There's a dirty little secret of economics in anti-smoking, I think. I'll illustrate this with an example: concert tickets.

In 1990, I saw Billy Joel in concert in a floor seat about 1/4 of the way back. Price: $22.00.

In 1991, I sas Van Halen in concert in almost the same spot. Price: $23.00.

Around 2000, I saw Bruce Springsteen from the upper deck. Price: $75.00.

I saw all of these concerts in the same arena.

It isn't only greed that causes higher ticket prices. By charging a higher price for admission, you're likely to have a show with less security problems. In other words, higher prices "keep out the riff raff". By raising concert ticket prices, one is able to price-out the "less desirables".

You'll notice that some bars and restaurants have utilized similar pricing strategies to ensure a certain clientelle. For example, many high-end restaurants sit in the middle of neighborhoods where those living within a 6 block radius have probably never entered the door. These are usually older, well established businesses. They used to be neighborhood restaurants, but as the neighborhood went down, the prices went up, and because of a quality reputation, they maintained their clientelle, made alot of money, and kept out the neighbors. If you're really good at it, you can open a new restaurant and follow this model as well.

If people are willing to pay the price, why not? Supply and demand, private free market solutions. No sweat. Not three blocks from where I sit, there is a brand new restaurant with stained glass windows and an outdoor patio area where string quartets sit and play. If you were to walk out the front door of this place, you could throw a rock through the window of a greasy spoon diner that's been there for forty years where you can get a cheeseburger deluxe, fries and a drink, and leave a reasonable tip all by slapping a 5 dollar bill on the counter.

Our politicians are much more likely to be found at the stained glass and string quartet place. The diner, which sells cigarettes that can no longer be smoked there behind the counter, where the waitress says "What can I getchya, hon?", where grey haired men sit at the counter and watch the game on the TV in the corner, is probably invisible to them. Not one block apart, the clientelle of these places couldn't be more different.

Did a smoking ban hurt the stained glass and string quartet place? I'll be honest; probably not. Did it hurt the greasy spoon diner? You bet your ass it did. Your not going to find any snooty pseudo-intellectuals typing on their laptop at the greasy spoon.

Because people who smoke tend to be poor and less educated on a bell curve, politicians decided to create a government solution for keeping the "riff raff" out of lower-end establishments by banning smoking. The free market had already established this solution via pricing.

If you're seeing a weakness in my argument, you're right. The old men at the diner I mentioned aren't riff raff after all. They're not bothering anyone.

My answer to this is New York City.

Though other smoking bans already existed, the tipping point for smoking bans was the New York City Smoking ban. Mike Bloomberg, probably not having any idea how to do such a job, decided to do a piss poor imitation of his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani, and carry Giuliani's "Broken Window Theory" ideas for reducing crime to a ridiculous extreme and ban smoking in bars and restaurants. Bloomberg's approval rating afterward was 19%, the lowest in history for any Mayor of New York City. To use a phrase you'll hear more and more in the months to come, as Giuliani's presidential campaign heats up; New York City is a very different place.

You'll notice that heavy metropolitan areas vote Democrat. In fact, one could make a good argument that heavy metropolitan areas are the only areas keeping the Democratic Party in power. Why? Because living in a world with a massive infrastructure to support a a vast diversity of people living on top of each other seems to demand some kind of centralized power structure, or Big Government. Bloomberg's approval rating has gone from 19% to being through the roof. Why? New York City loves an iron fist to keep all of that chaos in line. The place is so dynamic that a powerful static governmental counterbalance seems essential.

A place like New York City seems to invite one-size-fits-all solutions. Where I live, my greasy spoon diner isn't likely to get "riff raff" wandering in, just some old guys hiding from their wives. My diner, though, doesn't have 10 million people sitting on top of it. If my diner were in New York City, it could be a different story.

In areas where the people count on heavy government enforcement, keeping out "undesirables" is likely to become a socially engineered solution, and though it hurts a large number of law abiding, decent citizens, there is such a large population that tyrannical, socialist solutions seem so necessary that individual considerations are moot to the vast majority.

So, what about the rest of us? What about us, living out here in the less populated areas? Well, politicians in the cities can't say "Hey, we're trying to keep the riff raff out of low end establishments" because it's implicit that there's some kind of prejudiced discrimination and profiling going on. But if "secondhand smoke kills 63,000 people a year", you can keep a certain percentage of "less desirables" out of the local bar. Yes, people who smoke have been stereotyped.

For the rest of us, our politicians, who hang out at the fern bar with the string quartet, aren't clued in to the fact that their locality isn't a place like New York City. Also, our politicians are often career opportunists who cater to special interests, and even though there is no "riff raff" problem in your small town, the politicians implement the Big City solution to a problem that doesn't exist, but they create, via government funded special interest, anti-smoking advertising on TV, Radio, and billboards. It's government in reverse; The People weren't calling for smoking bans, special interest groups were, and the public jumped on board only via a social engineering campaign based on a tooth-fairy ideology of "secondhand smoke".

