I don't know how many people on here smoke, but in my home state of Michigan, there's currently a bit of fuss about banning smoking in workplaces, including bars, casinos and restaurants.
So far, the bill has only cleared a house committee, so it's pretty far from impacting my life. What worries me the most is that something like 30 other states already have similar bans. That, and people write things like this: Rant Found in Detroit Free Press
That whole rant was pretty much scientifically designed to make me want to punch someone in the face.
getting to the point... really? 30 states? You people let the government take away your right to smoke, in bars, casinos, and restaurants? Three places that are usually explicitly designed to be smoked in? I am in stunned disbelief that the government thinks it can tell a bar how to run its business. I mean, if we were living under an over-controlling, oppressive government, like over in Saudi Arabia, my expectations would be different. But aren't we all capitalists here? Isn't this the land of the free? And aren't we all rugged, independent, free-spirited cowboys? Who love to smoke?
If ever there's a sign that the government is trying to squash our spirits and take over our lives, this is surely it.
So then, you've been warned. First they'll take your cigarettes, then they'll take your guns, and when the brainwashed army soldiers come to lead you away to "communal farms," you'll have no one to blame but yourselves. Well, by the time that happens, they'll have crushed your free-will to the point where you won't even remember what freedom is, so I guess you won't even care.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
It's true.
Smoking was banned in bars and resteraunts in Australia, and since then they've taken our guns, our land and our little red wagons.
You free Americans should fight while you still can.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I'm a hypocrite in that, while I agree with you about not giving up our freedoms, I LOATHE smoking. So I wasn't upset when they banned it in bars and restaurants in Philadelphia.
The argument is that smoking doesn't just affect the person who is doing it.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
First the city I was going to school at banned smoking in public buildings. No one was hurt. Businesses carried on as usual, with perhaps lighter cleaning bills. The bars were still packed.
Then the whole province went that way. See above for details.
Private places should be allowed to permit smoking, but nothing particularly bad has happened as a consequence of banning it in public buildings. I freely confess, as a non-smoker, that I love it. I love not worrying about the cloud of toxins I don't have to march through, or have waft over, or sit in.
Edit: And it's exactly this type of rhetoric that makes me shake my head at America. I don't see it often, but when I do I always feel a little taken aback. You hear about it, but then you encounter it in real life...
It just makes you all seem rather silly. The cowboy, anti-socialist, "next we'll all be Russians!" brand of patriotism is hard not to snicker at. I am, honestly, glad I see it so little, as I prefer to believe it a nasty bit of propaganda cooked up by anti-Americans to make you all look bad.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Oh, but just so you know DevilDreamt, should smoking ever be made illegal I will be on your side completely. Smoking regulation just doesn't bother me.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I don't have the time or energy to type a long response about how it is a workplace safety issue at it's core. I'll just find somewhere with a decent summary online...
Here's one:
quote: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has found that second-hand smoke is up to five times worse in restaurants and bars than it is in the homes of smokers.
So forget the passionate owners, diners, drinkers and smokers:
This issue boils down to a principle even more fundamental to our way of life than entrepreneurial freedom or the freedom to dine enveloped in a noxious fog--the principle that no worker should be forced to choose between a good job and a safe working environment.
quote:A study conducted at the University of California at Berkeley found that working an eight-hour shift in a smoky bar is the equivalent of smoking 16 cigarettes.
“Even in restaurants where there are ‘No Smoking’ sections, patrons and workers are still exposed to secondhand smoke, and no amount of smoke is considered safe,” Eischens said.
We've had long debates here on hatrack, with some smokers claiming that it is ridiculous that it is a workplace safety issue, because the bartenders and waitresses "know what they are getting into" and "are probably smokers themselves". I don't think that those responses hold much water. Employers have a responsibility to provide a safe workplace, period.
If you run a crab fishing boat, the dangers are inevitable, and impossible to eliminate. If you run a bar, secondhand smoke can be eliminated as a job safety risk simply by not allowing it to happen in your bar. Unless you are a die-hard libertarian, you generally have to admit that the state has a responsibility to ensure that workplaces fulfill workplace safety regulations. Why would secondhand smoke be any different?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I'd forgotten about that part, Xavier.
Heather Crowe died last year of lung cancer due to second-hand smoke in the workplace. She was something of an icon, travelling around, making personal appeals to municipalities to ban smoking in public buildings. She was actually pretty successful, and died just weeks before the province of Ontario enacted a ban.
Her case was a landmark. She got a lawyer and sought worker's compensation, and won in full. After that, I would imagine many bar and club owners wondering whether it was more costly to ban smoking or risk having to pay comp. The part that is actually better for businesses is the legislation. If one bar excludes smokers, it's in trouble. If suddenly they all have to, patrons will still be at all of them because there's nowhere else to go.
It's not like it actually stops people smoking. They just go outside and stand on the sidewalk. This creates new problems for pedestrians, but on the whole, I prefer it.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I have no problem with the government regulating tobacco use. That goes for the workplace, public buildings, and taxes on tobacco. Sorry, but I don't smoke and I don't feel like the government is taking away my 'right' by passing some regulations.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
There's a right to smoke now? In public areas no less? There's gotta be a list of these things somewhere. They should make a bill or something.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
We've been over all of this at least twice before. I'd look it up or reiterate, but these discussions make me tired.
That, and I really don't want to come across as being on the same side as the cowboy yahoos any more than is absolutely necessary.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Just so you are aware, OP, this website is hardly pro-smoking. There are a few of us, but we're a silent minority as any thread about smoking quickly turns into an anti-smoking pile-on.
My only thought is that smoking clubs should be allowed where it is explicitly stated that entering the establishment for work or pleasure involves the inhalation of second-hand or, preferably, first-hand smoke. Completely removing the ability to smoke indoors in any facility seems Orwellian.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The anti-smoking "public safety" argument doesn't work. In every case that a city/etc has banned indoor smoking within business establishments serving the public, bar patronage has gone UP by a large amount. Just what we need: more drunks running around in public, more drunks driving.
In every case that a restaurant (or other business serving off-the-street customers) has banned (or has been forced by law to ban) smoking, the customer traffic has increased by a large amount. So anyone who opposes anti-smoking laws is against businesses making more money, is anti-capitalist. Which is probably why despite the public whining of restauranteurs and barkeeps, the anti-smoking laws passed anyways: little private opposition ala "You pass this and we're gonna fund your opponents in the next election." Another case of "...but whatever you do, Brer Fox, please, please, please don' throw me in that briar patch."
BTW
[ July 26, 2007, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You people let the government take away your right to smoke, in bars, casinos, and restaurants? Three places that are usually explicitly designed to be smoked in?
On the whole, Americans in those states have let their government take away other's right to smoke in those places. Whether there's any real difference between the two, there's a big difference in people's perception of the situation.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I think the bars and restaurants should have an option of all smoking or all non-smoking. Then the employees can decide where they want to work, and the business can decide what type of clientelle they want.
Here in Texas we won't be able to smoke in bars starting September, except on outdoor patios, which isn't that bad as almost all of the bars I go to have patios, and the weather is almost never extreme enough to keep you indoors.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Louisiana banned smoking in any restaurant (or bar that serves food) this year. I love it.
And if you really want to smoke, you just go to a bar that doesn't have a kitchen. Or one that doesn't enforce the statute.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Bars could always just follow suit with airports and create communal smoking rooms.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Or one that doesn't enforce the statute.
There's the key. If they can't stop venues from serving alcohol 24hrs a day (where it's illegal to sell alcohol after midnight), they can't stop people from smoking in 'em.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Bars could always just follow suit with airports and create communal smoking rooms.
Most of the time, the laws ban smoking from any building of any kind. So this wouldn't work. The law would have to allow something like that from the very start.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
The Texas smoking ban allows for convention halls and airports to have designated smoking rooms with completely seperate ventilation systems, as well as smoking in cigar bars, defined as a bar that gets more than 50% of revenue from tobacco sales. Don't know about the other 29 states.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I'm a hypocrite on this one. I hate loosing freedoms, but I also hate smoking. So I let this one slide. In fact I wish they would pass a similar law here so I could go to a bar without reeking of smoke afterwards. I don’t think it will happen any time soon in South Carolina; we are in the heart of the tobacco belt.
But as far as motorcycle helmets, and other laws that don't affect people other than the user I am generally against them. If someone chooses not to wear a helmet I don't care, let survival of the fittest take care of them.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
That's also an exception to the Louisiana statute. If a restaurant has a smoking section with a completely separate ventilation system, it's alright to smoke in that section.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:If a restaurant has a smoking section with a completely separate ventilation system, it's alright to smoke in that section.
Has that not always been the rule?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:But as far as motorcycle helmets, and other laws that don't affect people other than the user I am generally against them. If someone chooses not to wear a helmet I don't care, let survival of the fittest take care of them.
Except that what could have just been a few scratches turns into serious head trauma and tens of thousands of dollars are spent keeping the helmetless rider on life support that costs money, and it's got to come from somewhere.
But I dunno, I think mandating things like this just pushes our legal paradigms into the realm of a "baby sitter" state and that is very unfavorable.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:If a restaurant has a smoking section with a completely separate ventilation system, it's alright to smoke in that section.
Has that not always been the rule?
Well, no. Prior to Jan. 1, 2007, you could smoke in that section regardless of whether they had a separate ventilation system. Basically, the statute meant that if a restaurant wanted to continue to have a smoking section they had to have it separately ventilated. Many, or most, restaurants haven't done this, because the cost can be prohibitive and they've discovered it hasn't cost them any business by not having such a section.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Huh, interesting. I didn't realize the states differed so widely on this.
I'm a little baffled that it is being reported that restaurants and bars are not losing any clientelle due to smoking bans. Personally, I have made the decision almost every time to go to a restaurant I could smoke in, and quit patronizing the restaurants I used to go to that I can't smoke in anymore. Maybe I'm more stubborn than most (and it wouldn't be the first time I heard that).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Huh, interesting. I didn't realize the states differed so widely on this.
