The Government is not the enemy, we are!

[brewguy]

I have to admit I'm as guilty of this as anyone. While I say I want limited government and more freedom there are times I want them to step in. For example I did suppor the smoking ban. I would really like to be able to go out on a weekend and not deal with all the smoke, actually since my wife has severe asthema we can't go out at all now. The more I thought about it, it isn't my place to tell a business what to do..

We do things like this everyday. Most people on here agree a Felon should not own a gun. But why? Check out this line from our own site. "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
- Pennsylvania Constitution, Section 21

Is a felon no longer a citizen?

Or censorship, What makes F*ck any different from sex, screw, or hump? We are suppose to have freedom of speech but we are ok with stomping on certian things. Take television, why are we so sensitive to certain things that we need the FCC to regulate them?

There are poeple on here that would actually support a law regulating clothing choices. Heck why can't we walk around naked if we choose??

Everyone touts us as the land of the free but we are anything but and it is all by our own choice.

This is just some thoughts I have had lately.

[theshadow]

not a put down, but looks like you've seen the light. For me, it was back during the "gay marriage ban". I was heavily against it, till a friend pointed out (She's a straight conservative woman), that if they can tell the gays you're not allowed to marry..... where's the line drawn, you can not marry someone from out of the country, out of your race, out of your religion? Marriage the institution is not a Government thing, it's a religious thing, and Gov should stay out. That's why when the Cell Phone ban bill came round, I looked at it differently, yes I HATE inattentive Drivers, BUT there are already existing laws, and this one is more a feel good than a public safety issue (if it were public safety, why not enforce the laws on the books).

The way I see it America has degraded into "if it feels good do it", and "anyone but my fault" coupled with a good dose of Edna Crabitz <sp?> the good intentioned nosy neighbor on Bewitched, who wants to enforce their standards on everyone else (except themselves when they need to bend the rules).

The more people come to this realization, the better off we'll be and maybe can turn around the high speed train that's headed for Orwell's version of 1984 police state.

[LorDiego01]

"By trying to control others, you will only find that you yourself will be controlled."

Dr. Mary Ruwart.

[RocketFoot]

Amen! I've been saying for a while now that we are not free! 'They' say we are...but we're not!

[ca2pa]

quote: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to admit I'm as guilty of this as anyone. While I say I want limited government and more freedom there are times I want them to step in. For example I did suppor the smoking ban. I would really like to be able to go out on a weekend and not deal with all the smoke, actually since my wife has severe asthema we can't go out at all now. The more I thought about it, it isn't my place to tell a business what to do..

....if you move to CA, they have a law where there is NO smoking in restaurants, bars, indoor places other than your home! But this may be a little extreme..lol jk

[XD45]

....if you move to CA, they have a law where there is NO smoking in restaurants, bars, indoor places other than your home! But this may be a little extreme..lol jk

there are some places where you can't even smoke in your home!




We all do it, we are all hypocrites to atleast some extent... i guess its the american way I dont know?!

[brewguy]

there are some places where you can't even smoke in your home!




We all do it, we are all hypocrites to atleast some extent... i guess its the american way I dont know?!

I think it has been building in our society, we feel we should not be inconvienienced by anyone else.

As for the smoking thing I would not care about it if there were actually bars I could go to with no smoking. Bar owners seem to be of the oppinion that the only people who drink beer also smoke. So if they go smoke free they will go out of business. I happen to think the opposite is true, there are a lot of folks who would go there simply because they are smoke free, there are a lot of us who don't go out because of the smoke.

Hopefully we can all take a step back and look at our views on each topic and make sure they are in line with our beliefs.

[NineseveN]

I wrote a little something about this back in May or so of this year. I don't feel like searching for it, so I'll just repost it here from my e-mail archives:

Edit :: Nevermind, I just realized it's in my signature, click on The Right Argument in Support of the Second Amendment in my sig if you want to read it.

[NineseveN]

I think it has been building in our society, we feel we should not be inconvienienced by anyone else.

As for the smoking thing I would not care about it if there were actually bars I could go to with no smoking. Bar owners seem to be of the oppinion that the only people who drink beer also smoke. So if they go smoke free they will go out of business. I happen to think the opposite is true, there are a lot of folks who would go there simply because they are smoke free, there are a lot of us who don't go out because of the smoke.

Hopefully we can all take a step back and look at our views on each topic and make sure they are in line with our beliefs.

