posted
"...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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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...... Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
posted
Yes, yes, I understand politicians' intractability... but I am curious about jatraqueros... have they signed any petitions? Joined any "Make Tobacco Illegal NOW" organizations?
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.)
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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).
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.]
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?"
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Plus the tobacco companies still have a decent treasury to dissuade them with.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
