saint Paul Please Note: Replies to this email address all go to the trash except where the subject line contains a recognized mailing list identifier, such as [TCMETRO],[StPaul], MP-N ... _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
