Smoking Ban Closes Bars

Exactly one year ago (from May 1st), Northern Ireland was the victim of the wave of smoking bans as theirs took effect. And the effect has been great - but not in a positive way at all. It's led to the closing of 100 bars. That's 7% of Northern Ireland's pub count, according to the Federation of Retail Licensed Trade, which represents about 1,100 pubs, hotels and restaurants in Northern Ireland.

The whole reasoning behind the smoking ban was so that non-smokers would be rushing to these locations now that they contained a smoke-free environment. That is obviously not the case, as 100 locations have gone out of business and Steve Kelly, the chief executive of the Federation of Retail Licensed Trade "expects another 100 to close next year."

Isn't this proof-positive that the smoking ban is USELESS, especially in bars?

I mean the whole "argument" (if you can call it that, since there are scientific studies that support it and scientific studies that counter it) was that non-smokers wanted to cease the attack of secondhand smoke on them while they were trying to get a pint. So now that they got their wish and the smoke is gone, they're not drumming up enough business for the pubs to keep them even afloat!

This is just an obvious example of people who shouldn't have a say in the OPERATION of a business because they aren't CUSTOMERS of that business. If there were a bar with 100 regular customers and 50 of them were planning to stop coming because of an establishment policy (or lack thereof), the business can decide to do what it must in order to maximize their customer satisfaction or their profits (maybe the other 50 are twice the profit as the complaining 50). It's when people who are NOT customers start raising a fuss that problems occur. Changing the business' practices and policies won't mean a thing unless the result is more patronage or more profitability!

Sure, you can argue all you want that the protesters who caused the smoking bans to come into play were "thinking about the greater good" and "wanting to protect your lungs" or something. I still don't understand why it's a "libertarian" view to take away the business's liberty of choosing policies in favor of the potential customer's liberty of not breathing secondhand smoke. If you ask me (and you didn't, but I'm telling you anyway), the REAL libertarian view should be that the potential customer DOES have the liberty of not breathing potentially-harmful secondhand smoke - and that businesses should have the liberty to say that those potential customers have every right to find somewhere else to enjoy that liberty, because that business has chosen to protect the liberty of those who want to smoke.

Northern Ireland bar owners lost that liberty to choose their own smoking policy. And the result was that 100 of them also lost their businesses. And 100 more are probably going to lose their businesses next year.

If we can't even get enough IRISH people into PUBS to keep them in business with this smoking ban, what chance do any bars have in general to survive this idiotic smoking ban?

Once again, I am NOT a smoker. And yes, I find smoking to be a disgusting habit and I hate the smell of secondhand smoke. But I also think that smokers have the right to EXIST and to SMOKE - especially in bars.

What do you think?

(The sad story about the pub closings)


Read more!

Vigilante Justice: Tar-n-Feathers!

Sadly, this report doesn't come from America. It does, however, provide me with a little bit of appreciation for the will of a community and ideas for my mind to process on how to handle situations where the government isn't doing its job properly.

A drug dealer had been plaguing the community around the Taughmonagh estate in South Belfast, Ireland. Several members of the community took their concerns to the police and provided enough information, in their minds, to get this drug dealer off their streets and behind bars. The police sat on the information and refused to intervene or act in any way to solve the problem.

The community at large became fed up, lost their faith in the proper law enforcement handling the situation, and took the matter into their own hands. In an act that hasn't really been done since back in the 1970's when the Provisional IRA used to handle matters in their own ways - the group doled out some punishment on the man, who has yet to step forward and point a finger at his "attackers".

He doesn't want anyone to know his identity.
Probably because he's a drug dealer.
Also likely that he's embarrassed about being tarred and feathered.

That's right, this group of citizens ambushed the man, dumped tar on his head and feathers were strewn over him. They tied him to a lamppost on the street and hung a sign around his neck for all to come and bear witness to. The sign read: "I'm a drug dealing scumbag."

Of course, police and politicians are up in arms over the event, calling the whole thing "barbaric" and quickly pointing fingers at the loyalist Ulster Defence Association. The UDA maintains that it had nothing to do with the event, and added: "The UDA told the local community to go to the police about this. The community responded in the way it did because it had no confidence in the police."

So what does that equate to us, across the Atlantic? There are so many issues here in the USA that citizens can't trust the government to take care of. Illegal immigration comes to mind. The best form of "vigilante" we have on the case for the fight against illegal immigration is the Minutemen group. And while to most people, the group is seen as rabble-rousing rednecks with guns and bigotry - they're nothing but border watchdogs in reality. They patrol, and call law enforcement agencies when they've spotted someone. They don't even go over and subdue or detain the illegal immigrants themselves as a "citizen's arrest" like they technically have every right to do.

So what happens if we see a true breakdown? That we've finally given up on sitting around and "calling it in" only to find that, once again, nothing has happened? Some local/state law enforcement agencies themselves are fed up with the federal law enforcement agency not doing enough, so they've applied to get trained by the ICE and be able to start deportation paperwork themselves. But it's not enough. Speeding up the process is better, but it's not catching them any faster.

I'd like to see a similar vigilante group here in America, performing these kinds of vigilante justice on the criminals that our government isn't properly taking care of. And you know what? As long as we're going to be "offensively using racial profiling" (which is what any pro-immigration or Latino in general would say) - why not go the whole nine yards?

Forget "tar and feathering" - let's "nacho" them.

In an act similar to a standard tar-and-feather, this one ironically uses their own stereotype against them. Subdue the criminal, tie 'em to a lamppost, and dump a bucket of refried beans or nacho cheese on them. Then dump bags of tortilla chips on top. "Nachoed!" As the coup-de-grace, we can't forget the cardboard sign reading "Soy un scumbag inmigrante ilegal", which of course is "I am an illegal immigrant scumbag" in Spanish.

Maybe after a few "nacho" incidents, police will be more vigilant about locating and deporting illegal immigrants who are cluttering up our streets and our systems that are supposed to be reserved for legal citizens who have the right to utilize them. A few reports of "rampant nacho-ing" might just scare a few of them.

And in the words of Dennis Miller, "Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

(The article about the tar-and-feathered guy)







Read more!