Let’s Get the 2009 Debates Started Off Right …
A judge upholds the Kansas City public smoking ban, reports the Star. Also in KC’s newspaper of record, AmerenUE fights to be able to charge current customers during construction of future facilities (like any private business would be able to do). A St. Louis cab driver talks to the Post-Dispatch about being an entrepreneur in this highly regulated industry.
Please let me know your thoughts, especially you former interns who are now tasked with keeping our comments section flowing. You know who you are!
My feeling on the smoking ban have been tested by my recent European excursion. I’m not going to lie, it was awesome going to bars and restaurants in the U.K. and Ireland and not completely smelling of smoke like I would if I was leaving a bar in Madrid. However, the whole civil liberties argument still makes me argue against smoking bans.
Comment by Pat Eckelkamp — January 5, 2009 @ 10:20 p.m.
Also, while arguing this point with someone ( a know-it-all lawyer) they brought up that restaurants are public establishments and as long as health services are required to inspect them that smoking bans could be enforced under these rules. So my question to the lawyers in the house… is that true?
Comment by Pat Eckelkamp — January 5, 2009 @ 10:22 p.m.
Well, I am not a lawyer, but yes, governments inspect every restaurant for health code violations, and just about every smoking ban is passed under that authority. Now, one can certainly argue that finding a problem unknown to the customer or the business, like e-coli contamination, is much more important that something every potential customer can easily see, like smoking.
Comment by David Stokes — January 6, 2009 @ 10:09 a.m.
Speaking of taxicabs: To any and all St Louis residents or visitors who had trouble getting a cab between midnight and 4am on the night of New Year’s Eve– this is the most lucrative night of the year for taxi drivers, and the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission explicitly limits both the number of taxis that can operate and the amount they can charge. Any economist will tell you this means SHORTAGES.
New Year’s is not the only holiday like this.
These issues are addressed only briefly in the STL Today article.
Comment by Josh Smith — January 6, 2009 @ 10:34 a.m.
As for the smoking ban, I can see people’s concern with the health risk. Second hand smoke is bad. Yada yada yada. But, I can also see people wanting their personal freedom and wanting to smoke at bars and restaurants. I know that after I throw back a few at Laclede Street Bar and Grill (may it rest in peace) that the idea of having a cigarette with my drinks sounds more and more appealing. People should be more risk averse rather than be willing to take away others’ freedoms. Don’t want second hand smoke? Don’t go to a bar. Still want smooth draft beer? Do what I did and make yourself a kegerator. You’ll save money in the long run anyway by avoiding high drink costs associated with bars. Unless of course it’s Humphrey’s penny pitchers on a Wednesday night, which coincidentally is tomorrow night.
Comment by Jacob Voss — January 6, 2009 @ 4:39 p.m.
As for the Ameren issue, again, both sides have valid points. Customers don’t want to pay for facilities they aren’t currently using and Ameren should be able to set their rates and use the funds however they see fit. Privatization is the key here. Then Ameren wouldn’t be bogged down by any Renewable Energy Standards either.
Alright Dave, have I commented enough yet?
Comment by Jacob Voss — January 6, 2009 @ 4:41 p.m.
No. Keep writing.
Comment by David Stokes — January 7, 2009 @ 10:12 a.m.