What if some bar were to take its deadest night, and make it non-smoking? Given that 80% are non-smokers, that might make a bigger night than before.
--David Shove On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Mary Baker wrote: > > > 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/ > _____________________________________________ 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/