Why? Because it isn't really "government funded", it's Master Settlement Agreement funded. I don't think that people who smoke, or anyone, really grasps how much of the public sector they fund, because it is made invisible to them by government. If you smoke, please know, you hold the American economy on your shoulders and, for this, you are treated like a second class citizen. You are treated like "riff raff".

Your politicians have made a decision for you based on logic that really had nothing to do with smoking and may not have even been applicable to the area you live in, because big city politicians had to maintain a lie.

If I were to say that hanging a "No Blacks Allowed" sign on my establishment is the same thing as hanging a "No smokers allowed" (not "No smoking allowed") sign on my establishment, you'd be right to point out obivious inconsistencies, but this argument quickly breaks down.

Once you've eliminated a separation between the behavior and the individual, there is a very obvious pitfall that we all know most people are going to fall into. An "other" is created, and once this "other" is created, you can scream secondhand smoke all you want, but for the majority, who aren't prone to making such distinctions, you've created a hate scenario.

For example, Audrey Silk of New York City CLASH did a very admirable job of making a TV commercial containing the line "I don't look like a smoker" and ending with the plea "Face it; you're a smoker", disappear from the airwaves by writing some strongly worded letters to the right people. I don't think that this heroic move by Ms. Silk, who said exactly the right thing at the right time, should be underestimated. She may have kept the already tipsy domino of making "Smoker" the new, socially acceptable equivalent of the "N-word" from falling.

I'll point out that it is easier to change "Two legs good, Four legs bad" to "Two legs good, Four legs better" than it is to change "No Smoking" to "No Smokers". Don't be surprised if you see this distinction change, because it probably will. When the time comes that the signs all read "No Smokers" instead of "No Smoking", please know that there is an intent in this slight change. They're not saying they don't want you to smoke, they're saying they don't want YOU. This point will probably come and when it does, one can cite all the reasons they want, in the psychology of most reading the sign, it might as well say "No Jews Allowed" or "No Blacks Allowed". It's just hate.

Your private property rights should be enforcable, even if you happen to be a jerk ,but just because you have a need to treat others like Riff Raff, doesn't mean it should be encouraged by Big Government.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WinstonSmith,

As usual Winston - an excellent post! Many thanks!

I'd like to note, concerning NYC, Bloomberg in particular, has gone out of his way to keep out the lower and middle income folks. I believe that his ultimate goal is to make NYC for the upper income types and super rich - only! The hell with everyone - if you can't afford it, get out! On a side note - speaking of "middle class" - while I was going through the check out line at the super market the other day, 2 of the cashiers were having a conversation about how there is not longer a middle class. I found this very interesting! Unfortunately, I wasn't there long enough to over hear the rest of the conversation. I think what you are pointing out in your post as well, is that disappearnace of the middle class.

As far as politicians go - you are spot on, my friend! Politicians are SO out of touch with their constituency! I find this completely frustrating!

Anyway - thank you again for such an enlightening post.
Sincerely,

While I agree with the basic premise of your post, Winston, (it's basically now far less about health than it is the yuppification of amerika), you get far too deep for me sometimes LOL

quote:

Originally posted by varla_pussycat:
- while I was going through the check out line at the super market the other day, 2 of the cashiers were having a conversation about how there is not longer a middle class. I found this very interesting! Unfortunately, I wasn't there long enough to over hear the rest of the conversation. I think what you are pointing out in your post as well, is that disappearnace of the middle class.

The argument being that there are only the rich and the lower income class. It seems to me that these leftists lose sight of the fact that the lower income folks in this country are living reasonably well.

If you consider the living conditions of the lower income groups in central America,Africa, and the near and far East; you find that ours with housing,cars,tv,schools for kids,available health care,electricity,running water,food,and etc.,would qualify as upper-middle class in most other countries in the world.

Until the politicians and do gooders take them away, "all citizens in this country have dignity and worth."

That is worth fighting for.

Varla, Thanks so much for the complimentary words.

I can see where you get the impression that I'm implying something about the middle class, but I don't think you'll see the middle class disappear, at least any time soon.

First, due to political instability. cultural differences and the lack of private property rights in many nations, there is a limit to how much labor you can export. You might be able to find highly trained technicians in India, but moving many tens of millions of dollars worth of infrastructure to India is a more troubling proposition, because of aggressions between India and Pakistan. Though India might remain stable, Pakistan may not, and war could conceivably break out. Since you can find a highly trained labor pool here, you may be better off staying put.

Second, well, I'll use an example for this one. Dell computers exported their business customer service unit from Dallas, TX to India...

...then brought it back to Dallas, TX. Companies might not be too afraid of losing a customer here and there because they feel they get poor service from overseas labor, but they don't want to lose big business contracts over it. Call centers and assembly line labor are usually relatively inexpensive to export. If the overseas building containing your call center is destroyed in a war, a company can pick up the labor it needs in a hurry at home by calling the local temp service. A building full of sewing machines is also easily replaced; rent a building, hire some cheap labor at home, and you're up and running again.