That's how the free market should work. If there truly is a market for it, then someone, maybe you, could have/should have started the first smoke-free bar in PA and if the market supported it, you'd be a very well-off person. However, keep in mind that just because many people do not smoke, that doesn't mean that a smoke-free bar is a viable business venture. If you go out with a group of friends to drink and some of them smoke, where do you go? The old model where non-smokers go to smoking bars is tried and true, and there doesn't seem to be many bar owners lining up to break out into the non-smoking bar venture without government intervention.

I had a great argument with Basil Cox of Eat N Park about this as they supported and worked towards the Allegheny County smoking ban saying they were taking "a stand for good health". my whole point was, if they wanted to do that, they would have made their own restaurants smoke-free instead of pleading with the government to ban it everywhere so that they didn't lose any business.

I'll post the conversation if I can find it, it was a good one.

[NineseveN]

As I am sure many of you know, the Allegheny County Council voted to ban smoking in public places in the county back on September 26th of 2006. I was pretty outraged, not because I'm a smoker, but because, as I find myself saying time and time again, the government has no business even touching these issues. What aggravated me even more was a quote in the KDKA story from Basil Cox, Chairman of the Eat N Park corporation, throwing their support behind this measure. The link to the original story that set me off is: http://kdka.com/topstories/local_story_269212035.html and updates to it can be found at: http://kdka.com/topstories/local_story_270164050.html and: http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/...83/detail.html


I sent this letter to them via the Eat N park website:

To whom this may concern,


"The way we're thinking about it is that this is an opportunity for our team members to take a real great stand on behalf of good health," -- Eat N Park Vice Chairman Basil Cox.


The above quote was taken from a story run by KDKA today about the Allegheny County Council's passing of an ordinance to ban smoking in public buildings in the county; this includes bars and restaurants. I do not know the extent to which basil Cox and Eat N Park supported this action, however, his statement is telling enough.

If Eat N Park wanted to take a "real good stand on behalf of good health", they could have eliminated smoking in their restaurants long ago, instead they chose to support a bill that would force business owners to remove their smoking sections. It's not difficult to see why Eat N Park would choose to support the legislative route instead of truly taking a stand; money. A lot of Eat N Park's business in their Allegheny County establishments comes from the after-hours crowd of bar patrons looking for a place to grab a bite to eat, have some coffee and wind down before making their way home. By 2:30am, there's not an Eat N Park in the area that does not have a steady stream of bar patrons entering, ordering, eating and paying their bills; a large portion of those patrons smoke. If Eat N Park truly took "a real great stand on behalf of good health", the smoking patrons would have had the ability to choose to go to another establishment, one of Eat N Park's competitors. That's called freedom of choice, embodied in the freedom for a business owner to decide whether or not to offer a smoking section and the freedom for patrons to make their decisions on which establishments to frequent accordingly. That choice was taken away today for Allegheny County residents.

There are a number of remedies that were and continue to be available to those that wish to "take a real great stand on behalf of good health". For one, Eat N Park could have done a better job on implementing their smoking sections and instead of using a few panes of glass with huge openings, they could have improved (or added) ventilation and better sectional design which could have mitigated the whole notion of secondhand smoke for their patrons (all in the name of good health of course). The County Council could have chosen to mandate a stricter set of requirements for what constitutes a 'smoking section' and laid down some hard rules for ventilation and sectioning. Yes, these measures would have cost business owners a good deal of money, but what do you think this ban is going to do? A number of small businesses, especially bars that serve food are going to get killed by this ban. Now, instead of having to spend money to keep themselves competitive and in business, some of them may have to start looking for a new line of work.

The end result? Small bars and other small business that depend on the revenue generated from tobacco products and serve the culture that smokes will take a hit financially. There will be increased smoking outside of the premises of many of these buildings (what, did you think smokers would give up and go away?), which will lead to more complaints about secondhand smoke (now everyone will have to drag their children in through a cloud of cigarette smoke to get from the car in the parking lot to the inside of the establishment). So how far can this silly rabbit hole go? Will the next ban be on smoking in public completely (indoors and out)? Will smokers soon find themselves breaking the law if they have a cigarette in their car on the drive home?

I'm a semi-frequent Eat N Park patron (love those Breakfast Smiles), but the way I'm thinking about this is that it is an opportunity for myself to take a real great stand on behalf of individual freedom. Eat N Park will never again see a penny of my hard-earned money, not in Allegheny County or any other county for that matter. And any other business that pushed for or supported this measure will be treated the same. As far as the council members, that's up to county residents to handle. As HL Mencken once said, "the urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it".