I'm a little baffled that it is being reported that restaurants and bars are not losing any clientelle due to smoking bans. Personally, I have made the decision almost every time to go to a restaurant I could smoke in, and quit patronizing the restaurants I used to go to that I can't smoke in anymore. Maybe I'm more stubborn than most (and it wouldn't be the first time I heard that).
You're forgetting the people who have a revulsion to smoke. Once a bar bans smoking alot of those people leave their homes to go visit bars again.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Either you're more stubborn (which I think is likely), or the restaurant gains customers at an equal or faster rate than they lose them, so it's a wash.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Good points all around. That's kinda why I think the restaurants and bars should be able to choose all smoking or all non-smoking. So the non-smokers can go to bars again without being disgusted and the smokers can enjoy their after dinner stoge without bothering anyone.
Edit: Also, as a smoker and a former waiter, I would much rather wait tables in a smoking restaurant, as, on average, smoking tables tend to tip better, IME.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Except for the part about smoke being a danger to employees.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I think a restaurant that couldn't get any employees because they all went to the non-smoking restaurants would consider altering it's smoking preference. But I don't think there is a shortage of smoking servers. As I said, many may prefer serving in a smoking restaurant. I know I would.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It is about time the government protected my right to breathe clean air. Your right to swing your utterly disgusting, foul-smelling cancer-sticks ends at my nose.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
"Oops, sorry, I just totally ashed in your crème brûlée."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm all for letting people drive cars, but I don't think anyone should get to back up to a restaurant and let their tail pipe fill the place with smoke just because they feel like parking there.
Smoke all you want to in your home, or outside, or in your own car - anywhere that your smoke isn't filling up my air space.
I really enjoyed the scene in "Big Trouble" where one restaurant patron politely explains to a table of smokers that he would really like to enjoy his meal without it tasting like an ashtray.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
When I grew up, there was smoking everywhere. California then banned smoking indoors, and I am thrilled. I can breath again!
I'm big on freedom, which is why I support banning smoking, since it infringes on the freedom of nonsmokers to breathe.
Breathing cigarette smoke makes me cough, it stinks, it gives me a headache. Blowing toxins into the air for others to breathe is just incredibly rude. And paradoxically, and so ironically I almost choke, smokers stopped from violating other's rights then decry the loss of a right they never even had.
When my wife and I went to Nevada on a quick vacation last winter, we tried to eat at a nice restaurant that was inside a casino. By the time we got to the restaurant part, we had to just leave. It was gross, it made us cough, it was unpleasant, and it made her nauseated.
Nevada can do what they want, and it's unfortunate if I can't enter a casino at all, but then I don't gamble anyway so it's no big loss. But I'm very glad California has the laws it has on this. One of the few times I approve of California's laws.
Smokers, go ahead and smoke. Just don't do it near me. I like to drink Dr Pepper, but if it made people sick to do it, I'd be a real scumbag to trade their health for my enjoyment.
NOT doing something you like is far less detrimental than being forced to do something you DON'T like.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:anywhere that your smoke isn't filling up my air space.
If there were all smoking and all non-smoking restaurants, would you consider the air in the all smoking restaurant to be yours?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:I think a restaurant that couldn't get any employees because they all went to the non-smoking restaurants would consider altering it's smoking preference.
It is about protecting the employees. We have limits to how much business owners can exploit their employees and place them in danger.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
So we should never allow employers to employ people in dangerous, life-threatening jobs even with full disclosure, proper training and the fully cognizant consent of the employee to perform that task?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I don't see why this becomes such a huge issue. Both my parents smoke, and when they go out to eat they smoke before they go in or they smoke afterward. They don't seem to mind.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Booze + Tobacco = Double the Pleasure, Double the Fun.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: So we should never allow employers to employ people in dangerous, life-threatening jobs even with full disclosure, proper training and the fully cognizant consent of the employee to perform that task?
What is the proper training that you are suggesting we should give to waiters who work in smoking restaurants?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Booze + Tobacco = Double the Pleasure, Double the Fun.
The man speaks the truth.
Also, in a restaurant, the ability to sit back with a couple fingers of bourbon and a smoke after a good meal is a luxury I would be loathe to live without.
ETA:
quote:What is the proper training that you are suggesting we should give to waiters who work in smoking restaurants?
Do you smoke? Do you like it? If yes to both proceed to application. If not, our sister restaurant is hiring two blocks away and they don't allow smoking.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
We could instruct them in the proper application of gas masks.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: So we should never allow employers to employ people in dangerous, life-threatening jobs even with full disclosure, proper training and the fully cognizant consent of the employee to perform that task?
What is the proper training that you are suggesting we should give to waiters who work in smoking restaurants?
The only way for someone to make a good decision about whether or not working in the smoking restaurant is good for them is if they understand all of the facts as they currently stand about second hand smoke and smoking in general. My proposed training would involve instructional videos, pamphlets-- whatever-- that the employee would have to sign showing he'd seen/read them and understood them completely. It's the same type of thing you have to go through if you work at a job with dangerous chemicals or hazardous conditions, only it'd be directed at potential employees in a smoking-only establishment.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I much prefer my meals out to not include smoke. It irritates my eyes and tends to make me cough. If you want to smoke, I don't see why it's so hard to do it outside where it can waft away in open air and not get caught inside.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
That's not the point we're trying to make.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
In Georgia restaurants can allow smoking only if they are willing to remain 18+. That is, if you aren't old enough to buy your own cigarettes to smoke, you won't be forced to inhale someone else's. In Connecticut it's been illegal to smoke in restaurants for a while, and I always find myself unpleasantly surprised when I go into a restaurant somewhere else and smell the cigarette smoke. While I respect the right of people to smoke, I also feel that people should respect my right not to breathe it in. I'm asthmatic and cigarette smoke is a big trigger for me.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Originally posted by kojabu: I much prefer my meals out to not include smoke. It irritates my eyes and tends to make me cough. If you want to smoke, I don't see why it's so hard to do it outside where it can waft away in open air and not get caught inside.
It's a property rights issue. If a bar chooses to allow smoking neither you nor the state of a legitament right to forbid it.
If you want to eat at the place without smoke, I don't see why it's so hard to go to a place that doesn't allow smoking.
Full disclosure: I do not smoke, nor do I own stock in any cigarette company.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
For those who live in states where there's no law prohibiting smoking in bars: how many establishments voluntarily ban smoking? Before the smoking ban was enacted over here I can't remember a single bar I went to where the air wasn't thick with smoke. And this in spite of the great majority of the population being non-smokers. The restaurants were a bit better, but mostly the only concession to the non-smokers was that the smokers were put in a not very well defined corner in the room. It's possible that now when the dangers of second-hand smoking have been so generally recognised, the percentage of establishment willing to voluntarily ban smoking has increased. However I am sceptical that a voluntary division into smoking and non-smoking establishment would yield a large crop of non-smoking bars. Cigarettes is just another thing a bar can sell and make money on and I doubt many would forfeit the profit if they had a choice.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avatar300:
quote:Originally posted by kojabu: I much prefer my meals out to not include smoke. It irritates my eyes and tends to make me cough. If you want to smoke, I don't see why it's so hard to do it outside where it can waft away in open air and not get caught inside.
It's a property rights issue. If a bar chooses to allow smoking neither you nor the state of a legitament right to forbid it.
Pff. You would not object to regulating the 'property right' of a factory to belch sulphur dioxide into the air upwind of your house. Property rights are not some mystic, unchangeable sacred covenant handed down by unerring scribes from Mount Sinai; they are whatever we happen to agree they are, and can manage to enforce.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Huh, interesting. I didn't realize the states differed so widely on this.
I'm a little baffled that it is being reported that restaurants and bars are not losing any clientelle due to smoking bans. Personally, I have made the decision almost every time to go to a restaurant I could smoke in, and quit patronizing the restaurants I used to go to that I can't smoke in anymore. Maybe I'm more stubborn than most (and it wouldn't be the first time I heard that).
I think it has to do with it being a ban. If you refuse to go to a bar that's non-smoking, and suddenly every bar in the city, or state, or province, is non-smoking, you rapidly run out of bars to go to. At that point, you have to decide if you want to enjoy going out at all or if you want to continue boycotting everyone.
The other option some places went for around here was to go private. A minimal "membership fee," such as what you'd pay for cover anyway, is put in place, the bar or club goes private, and bingo! smoking is allowed. Mind, I'm not sure if that loophole has been gone after yet. It seems reasonable enough to me, as long as the employees are aware of the risks.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"...in states where there's no law prohibiting smoking in bars: how many establishments voluntarily ban smoking?"
Virtually none. But then most smokers, and all sane smokers know that smoking is bad for them. Just so, bar owners and restauranteurs know that in-establishment smoking is bad for business. Old habits are extremely hard to kick. And the fear of insulting a few reliable old customers into leaving overriding the attraction of the highly-probable-but-still-only-potential gain of far more new customers is also an extremely hard habit to kick. It's why people keep "pouring in new money to chase the bad" when relationships (and investments) go sour. And a major reason why gambling establishments can become Vegas rich.
[ July 26, 2007, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I think if a restaurant were forced to chose between all smoking and all non smoking, the vast majority would choose all non smoking. Bars may swing the other way.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
If it was simply a matter of convenience and enjoyment for smokers vs. non-smokers, then I would agree with allowing the individual establishments to decide whether or not to decide. But, since at this point in time there is a fairly large mountain of evidence pointing to the dangers of second-hand smoke, then the government does have a right to step in and protect those who have less of a say in accepting the risks (particularly at the request of the majority). It comes down to a rights of the majority vs. rights of the minority. There is no win-win solution.
The problem with comparing smoking to any other activity, such as alcohol, cars, and yes even guns, is that those items used responsibly do not impact the health or enjoyment of others. Yes, there are immature and irresponsible people who can make a nuisance out of anything, and this applies to smoking as well. The problem is just smoking indoors affects others regardless of responsibility, doing it poorly just makes it worse and more likely to offend.
