Jump to content

Phillyterp85

Members
  • Content Count

    924
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,029 Backup

About Phillyterp85

  • Rank
    Backup

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Philadelphia, PA

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Team
    Eagles

Recent Profile Visitors

209 profile views
  1. Good point KZ. I went to foxnews.com main page, and no mention of the story. But one of their main stories is about the couple that went viral during protests with the photo of them standing armed on their front lawn, and their thoughts on a recent armed standoff at a Kentucky restaurant. You know, hard hitting news stories.
  2. Did you read what I wrote? I’m talking about a scenario in which numerous separate privately owned entities own various segments of roadway. So no monopoly. By your logic, if someone chooses to drive on the drunk driving road, they stuck their face into the sparring match and got hit. They could have chosen to drive on one of the roads which bans drunk driving. So they can’t cry foul if they made the choice to enter the ring when they didn’t have to.
  3. What we’re talking about is a scenario where the roads are privately owned. TEW said he’s ok with drunk driving laws on roads that are publicly owned. So that infers that if the road was privately owned, he’d be ok with those private owners setting their own rules. So imagine a scenario where route 320 is owned by Google, Route 3 owned by McDonald’s, and Route 422 owned by Warren Buffet, and so on and so forth. Google decides to allow drunk driving on 320 meanwhile McDonald’s and Warren Buffet ban drunk driving. The consumer is well informed and these would be privately owned entities. So the logic appears to be anyone who chooses to drive on 320 and ends up getting hit by a drunk driver had the choice to use a different route and really can’t cry foul.
  4. No, it is not my point. Once again, this discussion is about regulations that impact SAFETY and why there is no debate on some of those regulations but debate on some others. Nowhere am I making the point that the government should be allowed to regulate restaurants in any way they see fit.
  5. So imagine a scenario where PennDOT sold off all their roads to privately owned entities. (There’s already discussion of selling bridges to private owners. So it’s not that far of a stretch). In that scenario you’d be ok with getting rid of drunk driving laws on those roads and leaving it up to the owners? If someone chooses to drive on a road where it is known that drunk driving is allowed, it would seem that they’re sticking their face into the cage and then crying foul after getting hit.
  6. So as I asked Vikas, you’d be ok with getting rid of drunk driving laws on privately owned roads then?
  7. No, that’s not my logic. No where am I saying that I believe the government should be allowed to regulate restaurants "in any way they see fit”. You are seeing things again..... The discussion is specifically about SAFETY regulations. And as to why there is no debate on some regulations that impact safety, but there is debate on others. Vikas explanation is a sound one. The food preparation and sanitation is hidden from customer view, so the consumer isn’t well informed on those things.
  8. So in a world where there are no regulations for food safety and sanitation, then as long as the restaurant had a sign out front that said "we don’t prepare our food to the recommended temperatures and we don’t keep a sanitary kitchen” then this would be ok since then the consumer would be informed.
  9. But that brings us back to "you can choose not to go to a restaurant that doesn’t prepare food properly” and "you can choose not to go to a restaurant that has plywood as support beams”
  10. I hate to answer a question with a question, but I feel it’s pertinent here. What’s the difference between forcing a bar owner to meet food safety and sanitation requirements, building code and engineering requirements, and smoking requirements? There is zero doubt that there is a consumer demand for food that is prepared properly in a kitchen that meets sanitation standards so as to reduce chance of food poisoning. There is zero doubt that there is consumer demand for a building that meets construction requirements so as to reduce the chance of the roof caving in during dinner. And there is zero doubt there is consumer demand for smoke free restaurants. We are ok with the government forcing private owners to meet requirements for the first two, but with regards to smoking there is debate as to whether or not smoking should be banned or to let the market sort it out. And I’m not sure the psychology behind why there is a difference. Maybe it’s the increased short term risk as compared to second hand smoke. FYI in Philly there are still some bars that allow smoking. I could be wrong, but I think there’s some exception that’s tied into the % of revenue the bar makes from food service. And if they are under that threshold, they can be a smoking bar.
  11. So drunk driving should be allowed on privately owned roads? If PennDOT were to sell off all their roads to private owners, then we should allow those owners to make their own rules for the road and then just let the marketplace sort it out? And if the logic for the Cheesecake Factory example is that they are privately owned, then why have any regulations when it comes to restaurants. Drop all food preparation and sanitation standards and requirements. The market will eventually sort it out... And why stop there? The building itself is privately owned. Drop all engineering and building code requirements. If the owner wants to save construction costs and use studs made out of plywood, that’s their right. The people will eventually stop going to the buildings where the walls are constantly falling in and the market will sort itself out.
  12. Except this isn’t the nanny state. This isn’t protecting someone from themselves. If you want to smoke, then go ahead. But your right to swing your fist stops when your fist hits my face. I shouldn’t have to sit in an establishment for dinner and breathe in smoke filled air all night because someone else is choosing to partake in an action that I want no parts of. By your logic, let’s get rid of drunk driving laws. We don’t need the nanny state telling private individuals under what condition they should and shouldn’t drive their privately owned cars. You can’t take the risk of potentially getting hit buy a drunk driver, then stay off the road, right?
  13. I will follow your advice on polo shirts. You disappoint me with your taste in burgers....
  14. So that's significantly different. 1) People smoking in restaurants infringe upon the freedoms of non-smokers who want to go to a restaurant and not have to breathe in smoke filled air all night. (someone smoking a menthol cigarette instead of a non-menthol cigarette has no affect on someone else near by) 2) The opportunity for the creation of a black market of smoking restaurants was basically non-existent. Running an underground smoking restaurant is a muuuuuch different ballgame than importing and selling menthol flavored cigarettes. It would be practically impossible to do so. If people were smoking in a restaurant, the non-smoking patrons would complain to the restaurant management. And if nothing was done about it, there's a good chance the non-smoking patrons would then report them to the city. So it's essentially a self enforced rule with no black market. 3) Did the ban actually reduce the number of smokers? You'd have to compare the decline in smoking in NYC to other cities without smoking bans.
×
×
  • Create New...