Sincerely,
NineseveN – Former Eat N Park Patron

It seems my note gained a little attention at Eat N Park:

From: Comments

Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 7:35 AM

To: Cox, Basil

Subject: FW: Eat'n Park Website Comment



Good morning Basil! What's your take on this? How should we respond? Thanks!





----------------------------





On 9/28/06, Cox, Basil <bcox@eatnpark.com> wrote:



Dear Mr. NineseveN,



We have not always been on the side of banning smoking in restaurants and bars. We have many, many customers who like to smoke, and we believe in trying to make our customers happy. What caused us to join the anti-smoking forces was the Surgeon General's Report this summer that second hand smoke is just about as dangerous a smoking itself. We don't think that we can any longer put our team members' health at risk.

A ban on smoking in our restaurants will probably cost us some business, especially many of those late night folks who will probably just head directly home instead of stopping at an Eat'n Park If that's the cost of a healthy workplace, so be it.

I'm sorry that our position on this issue is driving a wedge between you and us. Without our customers, we obviously have no business. We want to serve you well, Mr. NineseveN, and we hope you will come to agree with us that would be in a smoke-free environment.


Sincerely,
Basil Cox

My response:

Dear Mr. Cox,



I appreciate the timeliness of your response, thank you. First, I want to state that I firmly believe in your right as a business to decide whether or not you wish to allow smoking on your property. Had Eat N Park decided to completely eliminate their smoking sections in all of their restaurants, I would likely be writing in support of that decision rather than writing to you about my displeasure with the situation and the position that Eat N Park took on the matter.

I realize that neither one of us likely has the time or the inclination to wedge ourselves into a back and forth conversation on this matter, so I will try and make this brief. I would like to know when Eat N Park plans to eliminate the smoking sections in their restaurants outside of Allegheny County. If the issue at hand is good health and your concerns are about the health of your team members and patrons, certainly the same concern is shared for every team member and every patron in every restaurant whether they're located within Allegheny County or not. When Eat N Park does this, perhaps I will reconsider my thoughts on the matter. Until then, I don't think that one can morally and honestly claim the position of Eat N Park to be in the name of good health yet only take those actions where they are mandated by law (a measure which Eat N Park put its support behind).

This is certainly not a personal reflection on my opinion of you as a person, and I realize that the goal of every business is profit, but here instead of a stand on the side of good health as the company claims, I see a business making a self-imposed choice between competing negatives; taking a stand and banning smoking on their own property and losing a great deal of business or supporting a legal route that makes that same choice for all business owners so that the loss of revenue is shared across the county, thus taking less of a hit financially. It was a financially good move in contrast to the alternative, the only problem is that Eat N Park is profitable enough to absorb the small hit from the locations in Allegheny County, many of the smaller businesses are not and unless Eat N Park makes the same changes in all of their locations regardless of whether or not an ordinance is passed, the company cannot ethically claim a stand on behalf of good health.

So the question stands, when does Eat N Park plan to eliminate the smoking sections in their restaurants outside of Allegheny County?



Sincerely,
NineseveN

His final reply:

Dear Mr. NineseveN,



Right now we are not prepared to go non-smoking in our restaurants. When we do make the move, we want to be able to buffer this profound change, both for our employees and for our customers. Plans are being developed for both groups. In the meantime, there is an on-going and lively discussion about timing, greatly complicated I must say by the extraordinarily mixed signals being sent from the state.



Sincerely,
Basil Cox

Based on this exchange and other shady practices by that corporation as a whole, I haven’t visited one of their establishments since September of 2006, and I doubt I ever will.

But the reason I posted it is that it illustrates what Brewguy posted about in the beginning, people hiding behind the law to confront and reduce or remove the liberty of others for their own agendas. Now, a spineless sleazebag corporate executive, I can understand their lust for profit and their desire to drive their competitors out of business; but for private individuals, and gun owners especially, we should all know too well what happens when someone else decides that our liberties must be sacrificed for the “greater good”. In my humble opinion, you’re either for liberty or you’re not. If you only want to allow freedoms so far as they’re useful or palatable to you, then you’re no better on a moral level than the very government, gun banners and despots you likely criticize when they want to come and take your freedoms. In fact, you might even be worse. A nanny-state socialist is one thing, but a hypocritical nanny-state socialist is another.


“We have met the enemy, and he is us.” ~ Walt Kelly via the Pogo comic strip.