Our state is on their 6th month of the public smoking ban, and I won't lie by saying anything but "I love it". They're waiting a full year to even attempt economic studies, but there is no huge trend of bars and clubs going out of business wholesale (only the light rail is capable of doing that it seems). I do miss the ability to go out and enjoy the hedonistic evenings of having a beer, smoking a cigar, and playing a few hours of pool. Would I trade that for the ability to enjoy lunch out and not going back to work smelling like an ashtray like I can now? Absolutely not.
I figure we'll see a trend of at least some of the 30 states with a proposition to repeal the anti-smoking measures. I'm curious to see how the vote compares to the original measure to ban it (Arizona for example was 63% for the full ban, 37% against). For the record, there was a limited smoking ban on the ballot as well, but the fact it was sponsored by a cigarette manufacturer probably was a nail in its coffin (it didn't even get a majority vote, despite the fact voters could approve both measures). It would have allowed smoking in establishments whose revenue was at least 50% alcohol and tobacco, as well as other limited places. For Arizona at least, it came down to an all or nothing.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: That's not the point we're trying to make.
Was that directed at me?
quote:If you want to eat at the place without smoke, I don't see why it's so hard to go to a place that doesn't allow smoking.
If you're talking about the smoking places versus non-smoking places that's one thing. Before the laws were passed, most of the places I went to had a non-smoking section (which was rather smoky) and a smoking section. Unless something was changed about the way those are set up, it's harder to find a non-smoking place than it would be for someone to just step outside and smoke for a few minutes. As the states I've been in recently have passed no smoking laws, I don't know what it's like in other states. I'm only speaking from what I remember from a few years ago.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:I don't see why this becomes such a huge issue. Both my parents smoke, and when they go out to eat they smoke before they go in or they smoke afterward. They don't seem to mind.
That's also my experience with friends who smoke. My boyfriend prefers to finish his meal with a clean tasting palette and then enjoy a cigarette out in the cool night air. I've never seen anyone with a fork in one hand and a cigarette in another.
Louisiana's ban on smoking in restuarants has gone over with a barely a hitch and seems to be good for business. In past, I'd go to a restuarant and have to choose between sitting in the smoking section or finding another restuarant to eat at because the non-smoking section was already packed (and unless we were absolutely starving, we usually chose to go elsewhere.) Now restuarants are able to fill every table during peak hours.
I don't mind smoking in bars because I'm used to my boyfriend who smokes and I know its part of the territory if I go. But there are a few places I will not go because the ventilation is terrible. If there's good ventilation or tables where I can sit far away from nearby smokers, then I'm pretty happy. However, with so many cancer incidents in my family, I will never work in a bar no matter how desperate I am for cash or a job. I'm glad I won't have to worry about the risk if I choose to wait table.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I agree with you that restarants and bars with seperate smoking and non-smoking sections are useless. Smoke is suspended particles and noxious gasses, no flimsy partition is going to hold it back.
I just think certain places should be allowed to be smoking only clubs of some kind. If privatization is required, then so be it.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
How difficult would it be for a bar to change to a private club? I'm pretty sure smoking is allowed in private clubs, in TX at least. Is it just a matter of having everyone sign their name at the door? It needn't be exclusive, but a private club where they sell alcohol or food and allow smoking. Hmm, that could be a good investment. It'd probably make a good deal of money, especially if there was a membership fee and alcohol were sold at cost, or at a very small mark up. I know I'd join.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Uh, if cigarettes are so dangerous, why the hell are they still legal? All this dancing around, slowly chipping away at smokers' ability to smoke till they can't anywhere strikes me as really cowardly. Just ban the damn things outright, fer crissakes! That's what you want, so why play around?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:How difficult would it be for a bar to change to a private club? I'm pretty sure smoking is allowed in private clubs, in TX at least. Is it just a matter of having everyone sign their name at the door?
IIRC, that's pretty much how all bars are in Utah, along with something like a $5 membership fee, because of Utah's liquor laws.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:How difficult would it be for a bar to change to a private club? I'm pretty sure smoking is allowed in private clubs, in TX at least. Is it just a matter of having everyone sign their name at the door?
IIRC, that's pretty much how all bars are in Utah, along with something like a $5 membership fee, because of Utah's liquor laws.
You seem awfully familiar with Utah's liquor and smoking practices. Hmmmm...... Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Uh, if cigarettes are so dangerous, why the hell are they still legal? All this dancing around, slowly chipping away at smokers' ability to smoke till they can't anywhere strikes me as really cowardly. Just ban the damn things outright, fer crissakes! That's what you want, so why play around?
[flippant]
I, for one, personally don't care if people kill themselves be it slowly by cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana or quickly by riding motorcycles without helmets, at the business end of a gun, or poking a large shark with a stick. Just so long as they do it where I don't have to share in their chosen method.
[/flippant]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Uh, if cigarettes are so dangerous, why the hell are they still legal? All this dancing around, slowly chipping away at smokers' ability to smoke till they can't anywhere strikes me as really cowardly. Just ban the damn things outright, fer crissakes! That's what you want, so why play around?
Probably because no politician wants to deal with several million people all going through withdrawal all at once Plus the tobacco companies still have a decent treasury to dissuade them with.
-Bok
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Yes, yes, I understand politicians' intractability... but I am curious about jatraqueros... have they signed any petitions? Joined any "Make Tobacco Illegal NOW" organizations?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:How difficult would it be for a bar to change to a private club? I'm pretty sure smoking is allowed in private clubs, in TX at least. Is it just a matter of having everyone sign their name at the door?
IIRC, that's pretty much how all bars are in Utah, along with something like a $5 membership fee, because of Utah's liquor laws.
You seem awfully familiar with Utah's liquor and smoking practices. Hmmmm......
OSC mentions those liquor laws in his excellent short story "Prior Restraint".
edit: I just checked, and no he doesn't. Here's the line I was misremembering:
quote:We found every decent place to get a beer in Salt Lake City -- not a particularly time-consuming activity.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Uh, if cigarettes are so dangerous, why the hell are they still legal? All this dancing around, slowly chipping away at smokers' ability to smoke till they can't anywhere strikes me as really cowardly. Just ban the damn things outright, fer crissakes! That's what you want, so why play around?
I was thinking the other day that it should be probably be illegal to sell tobacco (profiting off the deaths of thousands), but that it should still be legal to grow it for your own usage (if you want to poison yourself, I have no objections). I think marijuana should probably go the same route.
I would, however, be very much in favor of laws requiring parents to not smoke where their children can be affected by the smoke. I was raised by a chain smoker, and having to hold your breath around your parent(s) is not something I think children should go through. (She ended up dying at the age 43 of a heart attack caused by her smoking.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:How difficult would it be for a bar to change to a private club? I'm pretty sure smoking is allowed in private clubs, in TX at least. Is it just a matter of having everyone sign their name at the door?
IIRC, that's pretty much how all bars are in Utah, along with something like a $5 membership fee, because of Utah's liquor laws.
You seem awfully familiar with Utah's liquor and smoking practices. Hmmmm......
OSC mentions those liquor laws in his excellent short story "Prior Restraint".
edit: I just checked, and no he doesn't. Here's the line I was misremembering:
quote:We found every decent place to get a beer in Salt Lake City -- not a particularly time-consuming activity.
I wouldn't put it past him to have done so, especially in his short story work. Do you have Maps in a Mirror?
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
I don't smoke in my house, and I certainly don't smoke around my nieces and nephews, however, when I go out to breakfast with my friends, most of us like to enjoy a cigarette while we're waiting for our food. This might just be an urban legend, but I've heard that they act as an appetite suppressant. We usually go to our local Cracker Barrel, where they have a very high ceiling and good ventilation. And people don't have a fork in one hand and a cigarette in the other. It's pretty frequent to see, in a room of about 20 smokers, no one smoking.
I do prefer to smoke outside, usually, but when I'm at a bar, well, having to step out while I'm trying to get wasted seems a little ridicules. I mean, I'm certainly not there for my health to begin with, and I suspect most people aren't.
I like the "private club" idea very much, and I know there are places where they simply won't enforce the ban, but still... I do feel like the government is trying to baby-sit us, and I don't like that.
I guess another part of the problem is that non-smokers sometimes act like not-smoking somehow makes them a better person. Not that I've seen it much on here, but trust me, non-smokers can sound awfully high and mighty when they're trying to explain to you all of the evil and ugly things you do because you like tobacco.
Here's an out-of-the-box solution: Make it illegal not to smoke if you're over 18. That way, all the non-smokers will learn to love it or die because their lungs are weak. I have no problem with survival of the fittest and chemical addiction getting rid of the opposition for me. Besides, it will help curb any of the over-population problems that might be on the horizon.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Here's an out-of-the-box solution: Make it illegal not to smoke if you're over 18. That way, all the non-smokers will learn to love it or die because their lungs are weak. I have no problem with survival of the fittest and chemical addiction getting rid of the opposition for me. Besides, it will help curb any of the over-population problems that might be on the horizon.
Suggesting really callous and obnoxious solutions to this problem won't garner you much sympathy.
And by the way, no thank you, 400,000 of you folks dying a year from cigarette related deaths in the US each year is enough to stave off any problem we might have with overpopulation.
Incidentally I don't believe there IS an overpopulation problem in the US.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, it’s neither here nor there, but bars were designed to sell liquor, casinos were designed to gamble in, and restaurants were designed to sell food. None of them were designed for you to smoke in, hell, plenty of them don’t even have decent ventilation throughout the portions of the building where guests frequent (until recent laws regarding this went into effect) which to me is a good sign that they were designed without the slightest consideration for smokers.
Also, you have about as much “right” to smoke as you do to spread anthrax in a crowded space.
I don’t get what the big deal is. No serious legislator is talking about banning smoking all together, which in a country that bans marijuana sales absolutely astounds me. But you can still smoke in your home, or in your car, in your back yard, etc. Though I should add that I think it should be considered child abuse to smoke in the house when a child is present. What’s your beef? As a resident of Michigan, I’m thrilled that we’re getting back to this. I knew they were talking about it after the midterms with Democrats retook the House in Michigan, and I hope it goes through as fast as possible. It’s been enacted in 30 states, and you know what? There was no mass shutdowns of restaurants or bars, or in the states that have them, casinos. Business stayed the same or increased.