Third, I'll use my own job as an example. My manager is very, very good at what he does. He has an exceptional level of expertise, a great work ethic, and also happens to be a nice guy that everyone likes. Across the hall from he and I is our call center, holding about 200 people.

Let's imagine for a moment that I'm the Director for my particular building. Also, let's pretend that the CEO of my company came to me and demanded that I make some radical changes, including staff, to improve things. How many of those call center workers would I replace for a rare find like my manager? Call me a heartless bastard, but I would probably let 100 of the 200 go before I would even think of letting my manager go. Some of the people over there are good, intelligent employees who have the best of intentions, but the truth is that they are easily replaced and replacement employees can be easily brought up to speed. My manager is not so easily replaced.

If there is an errosion of the middle class, I feel the most likely suspect is the educational system. People are being asked to pay more and more for an education that is watered down by indoctrination and special interest. As a result, companies start to notice that people with Bachelors degrees aren't so bright anymore, so now they want a Master's Degree for the same job. When the Master's won't do, they want a doctorate. As this spiral of demand for higher degrees continues, more people are being asked to invest in what is really many more years of education than should be necessary and they can't keep up, so they find themselves over-indoctrinated and underskilled, working in a service job, frustrated with the world, and end up blaming all of the world's ills on corporations. Corporations also happen to be the entities that are so despised by the people who educated them, so this works out nicely for the collectivists.

I have many more thoughts on all of this, but I'm running long (again). Maybe I'll post them later, but for the moment I'll spare everyone and shut the hell up.

quote:

If there is an errosion of the middle class, I feel the most likely suspect is the educational system.

A great number of companies are finding that they have do do remedial training in "reading,riting and rithmatic"(the 3 R's) before new workers,high school grads, can be put to work.
These young adults do know about global warning and the rights of illegal immigrants and terrorists.They also believe everything the media spews forth.
Most of America is innumerate.

This can also be shown in the "Monty Hall" paradox in other posts.
The paradox looks like this: You pick door 1
Door 1 2 3

car car car
goat goat goat
goat goat goat
You choose door 1 and door 3 is shown to have a goat;the car has to go somewhere and goes to door 2, looks like this:

Door 1 2 3
car car goat
goat car goat
goat goat goat
Note: when host asks if you want to switch doors,door 3 is still an option.Not smart;but,still an option.

Thus,switching to door 2 increases your chances of winning from 1/3 to 2/3.

Of course;if you look smart and program is cheap and host knows door 1 has car, he may give you this option just to reduce your chance of winning to zero.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: gkayser30,

However; suppose that you had chosen door 2,not 1. When the host showed door 3 to be a goat;would not your door 2 have gone to 2/3 probility. Why does it have to be door not yours that increases?

This is beyond my poor powers of math.

quote:

This is beyond my poor powers of math.

I have to honest, GKayser, it's beyond mine as well. It only makes sense if you sit down and work it out. It's extremely difficult to figure it out in the abstract unless your mind is well practiced in doing such things. Keep in mind that some of the very best mathematicians in the country wrote in to Marilyn Vos Savant to tell her how wrong she was, only to find themselves with egg on their face.

Scroll down just a bit on the wikipedia page and there's a pretty good illustration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

Here are some quotes from the letters Vos Savant received. (I can't help but think of the idea of "scientific consensus" when I read these.) You gotta love this.

"Let me explain: If one door is shown to be a loser, that information changes the probability of either remaining choice -- neither of which has any reason to be more likely -- to 1/2. As a professional mathematician, I'm very concerned with the general public's lack of mathematical skills. Please help by confessing your error and, in the future, being more careful."

-Robert Sachs, Professor of Mathematics, Georgetown University

"Our math department had a good, self-righteous laugh at your expense."

-Mary Jane Still, Professor, Palm Beach Junior College.

"You are utterly incorrect...How many irate mathematicians are needed to get you to change your mind?"

-E. Ray Bobo, a professor of mathematics at Georgetown University.

"Your answer to the question is in error. But if it is any consolation, many of my colleagues have also been stumped by this problem."

-Barry Pasternack, Ph.D., California Faculty Association.

". . . If all those Ph.D.s were wrong, the country would be in very serious trouble."

-Everett Harman, Ph.D., U.S. Army Research Institute.

". . . I am sure you will receive many letters from high school and college students. Perhaps you should keep a few addresses for help with future columns."

-W. Robert Smith, Ph.D., Georgia State University.

"I am in shock that after being corrected by at least three mathematicians, you still do not see your mistake."

-Kent Ford, Dickinson State University.

There are more. Marilyn Vos Savant received over 10,000 letters.

This was a probability problem to the order of 3! Three!!! Don't worry, though, such experts are much better at making predictions about the global temperature 100 years into the future.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WinstonSmith,