CCO Editor Joe Wallace Pleased to Announce California’s First Innovation Hub Accelerator Campus Grand Opening

1. Sounds good. Good luck.

2. Dear Joe, I found your “Dream” reminding me of the Robert Kennedy quote,
   “Some men see things,as they are and ask “Why”, Others dream of things that never were, and ask “Why Not”. You have an exciting journey ahead.
   Good Luck!

3. Good luck Joe. Wish you the best!

4. I’m surprised you can tolerate those California tax and spend liberals! Just kidding. Good luck.

   • Thanks. California and the United States have one thing in common and that is that the governments are much more liberal than the people. If you read my articles you know that I support many positions associated with liberal philosophy. What I do not support is forcing one person to pick up the tab for another one. I am for gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, restricting smoking in public, and am pro choice. I do not think that there should be tax money to pay for any of those things but in the spirit of freedom I support them. I like to call it the Guns and Roses philisophy of public policy. From “Welcome to the Jungle”, I say “you can have anything you want but you better not take it from me.

     • What do you define as “public”? Do privately owned bars count?

       • Places that are open to the public so yes privately owned bars that are “open to the public” do count. Private clubs are by definition not open to the public so I would not agree with banning smoking there. Workplace safety is another situation. Bartenders and musicians are people too and should be able to work in a smokefree environment. Cigarette smoke to me comes under the same guidlines as asbestos and other hazardous chemicals.

         • Thank you for your comments in this exchange, Joe. Many of us here in Evansville completely agree with you and have come to grips with the fact that change comes very slowly here. Here’s hoping it does come in my lifetime. Unfortunately I am getting “up there”.
           Good Luck in all your efforts out west!
           Martha Crosley

         • The real libertarian view would be that the consumer could choose a different bar that did not allow smoking.(there were already plenty of them in Evansville prior to the ban)

           • I realize that. No party has the complete script of right answers for everyone and on this one I depart from the libertarian talking point. The real protection from smoke is for the employees of the bar, not the owners or the customers.

         • You’ve just opened the door to allow all kinds of holes in the libertarian worldview if you accept that government at any level can tell owners of private bars – whether open to the public or not – have to behave or conduct business a certain way. Furthermore, they are expected to act as the enforcement authority or face a penalty.

           This is not a free market solution in ANY way, and I think you know that. Why you choose to support smoking bans in spite of knowing self-imposed bans would eventually come as smoking decreased, I cannot figure.

           The true free market solution would have involved encouraging competitive bars to open which disallowed smoking, or provided another solution with adequate ventilation. Consumers vote with their feet.

           What you’re advocating here is NO DIFFERENT and NO BETTER than Bloomberg and his nanny state minions telling New Yorkers they can’t order a 20oz soda, or order a 2 liter with their pizza. It baffles me you can hate that but take a hypocritical stance in relation to a smoking ban.

           The other problem with a smoking ban is it ensures if marijuana were ever legalized, which we both agree it should be, there would be no way in the City of Evansville a marijuana entrepreneur could open a Netherlands style smoking bar. Futhermore, the smoking ban had the direct consequence of killing some bars off completely while other business models like the Hooka Bars also died.

           • California banned smoking in 1988. Public health improved and the smoking rate dropped. In 1996 California legalized marijuana and continues to do so. There are no smoking dens and they are not needed. Crime has not increased, the areas around dispensaries are much like any other business close to them. There is no reason whatsoever for a law restricting smoking keeping marijuana from being legalized. Quite frankly, I believe the growing list of states to legalize marijuana looks very much like the list of states that were early adopters of smoking bans. The two are not related.

             On Mr. Bloomberg and his soda pop restrictions. I have never seen any study on the damaging effects of 2nd hand soda. That is not the case with tobacco. The science is overwhelming that 2nd hand smoke is dangerous to others in the same confines. I can think of no other substance used in public that causes this kind of damage to people in the same proximity. Even pissing in the corner has not been proven to damage someone in the room with the pisser.

           • Looked it up. 18 states have legalized marijuana. 16 of those have banned smoking in enclosed public spaces including bars.The only exceptions are Alaska and Nevada where marijuana is legal and smoking is not restricted.