Incidentally, the Green movement has a concern in these discussions. The increased creation of special patios for smokers in cooler months has led to a massive increase in purchasing of very large space heaters for those patios. They are concerned that a nation’s worth of restaurant and bar patios that use space heaters could be a major increase in carbon emissions. I’m skeptical at the moment, but I await more studies.
And as an aside, the “I don’t care if you kill yourself so long as you don’t do it to me,” argument fails where their medical bills meet yours and your tax dollars. It might not effect your health, but it certainly effects you.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I do have Maps in a Mirror. Why do you ask?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
And I don't get what the big deal is with having smoking establishments. If you don't like it, don't go. What's your beef?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I do have Maps in a Mirror. Why do you ask?
Just wondered if that particular short story was to be found in that collection.
The first 1/3rd of the book I have read has been utterly amazing. I was wondering if the whole collection is that good. I've wanted to buy it for some time as every time I borrow it from the library something inevitably comes up which prevents me from reading it.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I equate smoking in a confined space with spitting on someone. Maybe I like to spit, and it certainly doesn't bother me to spit on you, but I bet you don't want to be spit on. Should you just avoid the places where I frequent, so you can avoid being spit on, or should I refrain from spitting on you?
I think other people should refrain from putting their smoke into my lungs. There are lots of places I can safely spit, and there are lots of places you can safely smoke. Let's both agree to be polite and considerate of other people's feelings, and not force each other to experience our second-hand disgusting habits.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Say you walk up to an establishment where everyone inside is spitting on each other and no one minds. Heck, maybe it's even a designated spitting place and theres a sign outside to that effect. Your walking in and getting upset with people for spitting on you would be unfounded.
I should also mention that I agree that smoking sections are pretty pointless unless there is a solid wall/window with a latching door dividing it from the rest of the restaurant. I'm still talking about seperate smoking and non smoking facilities.
Edit: Think of a dance club that uses a smoke machine. They smell bad, burn my eyes and make me cough. I hate them. I don't go to dance clubs that have smoke machines and complain that they should turn them off. I go to dance clubs that don't use smoke machines.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
But there are no non-smoking establishments except where laws mandate them.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: But there are no non-smoking establishments except where laws mandate them.
Exactly. What if every restaurant had a spitting section, and people frequently walked by your table, spitting on each other on the way there, and some of it landed in your food?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Really? Every IHOP I've been to in the past 7 years has been totaly non smoking. What about Starbucks? As a coffee shop, it's pretty much the only one around here that doesn't allow smoking. I don't think they're suffering.
Edit: If that happened MC, I would go to a restuarant that didn't have a spitting section, or talk to the owner about how he's probably losing customers that don't like spit in their food.
Edit2: wait, I just realized you said if "every" restaurant has one. That isn't what I'm talking about. I am not advocating every restaurant or bar have a smoking section. I am advocating a restaurant or bar being able to make the decision to be all smoking or all non smoking.
Edit3: Shoot! I just remembered I have been to an IHOP recently that had a smoking section. But I know that the individual franchises have the decision to be all non smoking if they want to. Many have excercised that right.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And as an aside, the “I don’t care if you kill yourself so long as you don’t do it to me,” argument fails where their medical bills meet yours and your tax dollars. It might not effect your health, but it certainly effects you.
I know this is a side effect, but it's still only a drop in the bucket until the US adopts nationalized health care (AHAHAHAHAahahahaha... Seriously, not on the horizon). I would start to care if the government was legally bound to provide health care to smokers. But that really is an entirely different can of worms.
Also, I value my health over my money, so if I had to lose one it isn't going to be a hard choice.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Incidentally I don't believe there IS an overpopulation problem in the US."
On the contrary, since the generally acknowleged greatest generation lived in a country of 122million people (at end of WWII), our current lack of such greatness is obviously the result of overpopulation diluting the greatness pool by trying to spread it over 178million people too many.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Can't argue with math.
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well, it’s neither here nor there, but bars were designed to sell liquor, casinos were designed to gamble in, and restaurants were designed to sell food. None of them were designed for you to smoke in, hell, plenty of them don’t even have decent ventilation throughout the portions of the building where guests frequent (until recent laws regarding this went into effect) which to me is a good sign that they were designed without the slightest consideration for smokers.
I don't know what kind of casinos you go to, but all of the ones I've been to (which is, admittedly, only 3) have been incredibly spacious with astonishingly effective ventilation systems. Heck, it was almost like they were pumping oxygen into them, they were so clean. And people were smoking all over the place.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Also, you have about as much “right” to smoke as you do to spread anthrax in a crowded space.
It's just death, I don't see what you're so afraid of. Stop pretending that life isn't inherently dangerous. And what's so special about you that you get to live forever without any inconvenience? You keep talking like second-hand smoke is 100% guaranteed to kill you, when first-hand smoke isn't guaranteed to kill you. At worst, when two adults are in a public building and one of them is smoking, an inconvenience has been created for the non-smoker, not a death sentence.
I know it's a little different for someone working an 8 hour + shift at a smoke filled bar, and I would support rules on ventilation and some limits to help protect workers, but the phrase "ban smoking in all workplaces" doesn't designate public or private and seems too extreme.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It’s been enacted in 30 states, and you know what? There was no mass shutdowns of restaurants or bars, or in the states that have them, casinos. Business stayed the same or increased.
On this thread, no pro-smoker claimed there would be mass shutdowns or businesses losing customers on a grand scale. You (and several others) have successfully countered an argument that was never presented by anyone here, good job. Now can we move on?
I started smoking when I was 21. Up until that point, I hated smoke. But I was never rude about it. Yes, I thought it was gross. Yes, I thought it was unpleasant. But I was not incapable of finding solutions to these inconveniences or simply dealing with them. I just find it strange that it's acceptable to be rude to smokers now, even to the point where people complain about smoke when they really haven't good cause to, they just assume that most people will sympathize with them and smokers are easy targets.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "Incidentally I don't believe there IS an overpopulation problem in the US."
On the contrary, since the generally acknowleged greatest generation lived in a country of 122million people (at end of WWII), our current lack of such greatness is obviously the result of overpopulation diluting the greatness pool by trying to spread it over 178million people too many.
Curse you Tom Brokaw!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: In every case that a city/etc has banned indoor smoking within business establishments serving the public, bar patronage has gone UP by a large amount.
In every case that a restaurant (or other business serving off-the-street customers) has banned (or has been forced by law to ban) smoking, the customer traffic has increased by a large amount.
"
BTW
Bullshit.
I know of at least a few places, where I have lived and worked in those types of places, that did not "suffer" such increases.
MA banned smoking in public places, and within 8 months 12 bars closed....including several brand new million-dollar cigar bars. All within the small city I lived in (and the surrounding area, within 15 miles)
A lot of restaurants had similar luck, and about the same amount closed as well.
Two years later the business still had not reached peak pre-ban days.
I hate smoking, BTW, and am glad it was banned. I just don't like people saying that there are no adverse consequences due to such bans.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Pff. You would not object to regulating the 'property right' of a factory to belch sulphur dioxide into the air upwind of your house. Property rights are not some mystic, unchangeable sacred covenant handed down by unerring scribes from Mount Sinai; they are whatever we happen to agree they are, and can manage to enforce.
You know, when you assume you basically make an ass out of...you. And are you seriously equaiting smoking in a bar with heavy pollution? The only way I can be subjected to smoke in a bar is if I voluntarily enter that bar, which, by the way, is someone else's property. If a factories pollution crosses from land owned by the factory into land I own then I certainly have a case against them.
quote:If you're talking about the smoking places versus non-smoking places that's one thing. Before the laws were passed, most of the places I went to had a non-smoking section (which was rather smoky) and a smoking section. Unless something was changed about the way those are set up, it's harder to find a non-smoking place than it would be for someone to just step outside and smoke for a few minutes.
It may be hard, but I know for a fact it's not impossible. And even if it were, so what? No one forces you to give your patronage to restaurants and bars that allow smoking. If you can't find a bar that meets your tastes don't go to the bar.
quote:Also, you have about as much “right” to smoke as you do to spread anthrax in a crowded space.
But apparently you do have the right to enter a private establishment and dictate conditions. It's not about "smoker's rights." It's about the rights of the owner of a private establishment to decide what sorts of behaviour are allowed on his property.
quote:I equate smoking in a confined space with spitting on someone. Maybe I like to spit, and it certainly doesn't bother me to spit on you, but I bet you don't want to be spit on. Should you just avoid the places where I frequent, so you can avoid being spit on, or should I refrain from spitting on you?
If you chose to go to a bar where spitting is the norm, and where you know it to be the norm, I don't really think you have the right to be offended when someone spits on you.
quote:But there are no non-smoking establishments except where laws mandate them.
Laughably untrue.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Architraz Warden: I would start to care if the government was legally bound to provide health care to smokers.
It is, via ERs (cannot turn away patients, regardless of ability to pay), via Medicaid (once sufficient financial problems have caused people to spend down to next to nothing), and via Medicare (for all those at the age at which smoking-related ailments tend to arise).
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: You keep talking like second-hand smoke is 100% guaranteed to kill you, when first-hand smoke isn't guaranteed to kill you. At worst, when two adults are in a public building and one of them is smoking, an inconvenience has been created for the non-smoker, not a death sentence.
I'm asthmatic. When I'm near someone who's smoking for more than a couple minutes, I start coughing uncontrollably (and it hurts, so I do actually try not to cough) and I can feel my asthma kicking in. If I'm stuck there much longer I get a headache. It's not just an "inconvenience" for me. It has an immediate, direct impact on my health and comfort. How would you feel if I suddenly made you breath through a straw and started squeezing your head?
I don't actually complain to smokers, particularly when smoking is allowed there. I'm not rude, and I don't try to make them feel guilty. But don't try to make me feel guilty or closed minded for not wanting to be forced into a situation where I will feel ill.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I pay for my own health insurance, thank you.
