A parallel case is off-sale liquor hours laws.
With 8 and 10 pm laws, the owners and employees of off-sale liquor stores can go home at 8 or 10. With no such laws, some stores would stay open later - then the others would have to also, so as not to lose out. I believe most off-sale liquor owners support the closing hours, and probably many of them fought for them. The government has to come in as the honest broker/neutral enforcer. Otherwise business pressure leads to a race to the bottom. --David Shove roseville On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 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/ > _____________________________________________ 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/