         • Your argument on second hand smoke, while I believe it is valid (hence the reason both my wife and I quit smoking and won’t allow it around our daughter), people have a choice in where they eat, drink, and, yes, even where they work, particularly if they got a job working at a bar where it was known beforehand smoking was allowed.

           Now, I might even go so far as to join you in calling for state or local legislation requiring bar owners inform their staff in writing of the ill effects of second hand smoke exposure before hiring them, but I cannot join you in the nanny state mentality simply because the net effects are positive.

           Studies have also shown that encouraging abortion among poor populations may reduce crime rates later on when the children of the poor would have begun a criminal life, they simply didn’t exist, but I’m not about to use those studies to bolster an argument for forced abortion among the poor.

           Our principles should act as the litmus test for success, not raw results. If raw results are the only test of success many Nazi programs, including eugenics, could claim some measure of “success”, while the underlying immorality remained. Likewise, I have no doubt that Bloomberg’s New York will probably have the effect of an average weight loss per person as a result of his policies, but at what cost?

           As Thomas Jefferson said, “I’d rather have dangerous freedom than peaceful slavery.”

           • Neither of these things rises to the level of abortion counseling for the poor. I suspect Bloomberg’s big soda ban will only result in selling more bottles of soda. If a person wants 40 ounces they will get it anyway in 2-20 ounce bottles. Banning big gulps was designed by Bloomberg to protect gluttons from themselves. Smoking bans in public were designed to protect non-smokers from smokers. The intent of these laws are not even the same. I agree with Jefferson. A smoking ban does not keep one from smoking it simply keeps one from poisoning the air for someone else. Isn’t it ironic that legalizing marijuana but restricting where it is used is seen as promoting freedom but treating tobacco with the exact same rule is seen as restricting freedoms.

         • My argument about marijuana wasn’t that states with smoking bans would be less likely to legalize it, my argument was that places with smoking bans would not be able to fully exploit it commercially if they could not open marijuana bars.

           I have a lot of respect for you, Joe, but on this issue, you’ve lost the plot. I am with you that smoking is bad, it causes cancer, cancer is bad, and bars filled with smoke are undesirable and ultimately hazardous places to be, but I disagree wholeheartedly on the solution. The solution was education and a change in culture, which was already occurring before government forced the issue.

         • Again, you’re forgetting that the individual has a right to refuse to enter an establishment where smoking is allowed. The smoker in that context is not forcing his smoke upon anyone, he is merely partaking in an activity the owner of the property has deemed appropriate and acceptable. The non-smoker has the right to leave or not enter. There again, had you proposed a state law that required establishments allowing smoking on their premises to post that on their doors, I might get on board with that, because that is clearly a measure that will allow consumers to make an informed decision, much like the way the FDA requires food producers to list ingredients, again some of which are harmful, like aspartame. I’m not advocating a ban on aspartame, but I sure as hell will avoid it.

           I’ll tell you story… I took Kathy and Izzy to O-Charley’s one day to eat. It was a nice day and we sat outside. Halfway through the meal a guy sits down right beside us and lights up a cigarette. I was disgusted, Kathy was disgusted. The wind was blowing it right in Izzy’s face. I asked the waitress if smoking was allowed there, she said yes, so I requested she move us to another table inside. I also requested they put up a sign informing people that outside was a smoking area. Problem solved. I didn’t feel the need to run to government whining. I made my decision for my family and that was that.

           • At least you had the option. Under the old rules you would not have and of course you could boycott restaurants that allowed smoking. You are not going to change my mind on this one and I doubt I will change yours either.

         • As usual when we get on this topic, I’m not out to change your mind, I’m just out to undermine your premises. 😉

5. Congratulations to Joe on what he has been able to accomplish in the short time he has been back in California. Sad to say I do not think he could have done this in Evansville although it looks like he is doing the same things in Palm Springs that he wanted to do here with GAGE. Alas old Joe had Weinzapfel and a pack of minions blunting his every effort by jamming the Freedom Festival down his throat and taking the money that was planned for business support to build Front Door Pride houses. Good luck Joe, you are better than Evansville and most people here know it. Thanks for what you tried to get done here.

Comments are closed.