I don't really get what some of these posts are about. I have no problems with the smoking bans, as long as some consideration is made for smokers-- especially in places like Wisconsin where the winters can be bitter and the summers are tropical. A little shelter from the wind or a smoking hut or something.
I completely understand why a non-smoker wouldn't want to inhale smoke. And I prefer to do my smoking in bars on the patio, downwind of other patrons. But sometimes that's not an option and I do like hooch & cigarettes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The difference between non-smoking and smoking restaurants for non-smokers and smokers, is that in a non-smoking restaurant, both non-smokers and smokers can still eat there, the smoker just has to wait until after their meal to smoke. In the smoking establishment, the non-smoker has to go elsewhere. If it's a question of fairness, a minor inconvenience vs. not being able to go at all I think makes non-smoking establishments more fair to both parties. It's not a question of "If you don't like it don't go" for smokers like it is for non-smokers, because ALL your options are open.
Devildreamt -
I've only ever been to four casinos myself (The Detroit 3 and Windsor Casino), which I found to be only moderately smokey (and Windsor I don't think I saw a single smoker). Most restaurants with a smoking section are horrible if I'm anywhere near that section, regardless of ventilation, and don't even get me started on bars, it's a nicotinesplosion.
As for your second point, are you serious? You may have made the choice to suck poison into your lungs, but I haven't, and there are studies to prove that second hand smoke is just as deadly as the smoke you inhale directly. So kindly keep your poison away from me, it's common courtesy. You're fudging your way around the facts like a Big Tobacco spokesperson. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously after posting THAT?
Thirdly, who is being rude to smokers and how?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: I pay for my own health insurance, thank you.
But it's more than just this. You going to be using Medicare eventually, and most health care dollars are spent in the latter years of life (for diseases which are mostly affected by a smoking history, such as heart disease and diabetes). And you are eligible to use Medicaid if something unexpected happens, and your family ends up with no insurance. [I'd hope you wouldn't turn down BadgerCare if your daughter had no other access to insurance.]
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:The difference between non-smoking and smoking restaurants for non-smokers and smokers, is that in a non-smoking restaurant, both non-smokers and smokers can still eat there, the smoker just has to wait until after their meal to smoke. In the smoking establishment, the non-smoker has to go elsewhere. If it's a question of fairness, a minor inconvenience vs. not being able to go at all I think makes non-smoking establishments more fair to both parties. It's not a question of "If you don't like it don't go" for smokers like it is for non-smokers, because ALL your options are open.
I think you may be confusing smokers with jerks. I mean, the smoking establishments would be there for people that wanted to smoke, not for smokers to go to at the exclusion of their non-smoking friends. If restaurants were forced to make the choise, I believe most would choose non-smoking, and most people would go to non-smoking restaurants. But there could still be a couple of places where smokers could go, and they would know they weren't bothering anyone.
quote:I don't actually complain to smokers, particularly when smoking is allowed there. I'm not rude, and I don't try to make them feel guilty. But don't try to make me feel guilty or closed minded for not wanting to be forced into a situation where I will feel ill.
As a smoker, I would really rather you told me. I try not to smoke around strangers, and would feel horrible if there were someone becoming physically ill because of me. Really guys, smokers aren't all jerks. You can be, like, "Hey man, do you mind smoking a little farther away?"
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: How do you expect anyone to take you seriously after posting THAT?
Taking things seriously is overrated.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Thirdly, who is being rude to smokers and how?
I'm so glad you asked.
Disclosure: I am aware of logical fallacies. I know that my experiences don't dictate the norm. I apologize in advance if my political opinions are based on my personal experiences. Also, I apologize if some of my speak (prior speak included) is polluted by my emotions.
The story: I attend a community college. There are signs posted asking people to smoke 50 feet from the building. Sometimes in Michigan we have winter, and it gets cold. So smokers (myself included) will huddle close to the building to avoid the biting wind. We're still a good 20-30 feet from the door, but we get frequent complaints that our smoke is "bothering someone." People approach us, and tell us to move back or else they'll call the police, etc. And our smoke clearly isn't bothering anyone. It blows away so fast we can barely even see it, and it blows away from the doors. And yet we get confronted, frequently. After awhile, it starts to feel like people are trying to boss us around simply because they think they can, not because they have a legitimate complaint.
As for the claim that cigarette smoke can make a meal taste like ashtray.... well, once you've tasted ash on your tongue, you'll probably see why I can't help but laugh at this obvious exaggeration. Maybe the smell will give a slight taint to the idea of the flavor of the food, but in my 21 years as a non-smoker, I never once felt that cigarette smoke ruined a meal for me. Yes, I had eaten in smoking sections. Yes, I had eaten meals at houses where the adults were chain smokers. Yes, I had a powerful and sensitive nose. And I never found the taint to be more than a slight inconvenience. It was there, the meal would have tasted better without it, but suggesting that it can ruin a dining experience (under reasonable circumstances) is outrageous to me, especially if the smoker isn't near you.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Recently, I was outdoors with my baby, standing in one of the few shady spots. The guy standing next to me was smoking UNTIL he noticed the baby. He immediately left the shade and gave an apologetic look. So, while I have known some smokers to be jerks, I know that some are very considerate. But, I would like restaurants to be all smoking or no smoking. The little dividers do nothing. I think whether or not you can declare yourself all smoking and get an exemption depends on the state.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Smoking DOES affect taste, and rather seriously. I can't tell you the number of people I know personally who have commented on how much things taste better once they stopped smoking. Itis just hard to realize that when you are still smoking.
As most of taste is in the smell, you can understand why.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
DD -
If you don't mind my asking, where in Michigan are you?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I do have Maps in a Mirror. Why do you ask?
Just wondered if that particular short story was to be found in that collection.
The first 1/3rd of the book I have read has been utterly amazing. I was wondering if the whole collection is that good. I've wanted to buy it for some time as every time I borrow it from the library something inevitably comes up which prevents me from reading it.
Yes, "Prior Restraint" is in Maps in a Mirror. In the multi-volume version of Maps, it's found in The Hanged Man.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
DD, I love food. It's a big deal to me to cook food and to enjoy it. ANY taste reminiscent of cigarette smoke is more than a "minor inconvenience" to me. It can, and does, ruin my meal entirely. I pay great attention to what I eat because I know exactly what I want to taste, and smoke is NOT what I want to taste. I find it revolting.
As to being asked to move, the smoke that's blowing away from you is being blown toward someone else. Several posters have commented on how even tiny amounts of smoke make life miserable for them. At my undergrad uni, the general policy was 9m from the doors, but due to the shape of the buildings, it was still often impossible to get into a building without having to hold my breath. And I HAD to get in that door. 50ft would allow enough berth for people to get by without issue. The time it takes to walk that short distance, even in the cold, is minimal compared to the time you're standing there smoking, anyway.
Sorry if I sound unsympathetic, but I'm rather protective of my lungs, seeing as there's a history of lung and smoking-related issues in my family. I'm all for everyone having the right to smoke, but when it comes down to it, I'm even more in favour of my right to not smoke.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Here's what I wrote to my State Senator when he rebuffed my plea to vote against the smoking ban:
"The way I see things is that there are places that smoking is expected to be, such as bars, and that non-smokers should avoid them if they are worried about their health.
Or, have half the bars non-smoking and the other half smoking, that way we all get what we want. Have the bars that allow smoking put up big signs so people know what they are walking into. And have the staff sign a waver.
As a patron of many bars over the years I detest the government threatening to come in and decree that I cannot smoke in a place that I have been attending and smoking in for years. I see the current trend of banning smoking as an easy political win for governments and corporations alike, since smoking has become so unpopular. It’s easy to be against murder or kidnapping or racism. Smoking seems to have fallen in with easy things to rally against.
Smoking is a legal substance, just like alcohol. But maybe we should have another go at banning drinking.
More people die from pollutants from cars, factories, and power plants… why is everyone picking on the smokers? It’s like crushing an ant when there’s an elephant in the room.
Thanks for reading and sorry if I came off harsh, but I am passionate about this topic. As a libertarian at heart I dislike the government butting into my life and making a criminal out of a dutiful citizen."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:More people die from pollutants from cars, factories, and power plants… why is everyone picking on the smokers? It’s like crushing an ant when there’s an elephant in the room.
Eh. I thought, even though I disagree with you in general, that you had a great statement up until that point. I think you're right about the easy political win by the way.
But smoking related diseases cause thousands of deaths every year, and we have some of the cleanest air we've had in a century thanks to measures like the Clean Air Act, and emissions standards have never been better since the introduction of LEVs, ULEVs, and SULEVs. Besides, I don't think you make a good argument by saying "Sure, all these things are evil, but you should let this little evil go in exchange for big evils." You'd freely admit that it's still evil. I think calling it an ant vs. an elephant is gross hyperbole.
Frankly I'd like to see the specific study you read that said people die more from car, factory and power plant pollutants than from cigarettes. I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, but given the thousands of deaths cigarettes cause, I would be equally unsurprised if it swung the other way.
Personally, I think it'd be fair to ban smoking, but allow a set number of smoking licenses to establishments. Though, not like how it was originally done with marijuana, which was a de facto total ban, I think it should be fair. I'd like to be able to go to a bar, but I can't. And the only reason is the smoke, to be perfectly honest. If there was a total ban, I wouldn't speak out against it, but I'd be perfectly accepting of a compromise that left both sides with places to go to.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
Telp-
I come from a family of asthmatics, and they all expect that there will be smoking in bars, which means that they cannot go to bars. Period. They can't walk into them without having an asthma attack. You say non-smokers should avoid bars if they're worried about their health. So because you have this inalienable right to smoke wherever you want, my entire family should not be able to enter a bar? Really?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I think people on both sides of this are being ridiculous.
The anti-smoking folks have made laws that force businesses to not allow smoking. This is stupid. Good ventilation is all you need to protect non-smokers from secondhand smoke. Businesses should have the right to pay for better ventilation and allow smokers to smoke, if that's what the owner of the business wants to do. That's common sense.
