Smoking ban

[matthew90046]

On the subject of 'businesses should be allowed to maintain a smoke free or smoking environment of their choice...'
 
When California passed a smoking ban it was not so much about smoker vs. non-smoker.  Although that is how it played out at bars and around the water cooler.  It came down to a hazardous work environment and that employees should not have to subject themselves to second hand smoke for extended hours.  
 
In New York City it has opened up another problem.  Now that all the smokers go outside for a puff it gets very noisy for all the residents living above the bar.  Nothing like a bunch drunk people yelling and laughing it up outside your window until 4-am.
 
Smoke-em if you got-em in Nevada.  The casinos don't want people taking a break from those slot machines to grab a smoke.  After a night in Vegas it always felt like I had my respiratory system scrubbed with a dry toothbrush.

[olieoliver]

Bill. I've met some wifes where that was TRUE though. ROTFL
 
Olie

[pas]

First the nico-nazis come for the smokers...next it'll be the obese...just watch.  
 
I won't even gig in the People's Republic of Maryland anymore, due to the smoking ban.  People go to bars to drink & smoke...that's why they exist.  The 2nd hand smoke issue, with regard to legitimate research, is dubious at best.  If people don't want to work in a smoking environment, perhaps trying to land a job in a bar isn't the wisest way to go.  
 
This PC victim mentality is truly the tail wagging the dog.

[wideload]

All I know is, I would welcome some of Bill, tgo's second hand smoke!
Larry

[olieoliver]

LOL Larry!  
I used to smoke,it all, I quit roll my owns in 1979 and the Marlboro's 4 years later. And you know what, I hate the smell of cigarettes but still love the aroma of the other!  
 
Olie

[matthew90046]

pas wrote: If people don't want to work in a smoking environment, perhaps trying to land a job in a bar isn't the wisest way to go.
 
Many posed that argument, but job health and safety came first in the eyes of California.
 
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9812/20/bartender.smoke/
 
(Message edited by matthew90046 on February 27, 2008)

[lbpesq]

Larry:
 
Come on up to the Northern California Alembic gathering next month and you may just get your wish!
 
Bill, tgo

[pas]

job health and safety came first in the eyes of California.
 
Both specious arguments.  The sheep continue to roll over for Big Brother.  
 
Next they'll ban Girl Scout cookies, under the guise of fighting a national obesity epidemic.

[matthew90046]

pas,
 
I was just trying to give a little insight into the smoking ban in California, how and why it was passed.  In fact I was a smoker at the time and was all for the ban.   I didn't think myself too lazy to step outside if my smoking bothered other people.  Sorry if my comment got you rattled.
 
but...
1)  Your argument of trying to land a job that is not in a smoking environment is simply poor because no one should have to choose between their job and their health.  
2)  To compare the the voluntary eating of Girl Scout cookies to the involuntary inhaling of second hand smoke is just silly and I know that was a joke.
3)  As Americans we are the government and therefore we are Big Brother, a manifestation of our own poor judgment at selecting our leaders.  (Look close at who is nominating supreme court justices.)
4)  Please don't compare me to a sheep.
 
On a side note...
I could smell my neighbor's smoke through the wall of our house.  It didn't bother me as she usually smoked outside when the weather was nice.  About 6 months ago the smell stopped.  She unfortunately suffered a heart attack that then triggered a stroke.  She is only 53 and still alive as long as she stays in the hospital.
 
No hard feelings and I wish you good health,
matt

[pas]

Matthew,
 
In all sincerity, I could not more ardently disagree with all that you have posited.  Suffice to say, overly verbose rounds of continued recitation shall not convince either of us.

[DaveD]

I've enjoyed reading everyone's opinions on this topic. Regarding gigging in Maryland, I was glad to see the ban enacted statewide last month and now I'm trying to avoid gigging in Virginia as they have yet to enact their ban (and good luck w/all the tobacco companies there).  
 
I partially disagree with the person who said people go to bars to drink and smoke. Let's think about that. Both are activities which can be enjoyed without restriction, in the home. What you can't do at home is:
 
- choose from 100 different beers and countless more types of liquor
- hear a live band
- eat someone else's cooking
- meet a stranger and score a phone number (or more)
- get out of the house for a few hours
 
As for smoking, you can enjoy your smoke at home, in a park, at the beach, in the mountains, etc. I believe it's more accurate to say that people go to bars for the social interaction, live entertainment and (depending upon the bar) the food. (And yes, there are plenty of people who go to bars to get blotto, but trust me - this can be done at home!) The fact that you can drink and (until recently) smoke there is just an added benefit. It's only logical that there would have to be some other motivation for going to a bar; you're probably not going to score at home and let's face it - most people are social creatures and like going somewhere where there's something going on (e.g. not home).
 
So if we can accept that smoking is not a primary motivator for going to a bar, then it becomes less far-fetched to allow consumers to enjoy 4 of the 5 things most people do at bars:
 
 - drink
 - hang with friends/score a date
 - eat
 - watch a band
 
Provided that one has good manners, knows how to conduct oneself in public and has respect for others, one can do all of these things without adversely impacting someone else. This cannot be said of smoking.  
 
In conclusion, let's all eat, drink, be merry, unwind, watch a ball game, check out a band, meet someone exciting and score some digits, try a new beer, etc. These are all things we can do together without subjecting anyone else to someone's offensive and potentially unhealthy, personal habit. If you must smoke, is it really too much to ask to step outside and enjoy it with other like-minded smokers? When you're finished, come back in. I promise not to let anyone steal your bar stool ;-)

[pas]

I was REALLY hoping this politically correct thread would die, never to be resurrected again.  If the owner of the establishment chooses to allow or disallow smoking in his or her venue, fine.  That's the right of the entreprenuer.  But to have it dictated by the state on the supposed basis of specious science is entirely another.  Enjoy the People's Republic...in Virginia we still love liberty.
 
As long as we're playing political hardball, here's a trade for you - Maryland can send all it's cigarettes to Virginia & Virginia will send all it's illegal aliens to Maryland, sound like a deal...?

[Bradley Young]

Paul,
 
The only line of argument that you have that seems reasonable to me is that the owner should have the right to run an establishment the way that they choose.
 
However, using ad-hominem arguments like political correctness, specious science, and the very divisive illegal immigrant issue isn't considered good debating; you've committed a logical fallacy.  Not to mention that being hostile (my opinion on the tone of your post) isn't a way to win the argument, and isn't the tone that I would use as a guest in someone's house.
 
Bradley

[lbpesq]

Gee, and I thought illegal aliens were Klingons, Romulans, and the Borg!  Do they have a lot of them in Virginia?  Should we put in a call to Bill Shatner, tsto?  
 
Bill, tgo
 
(Message edited by lbpesq on March 27, 2008)

[pas]

Bradley,  
 
Hostile...?  No, more like contemptuous.  A fair reply to condescencion, in my estimation.  
 
I wasn't debating, I was commenting.  This is an issue whose opponents will never persuade one another...it's one where they'll have to agree to disagree.  This thread has been dormant for a month and I'm inclined to think it best if it becomes dormant in perpetuity.