<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.2" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Banzhaf discovers free enterprise</title>
	<link>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1195.html</link>
	<description>Coffee, Cocktails &#38; More</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:26:31 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Thomas</title>
		<link>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1195.html#comment-347547</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:51:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1195.html#comment-347547</guid>
		<description>An alternative to smoke free venues

 
There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels
of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and
filtration systems kills or harms anyone.

As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers
can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern
ventilation technology.

Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not
just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious
contaminants that are independent from smoking.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An alternative to smoke free venues</p>
<p>There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels<br />
of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and<br />
filtration systems kills or harms anyone.</p>
<p>As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers<br />
can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern<br />
ventilation technology.</p>
<p>Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not<br />
just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious<br />
contaminants that are independent from smoking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jacob Grier</title>
		<link>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1195.html#comment-346490</link>
		<dc:creator>Jacob Grier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:30:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1195.html#comment-346490</guid>
		<description>It doesn't just appear inconsistent. He directly undercuts his own case for smoking bans. He's consistently anti-smoking, sure, but his arguments are contradictory.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It doesn&#8217;t just appear inconsistent. He directly undercuts his own case for smoking bans. He&#8217;s consistently anti-smoking, sure, but his arguments are contradictory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben</title>
		<link>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1195.html#comment-346488</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:27:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1195.html#comment-346488</guid>
		<description>Of course, from his point of view, it's not inconsistency.  To him, the issue is all about stopping smoking.  You aren't opposing smoking bans on the grounds of supporting smoking, but on the grounds of free enterprise.  Thus, it's not surprising that different sides would talk past each other and appear inconsistent to each other.  Reminds me of the abortion debate....

Except for the last sentence in the Banzhaf quote, what he says honestly just sounds like an objective description of the law.  There's no way anyone describing the current state of employment law could disagree with anything he says.  Of course, he's probably not saying it as objective description, but rather praising it because he thinks it leads to less smoking.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course, from his point of view, it&#8217;s not inconsistency.  To him, the issue is all about stopping smoking.  You aren&#8217;t opposing smoking bans on the grounds of supporting smoking, but on the grounds of free enterprise.  Thus, it&#8217;s not surprising that different sides would talk past each other and appear inconsistent to each other.  Reminds me of the abortion debate&#8230;.</p>
<p>Except for the last sentence in the Banzhaf quote, what he says honestly just sounds like an objective description of the law.  There&#8217;s no way anyone describing the current state of employment law could disagree with anything he says.  Of course, he&#8217;s probably not saying it as objective description, but rather praising it because he thinks it leads to less smoking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