The smokers are being idiots by smoking too much in the first place, and in many cases, for no good reason. They're driving up the medical costs that we all have to pay. It's not smoking that kills, usually, it's smoking too much. There are also spitless snuff options that are becoming available, from Camel, and I think even Phillip Morris. These offend no one, and are excellent substitutes for when you cannot smoke due to the situation.
I say that some people on both sides of the debate are being childish and ridiculous.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Do I get points for saying that in addition to wanting smoking to be legal (although I do not oppose certain restrictions on where), I also oppose public healthcare in all shapes and forms?
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
Okay, continuing to speak for the asthmatics in the world here: Good ventilation is NOT ENOUGH to protect them from the smoke. My sister frequently says that having a smoking section of a restaurant is like having a peeing section of a pool, and believe me, I have been out with my family in places with smoke enough times to know that this is completely true.
That said, of course there are people on both sides of the debate being childish and ridiculous. That's always true of any debate.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Do I get points for saying that in addition to wanting smoking to be legal (although I do not oppose certain restrictions on where), I also oppose public healthcare in all shapes and forms?
Is it okay to ask you about this? (Honestly, I can't see how we can have a modern society without public health care, at least by default. Not that I'm saying we have to for moral reasons (though I would agree with that, too), but as a matter of the practicality of providing emergency care. There just isn't time to check up on someone's insurance before paramedics give CPR, or before someone in late labor is attended to in an ER, etc. And those costs that aren't paid will get passed on.)
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I'd be happy to discuss it with you, CT, though not here. I'll compose a response to your parenthetical when I get the chance. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Question. Isn't this a free market? If smoking is so unpopular then there should be plenty of bars around that are non-smoking. I say the people with asthma go there and leave the smokers the remaining bars that allow it.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think the smokers let their addiction affect their thinking. They just don't see it as a problem for other people, they refuse to see, because it might mean they have to curtail their addiction. They'd rather believe that people are exaggerating about the breathing problems they have.
I know someone whose asthma is so sensitive to smoke that even the lingering smell on someone's clothes who's been around a smoker can cause her to have trouble breathing. She has to take steroids so that she has significant health issues just from the side effects. But her labored breathing and oxygen deprivation still leave her exhausted a lot of the time. When people casually assume it's no problem for her to smell their smoke, they're doing her serious physical harm. Why do they not care? I think it's because they're addicts, and addicts put their addiction ahead of everything else.
Every time I go visit my mom who smokes I get head congestion that lasts for 2 or 3 days. It's not bad enough to keep me away entirely, but I go probably half as often because of that. I have absolutely no doubt that if my allergies got worse and I couldn't go at all, mom would still not consider not smoking while I'm there. It's her house and if I don't like the smoke I can not go, is her opinion. In other words, she would decide I was just pretending in order to make her feel bad about smoking. <laughs> She would never believe it was real. She smoked around all her grandchildren when they were little, despite studies showing the ill-effects this has on their lungs. In her mind, all that is invented. She would never admit to herself there was something real there, because it would mean she had to go longer times without smoking, something she just isn't prepared to do.
Posted by BYSOAL (Member # 3846) on :
So... living in a free market society gives you the right to hinder others peoples' breathing and cause harm to them?
Interesting. My personal preference is for the government to protect us from the extremes of a free market society, and this would be one of those cases. Particularly at the behest of its citizens.
Also, aren't comparisons to power plants, factories, cars et all a bit fallacious? All of those items actually serve a productive purpose (you can argue driving cars for enjoyment if you really want, but they are very useful tools nonetheless).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So because you have this inalienable right to smoke wherever you want, my entire family should not be able to enter a bar?
You are free to enter bars where the owner has decided not to allow smoking.
quote:So... living in a free market society gives you the right to hinder others peoples' breathing and cause harm to them?
No, living in a free market society gives you the right to not enter places where people's acts, as permitted by the business establishment, hinder your breathing. If enough people don't enter those places, they will go out of business.
quote:But it's more than just this. You going to be using Medicare eventually, and most health care dollars are spent in the latter years of life (for diseases which are mostly affected by a smoking history, such as heart disease and diabetes). And you are eligible to use Medicaid if something unexpected happens, and your family ends up with no insurance. [I'd hope you wouldn't turn down BadgerCare if your daughter had no other access to insurance.]
It's the very common-sense concept that if government is paying for health care then government ought to be able to regulate actions that harm the health of the actors that is at the root of my philosophical resistance (not opposition, but resistance) to government-provided health care.
(I know you weren't presenting government subsidy of medical care as a reason to regulate smoking in that post, but it's the post that made me think of this.)
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:You are free to enter bars where the owner has decided not to allow smoking.
Actually, his entire family's free to enter whatever bar they want--they're choosing not to enter bars where people smoke.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
If it were up to me smoking would be outright illegal, or cigarettes would be taxed an insane amount so that those who insist on smoking would be doing some good for the rest of us. It's an inherently stupid and selfish habit.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Quoting myself from the first page:
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: Just so you are aware, OP, this website is hardly pro-smoking. There are a few of us, but we're a silent minority as any thread about smoking quickly turns into an anti-smoking pile-on.
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
quote:If it were up to me smoking would be outright illegal, or cigarettes would be taxed an insane amount so that those who insist on smoking would be doing some good for the rest of us. It's an inherently stupid and selfish habit.
It's a good thing that it's not up to you, because that's an incredibly selfish point-of-view.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avadaru:
quote:If it were up to me smoking would be outright illegal, or cigarettes would be taxed an insane amount so that those who insist on smoking would be doing some good for the rest of us. It's an inherently stupid and selfish habit.
It's a good thing that it's not up to you, because that's an incredibly selfish point-of-view.
Yeah, I'm just a heartless monster... suggesting we eliminate totally unnecessary carcinogens from the air, and maybe clear up some room in cancer wards for people who aren't there just because they couldn't pick a faster way to kill themselves.
Next I'll be suggesting that they outlaw puppy dogs and flowers.
Really, tell me the good that comes from smoking and then explain how it outweighs the bad. Then you'll be able to tell me how smokers aren't the selfish ones.
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
It doesn't matter whether smoking is good or bad - what matters is your assumption that you can make a choice for someone else about whether or not they can indulge in a habit that happens to be harmful. To me, that suggestion is every bit as ridiculous as outlawing "puppy dogs and flowers". It simply is not your decision to make. Or the government's, for that matter. I believe that if a restaurant or a bar wants to allow smoking on the premises, then the owner of the establishment should be permitted to make that choice.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avadaru: It doesn't matter whether smoking is good or bad - what matters is your assumption that you can make a choice for someone else about whether or not they can indulge in a habit that happens to be harmful. To me, that suggestion is every bit as ridiculous as outlawing "puppy dogs and flowers". It simply is not your decision to make. Or the government's, for that matter. I believe that if a restaurant or a bar wants to allow smoking on the premises, then the owner of the establishment should be permitted to make that choice.
(Quick note, didn't feel like slogging through the whole thread, and I'm sure my same points have been made, but I'm lazy. I apologize in advance )
If a habit is harmful to people around the person with that habit, then that habit should be heavily discouraged. There are a multitude of other habits that are harmful that we already legislate against. Abuse of drugs like heroin, cocaine, and others are one example. None of these drugs are typically harmful to anyone but the user directly, but the effects on society are quite different. I'm not trying to compare tobacco use to these drugs, my point is as I said. A person should not have the right to cause potential harm to another person as a result of one of their habits.
As for ventilation in businesses that wish to allow smoking, you would have to use ventilation that would almost turn the business into a wind tunnel in order to effectively remove both the smoke and harmful, invisible chemicals found inside cigarette smoke from a room in such a way to prevent non smokers from breathing it in. This would result in severe noise problems as well as an incredible lack of comfort for all customers.
That said, I am *very much* against public smoking in enclosed spaces. Whenever I'm near a smoker, I get sick. I'm not certain, but I'm fairly sure I'm allergic to some of the crap that is in cigarette smoke, since I can't stand being around a smoker for 5 minutes without getting a mild stomach ache. Going into a smoke filled bar for 30 minutes one time brought me very close to vomiting. This is in addition to the severe irritation it causes my asthma. Why should I have to suffer like that so people can get their nicotine fix whenever and however *they* want? Don't I count?
The simple fact of the matter is this, smokers *choose* to smoke. They are not forced to. If it is so inconvenient for you to continue your habit, stop. If it is such an important part of your life to have that nicotine in your body, please do your best to make certain that it doesn't cause anyone else discomfort. The government is legislating public smoking because, quite simply, too many smokers just don't care about anyone's health. They want their fix, they want it now, and they don't care at all who they hurt or bother with their habit. If smokers would accept the fact that they are bothering other people, and be a little less selfish, the government wouldn't be forced to step in and protect the large number of people who don't smoke.
edit: I'd also like to add an interesting experience I had in the hospital. An old lady who had been brought in on an ambulance was in a room across the hall from me. Her voice was high-pitched and severely cracked from years of smoking. I listened for 30 minutes before having my appendix removed as this woman was requesting a cigarette from the nurse. "We can't allow you to smoke in here, Ma'am," the nurse would respond. Every time the nurse said this, the lady would respond, "I don't care, I need a cigarette!" and the nurse would explain, calmly, why she couldn't smoke and that she could not have a cigarette. By the time I had to go in to surgery myself she was practically irate at this nurse because he would not let her smoke in the hospital. My question, and I would actually like an honest answer for this, why would someone willingly form a habit that could eventually cause them to care so little for the health and safety of others?
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
While you can say the waiters and waitresses have made a personal choice about whether or not to work there, I can't help but think about the six months I used latex gloves despite being allergic. The job paid well, good hours and I had had trouble finding a job prior to that, so when I realized I had developed a latex allergy and the lab owner wouldn't buy nitrile, I just put up with it. Looking back, I probably should have fought them on that decision. People need money and turning down a job because of health problems can be extremely difficult. So, it seems like banning smoking in public places eliminates for many the difficult decision of feeding your family today or protecting your self from a cancer risk.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avadaru: It doesn't matter whether smoking is good or bad - what matters is your assumption that you can make a choice for someone else about whether or not they can indulge in a habit that happens to be harmful. To me, that suggestion is every bit as ridiculous as outlawing "puppy dogs and flowers". It simply is not your decision to make. Or the government's, for that matter.
While I'll admit that making cigarettes illegal is an extreme solution that isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future, tell me, who wouldn't be better off if it were to happen?
It's not the government's decision to make? It's the people who give the government the authority to make these sorts of decisions. As smokers become a smaller and smaller minority (ie. as people gradually wise up) they'll continue to find that they have fewer and fewer places where their habit is tolerated. It's not the big bad government restricting their freedoms, it's their fellow citizens saying they've had enough and that if smokers aren't smart enough or considerate enough to get that inhaling and expelling poisons is a stupid decision, the rest of us will make that decision for them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It's not the government's decision to make? It's the people who give the government the authority to make these sorts of decisions.
And do those people have the right to tell others which activities which, even though they may harm nobody but myself, are too dangerous for others to be allowed to participate in?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
According to a majority of Republicans, yep. [/glib]
I think we've established in the history of the US that yes, government does have a right to make laws about what you may or may not do outside of your home (and unglibly, Republicans (and probably Democrats, though nothing comes to mind) seem to be at the forefront of that charge in the last 10 years at least) when your actions might effect other citizens.
Unless you're not asking whether they CAN, but whether or not he thinks they SHOULD be able to or not. I'd have to say sometimes yes, sometimes no, would depend on the circumstances.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:It's not the government's decision to make? It's the people who give the government the authority to make these sorts of decisions.
And do those people have the right to tell others which activities which, even though they may harm nobody but myself, are too dangerous for others to be allowed to participate in?
Therein lies the deciding factor, no? I personally believe that people should be able to do what they want if they are the only ones being directly affected by it. But how are non-smokers ever going to avoid being harmed when children have to live with parents who smoke, for example.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
So how many people still smoke?
quote: In the July 12-15, 2007, poll, 21% of American adults report that they smoked cigarettes in the past week. Gallup has never found a lower percentage in the more than 60 years it has asked this question -- although from a statistical perspective, a 22% reading in 2004 and a pair of 23% measurements in 1999 and 2006 would be considered equivalent to the current reading.
So to be fair let's give smokers 25% of bars. We'll take the rest.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Compromise?! Impossible. All or none. There is no middle ground. [/sarcasm]
That sounds entirely fair to me.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Resistance is futile.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Republicans (and probably Democrats, though nothing comes to mind) seem to be at the forefront of that charge in the last 10 years at least) when your actions might effect other citizens.
I think you're forgetting handgun bans and other gun control, as well as a host of other things.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Indeed, I did forget. I specifically didn't single out Republicans because I was sure there'd be something Democrats had done, but literally nothing was coming to mind. Thanks for filling in the cracks.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: I don't know what kind of casinos you go to, but all of the ones I've been to (which is, admittedly, only 3) have been incredibly spacious with astonishingly effective ventilation systems. Heck, it was almost like they were pumping oxygen into them, they were so clean. And people were smoking all over the place.
I just got back from a weekend in Vegas, during which I spent quite a bit of time in well-ventilated casinos where people were smoking. It didn't reek the way a smoky bar interior does, but I still noticed it immediately upon entering. The smell pervaded the non-smoking hotel rooms above the casino as well; when I got home to my apartment and opened my luggage it was obvious. (Note: I didn't gamble, and consequently spent very little time physically near any smokers. All of the clothes I took still smelled.)
I don't smoke, and while I'm not asthmatic/otherwise sensitive to smoke beyond being repulsed and sometimes nauseated by it, I don't think a smoker would have noticed.
Posted by DavidR (Member # 7473) on :
Okay, I have only read parts of this thread so far, so if I am repeating anything that others have said I apologize up front.
I am not a smoker, but I don't agree with smoking bans in bars. I can see it in restaurants, offices, and most other public places, but not bars. I understand and agree with many of the reasons for smoking bans, which is why I have no problem with such bans in most public places, but if we remove all such places for people to socialize while smoking we approach the smoking equivalent of prohibition, and we all know how well prohibition of alchohol worked. It just sent it underground and empowered organized crime.
My city recently passed such a ban, which was repealled several months later, but will be replaced with a statewide ban starting at the beginning of next year. Many bar owners in town started reporting drops in revenue of as much as 40 to 60 percent from the same time period the previous year. Many long established bars in town started laying off employees. Many bars in outlying communities that do not have the smoking ban started picking up business.
I was taking an economics class while the citywide ban was being discussed and we discussed different ways that could address the problem without an outright ban. I think that the best idea that came out of our class discussion was to have a smoking license for bars to allow smoking on the premises much like the alcohol license they have to have in order to serve alcohol. The number of smoking licenses allowed would be a percentage of the number of acohol licenses. An establishment would have to receive less than a certain percentage of its revenue from food on average to be eligible for a smoking license. An establishment that wants a smoking license would have to meet certain ventilation requirements, and would have to make available information on the dangers of second hand smoke to all patrons and get a signed affidavit from all employees that they had been provided a copy of and read the same information. The intended result of this idea was to provide for some drinking environments that allowed smoking and others that do not, and allow the market to decide which ones will succeed and which ones will fail.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Drinking a beer doesn't endanger the bartenders health....unless he is slow providing a refill, I guess. Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
quote: If a habit is harmful to people around the person with that habit, then that habit should be heavily discouraged.
I quite agree with this. I am all for discouraging smokine. And honestly, I can't think of a single person, smoker or non-smoker, who actually *encourages* the act of smoking. I'm a smoker, and I know it's a disgusting, filthy habit, but it's MY disgusting and filthy habit. I'm not telling anyone else to smoke, and if I am ever around a non-smoker, I ask if it's ok before I light up. The only exception to this is if I'm at a bar or a concert - I'm not going to ask everyone else in the entire venue if it's ok for me to smoke. I paid to be there, and if the owners of the building are ok with it, that's good enough for me. I recently went to a show at which the artists performing had specially requested no smoking, and I didn't have any problem stepping outside to have a cigarette. Any bar owner who decides they don't want smoking on their premises has my full respect and understanding, but I don't think it's any of the government's business what goes on in a privately owned establishment.
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
Also, DavidR, I like your ideas.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: Quoting myself from the first page:
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: Just so you are aware, OP, this website is hardly pro-smoking. There are a few of us, but we're a silent minority as any thread about smoking quickly turns into an anti-smoking pile-on.
Yeah, yeah. You're martyrs for the cause.
*tiny violin*
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I just got back from a weekend in Vegas, during which I spent quite a bit of time in well-ventilated casinos where people were smoking.
I, OTOH, found it uncomfortable to even walk through the casino in the hotel. There was not a consciously noticeable smell, but I definitely started getting the symptoms I associate with cigarette smoke exposure. (Headache, nausea.) The time I had to walk through when I was already nauseated (by something else), it was almost enough to make me lose my lunch. So I avoided the casino, and kept my $20.
(I do not have asthma, but I do have respiratory allergies.)
I live in California, which has one of the longest restaurant/bar cigarette bans. While there was an initial economic impact, after a few years the establishments were, on average, doing considerably better than they had been before the ban. And a friend who owns a restaurant tells me he doesn't have to replace or professionally clean the curtains, carpets, and other furnishings as often as he did before the ban.
Also, I agree with Avadaru, and I am intrigued by DavidR's suggestion.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:we all know how well prohibition of alchohol worked
I don't think that's true.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Legit- I thin that's the way to go ultimately.
I am of a mixed mind on this issue. On the one hand there's nothing better than a cigarette with your third pint of good beer, or while you're playing cards, but there's also nothing much worse than a room full of people enjoying the same thing. If we simply encourage businesses to limit smoking to areas or to specific restaurants I would be much happier than with a total ban. For instance, I think smoke ruins the restaurant experience, but not smoking ruins the casino experience- at least for me. Bars are a mixed bag, so I think any bar should be allowed to have smoking in part of the patio or, as they now do in San Francisco, an enclosed outer area with direct bar access. A crowded bar full of smokers is not pleasant, and terrible on your clothing- so I think that should be restricted by the bars themselves simply because it is unpleasant.
The idea that second hand smoke is killing countless Americans seems utterly silly to me, but the fact that it is bothering millions of us is more reasonable. There are regulations against noise, even though we have the right to speak in public, so I think it is within the rights of the government to restrict smoking for similar reasons- not the fake psuedo-scientific reasons so long used as justification for the bans.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: The idea that second hand smoke is killing countless Americans seems utterly silly to me
How many of the relevant studies have you read?
Posted by DavidR (Member # 7473) on :
quote:
quote:we all know how well prohibition of alchohol worked
I don't think that's true.
Such a sad thing, the ignorance we live with concerning our own history. Fortunately ignorance of history can be addressed by reading about it. Unfortunately failing to address the ignorance can lead to making mistakes already learned by our ancestors.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Such a sad thing, the ignorance we live with concerning our own history.
What's really sad is assuming that someone who has reached a different conclusion about the historical effectiveness of a government policy is ignorant, rather than, say, exploring the different possible meanings of the word "worked" or even asking for an additional explanation.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Drinking a beer doesn't endanger the bartenders health....unless he is slow providing a refill, I guess.
I don't know, an argument could definitely be made the regularly providing someone with the chemicals necessary for them to possibly behave violently and cause harm to others could be an interesting counter-argument. Certainly you can argue that bartending provides the chemicals necessary for someone to behave without fear of consequences and do stupid things like smoke. Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Dagonee, I think mr_porteiro_head is being his usual hyper-literal self...
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Drinking a beer doesn't endanger the bartenders health....unless he is slow providing a refill, I guess.
I don't know, an argument could definitely be made the regularly providing someone with the chemicals necessary for them to possibly behave violently and cause harm to others could be an interesting counter-argument. Certainly you can argue that bartending provides the chemicals necessary for someone to behave without fear of consequences and do stupid things like smoke.
That brought the following amusing sentence to my mind:
"I'm sorry, sir, you've smoked enough. We'll have to ask you to leave."
Posted by DavidR (Member # 7473) on :
Dagonee,
Based on the portion of my statement that mr_porteiro_head quoted and his choice of wording, I understood him to mean that not everyone knows how well prohibition worked, not that he disagreed with my rather terse summation that I supplied in the sentence that followed it. My statement about the ignorance that we live with concerning our history was intended to convey the fact that we are exposed to fewer facts about our history these days than we have been in the past, and not about the conclusions drawn from those facts.
This past spring I had the opportunity to thumb through a highschool history textbook, and noticed that many subjects that got multipage sections or entire chapters when I was in highschool barely got a couple of paragraphs in this textbook. I also noticed that more recent events, from the civil rights era onward, got more space than prior events.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, thank you for explaining. Sorry I misunderstood.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
When you said "we all know how well prohibition of alcohol worked", I wasn't commenting on anybody's ignorance of our history, but on the fact that there is not agreement about what effects prohibition had on America or whether those were good or bad.
So we don't all know how well prohibition worked, because different people "know" different things about prohibition.
[ July 31, 2007, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Drinking a beer doesn't endanger the bartenders health....unless he is slow providing a refill, I guess.
I don't know, an argument could definitely be made the regularly providing someone with the chemicals necessary for them to possibly behave violently and cause harm to others could be an interesting counter-argument. Certainly you can argue that bartending provides the chemicals necessary for someone to behave without fear of consequences and do stupid things like smoke.
That brought the following amusing sentence to my mind:
"I'm sorry, sir, you've smoked enough. We'll have to ask you to leave."
If only smoking had the cumulative effect that drinking does.
Posted by DavidR (Member # 7473) on :
mr_porteiro_head,
I'm curious, if you were commenting on there being no general agreement about the effects of prohibition on America, why didn't you quote my admittedly terse conclusion about the effects instead of just this part?
quote:we all know how well prohibition of alchohol worked
The entire two sentences I devoted to prohibition with my conclusion in bold. I italicized the portion relevant to prohibition.:
quote:I understand and agree with many of the reasons for smoking bans, which is why I have no problem with such bans in most public places, but if we remove all such places for people to socialize while smoking we approach the smoking equivalent of prohibition, and we all know how well prohibition of alchohol worked. It just sent it underground and empowered organized crime.
I'm not disagreeing with your statement here, just noting that your stated intent would have been more clear to me had you quoted my conclusion instead of what you did quote, which led me in the direction I went.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It did not just send it underground and empower organized crime, although that did happen to a degree. The amount of alcohol consumption by Americans dropped considerably because of prohibition.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm curious, if you were commenting on there being no general agreement about the effects of prohibition on America, why didn't you quote my admittedly terse conclusion about the effects instead of just this part?
Because my point was that you can't use prohibition as an example that we all agree on, because we don't. I didn't really feel like getting into a debate about prohibition.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, Are you talking about during Prohibition or in the long term?
Posted by DavidR (Member # 7473) on :
I don't want to take this thread off on a tanget so let me just say that you have a point that different people draw differnt concolusions from the facts. My conclusion from the facts is that prohibition in the 1920's and early 1930's did curb public consumption of alcohol, but it did so more by driving the production, distribution, and consuption of alcohol underground than it did by reducing the numbers of people who drank alcohol regularly overall.
Today we have a quite a few community bans on smoking in public places, and a growing number of similar statewide bans coming into place as well. These bans differ in detail from community to communtiy and from state to state, but they are becoming more comprehensive as time goes on. Some places are becoming very invasive, going so far as to ban smoking in private homes. Mostly this has had to do with homes with children living in them, but I have read about condo owners being thrown out by condo associations because they smoked in their own condominiums. If the current trends continue we may well see smoke free states where that means no smoking anywhere and no production, sale, or transportation of smoking products or paraphenalia anywhere within the state. As we close in on that state of affairs we close in on prohibition with regard to smoking.
I think that the number of smokers has been dropping and will continue to drop. I think that this trend has had a lot to do with growing public awareness of the dangers of smoking. I also think that when an activity is prohibited, a significant subset of the human population tends to respond with a desire to participate in that activity. Some of those will actually ignore the prohibition and take part in that activity, and others will take steps to facilitate them and make money in the process. It happened with organized crime and the speakeasies in the the times of prohibition, and I see no reason that it wouldn't happen if a similar state were approached with regard to smoking. I think that as we escalate the prohibition of smoking we will apply more breaking power on the current decline of smoking resulting in fewer people quiting and quite possibly more people starting. But these are my own opinions based on my own understanding of behvior and history. I think that we need to leave a legal safety valve for people to smoke socially in an environment where they are comfortable to keep it in the open where it can be monitored and also continue to fight smoking with education.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Longer term, comparing the role that alcohol played in American life before and after prohibition.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Do you have any sources for that belief? From what I can find, the consensus is that the long term effect was very minimal.
This is actually something I'm very interested in, so any conflicting information would be very appreciated.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Unfortunately, I don't have any sources for you. I wish I did, for I'm interested in reading more about it myself.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Where did you get this idea from, then?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
The worst thing that prohibition did was spawn American style lager. It's an abomination. Before prohibition there were local breweries everywhere producing good European brews. After prohibition there was Anheuser Bush.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I've heard it before as well. Prohibition broke the national habit of stopping at the bar after work. It wasn't all a disaster and went a long way towards its goals.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If I could remember that, I'd have a source for you. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Significant impact by prohibition itself only has tenuous support. The amount of alcohol consumption by Americans dropped some when prohibition started. It had already dropped considerably before prohibition started. Even during prohibition alcohol consumption nearly surpassed immediate pre-prohibition consumption. In long-term trends in alcohol consumption prohibition only shows up as a small blip. The relative amounts spent on hard liquor vs other alcohol was not significantly different before and after prohibition.
And of course, homicides rapidly increased during prohibition (by around twenty percent nationwide), and rapidly decreased once it ended.
There was a great decrease in alcohol consumption in the US, but it occurred before prohibition. Prohibition's contribution to decreases in alcohol consumption are tenuous at best -- indicators for it (deaths by cirrhosis and drunkenness arrests) only decreased slightly compared to immediately before prohibition, and reattained the levels they had just before prohibition immediately after prohibition.
quote:I've heard it before as well. Prohibition broke the national habit of stopping at the bar after work.
I've heard a lot of things. Some of them even turn out to be true. This, from what I've read, isn't. Alcoholic consumption post-prohibition was, from my reading, pretty much on par with pre-prohibition.
You may have heard about this in one of OSC's columns. I remember him mentioning it, using pretty much that same language. But...(edit)OSC's fact checking sometimes leaves a great deal to be desired.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I know I've read about it elsewhere.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
fugu touches on part of this issue that I'm particularly interested in. There were things prior to prohibition that led to a significant decrease in alcoholic consumption.
I'm very interested in the process of large scale social and social mythology changes, so this is very interesting to me.
In general, overt, antagonistic methods may increase compliance, dislodge weakly adhered to behavior, and alter people's habits, but they rarely have a large effect on adoption of different norms, which is really where you normally get your long-term effects from.
The interplay of personality, methods chosen, overall effect, and persistance is one of my special interest areas.
[ July 31, 2007, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I'm interested, but not enough to do research. Don't care enough.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think the best way to approximate the prevalence of that particular facet of alcohol consumption would be bars per capita. If bar-going habits reduced, we'd expect a reduction in the number of bars, generally speaking.
That's a moderately difficult dataset to dig for, but I'll see what I can find.
edit: particularly hard given "bar charts" and "bar graphs"
Posted by DavidR (Member # 7473) on :
Maybe try pubs or something similar?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The problem is that most paper/dataset titles and abstracts will only use one term, and the most common in US usage is bar.
I've found some related stats, but nothing close enough. For instance, there's been a significant decrease in the number of bars since shortly after WW2.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'd be willing to bet that the mean size of bars has increased during that time, though.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:I've heard a lot of things. Some of them even turn out to be true. This, from what I've read, isn't. Alcoholic consumption post-prohibition was, from my reading, pretty much on par with pre-prohibition.
Re: kat's point. Check out Norman Clark's _Deliver Us from Evil: An Interpretation of American Prohibition_. There's no definitive history of Prohibition, but this is as close as it gets, and is probably the most sophisticated interpretation out there. More recent stuff, like Ann Syzmanski and John Guthrie, tends to examine the organizational strategies of the movement rather than the cultural motivations or impact of the period. So Clark remains largely normative, and concludes that Prohibition did in fact impact American drinking habits.
Earlier interpretations, like Andrew Sinclair's or Herbert Asbury's or even the late sainted Richard Hofstadter's, tended to dismiss Prohibition as the fruit of paranoid backwards fundamentalist minds, unworthy of the respect of real historians. More recent research - like Clark - tends to take the movement more seriously, and has realized that there were actually respectable, educated middle class people concerned about practical social issues. In other words, that the period is worth taking seriously.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Matt, Although I could be mistaken, I was pretty sure we were talking about the legal period of Prohibition, as started by the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act, not the Abstinence/Prohibition movement.
I did obliquely credit this movement with reducing alcoholic comsumption.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'd be willing to bet that the mean size of bars has increased during that time, though.
And that more restaurants added bars to their establishments. And, inversely, that bars added restaurants.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Nope, you're not mistaken. Clark's book deals with the period you're addressing. I do kind of go off topic in my post - talking about the movement - but all six books I mention deal with the 1920s as well as the second wave of the temperance movement that immediately preceded it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'll give it a read. Thanks.
Posted by DavidR (Member # 7473) on :
I believe that you are correct MrSquicky, but in fairness the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act were significant fruits of the efforts of the Abstinence/Prohibition/Temperance movement. I seem to recall that prior to the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act the movement had considerable success in reducing public consumption of alcohol, much like the current efforts to educate Americans on the dangers of smoking and second hand smoke seem to be resulting in a nationwide reduction in smoking.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Plus the tobacco companies still have a decent treasury to dissuade them with.