Quebec plans to butt out...
January 30, 2005 10:02 AM Subscribe
It's only a matter of time before Canada's last bastion of smoke-filled cafes frequented by tortured artists succumbs to the trend sweeping the nation, and the world. The real question is: do they care about our health, or are they trying to stop a conspiracy?
As long as they don't ban poutine, I think we'll be okay.
[Just waiting for the usual suspects to point out that much of this information comes via Canada's "state run" broadcaster: the CBC...]
Good stuff. I smoked for 15 years and quit 23 years ago. It's a vicious and deadly addiction. I think it's indefensible that our government on the one hand is responsible for public health initiatives and on the other hand derives so much revenue from tobacco. (Same goes for gambling, or "gaming" as our revenue-hungry and ethically addled BC government now refers to it...)
I don't like smoking anywhere. I absolutely hate seeing young people smoke across the street from the local high school. I completely support the notion that the tobacco industry should simply be shut down. I understand why that's not likely to happen, but it's insane control substances like, say, pot while permitting tobacco use. The cost to society is incalculable.
posted by 327.ca at 10:20 AM on January 30, 2005
Good stuff. I smoked for 15 years and quit 23 years ago. It's a vicious and deadly addiction. I think it's indefensible that our government on the one hand is responsible for public health initiatives and on the other hand derives so much revenue from tobacco. (Same goes for gambling, or "gaming" as our revenue-hungry and ethically addled BC government now refers to it...)
I don't like smoking anywhere. I absolutely hate seeing young people smoke across the street from the local high school. I completely support the notion that the tobacco industry should simply be shut down. I understand why that's not likely to happen, but it's insane control substances like, say, pot while permitting tobacco use. The cost to society is incalculable.
posted by 327.ca at 10:20 AM on January 30, 2005
We have a local smoking ban which went into effect quite recently. I actually go out now to see live music. The bars are no less busy, smoking outside the bars has increased but makes the places look packed which brings in more people. Strip clubs are ignoring the ban and simply paying the fines nightly.
In terms of business, it only hurt at first, but it seems to be working out.
posted by tomplus2 at 10:22 AM on January 30, 2005
In terms of business, it only hurt at first, but it seems to be working out.
posted by tomplus2 at 10:22 AM on January 30, 2005
When the ban occurred in New York a lot of diners that were frequented by smokers were worried about losing money too. However, since the ban has gone into effect, many of the diners have actually been making more money, and always seem to be packed when I eat at them. These are the same places that I used to avoid like the plague (I have very little use for smokers) but now I visit regularly, and so do a lot of other people who aren’t your traditional diner-type people.
Oh yeah, and the smokers still eat at the diners too. They just go smoke outside. I bet the outside air is good for those old, dying lungs anyway.
posted by Nematoda at 10:28 AM on January 30, 2005
Oh yeah, and the smokers still eat at the diners too. They just go smoke outside. I bet the outside air is good for those old, dying lungs anyway.
posted by Nematoda at 10:28 AM on January 30, 2005
Yeah, smoking is essentially a negative thing, removing it should logically have positive effects and as reported above, it does. Where I am all the dire warnings about business problems came out but no one even attempts to float that anymore because it didn't happen that way. A restaurant particularly ought to be able to stand on it's own merits of good food, service, and ambience. You find interesting things like this happening too: maybe one or two people in a family or friend group smoke and would prefer the smoking county, but the rest talk them out of it and they go where everyone can be reasonably accommodated.
posted by scheptech at 10:38 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by scheptech at 10:38 AM on January 30, 2005
Heck, in Pittsburgh somtimes there aren't even non-smoking sections in resturants. Or if there are you're still a table away from someone smoking. Bleh. And forget about getting a beer or seeing any live music if you don't want to come home smelling like an ashtray. I would definately go out more if there were no smoking in clubs and bars.
posted by octothorpe at 10:45 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by octothorpe at 10:45 AM on January 30, 2005
The last concert I went to in Toronto, Canada (The Pixes reunion tour) was pretty funny... Everyone inside in the all-ages area was smoking pot openly, and security didn't care one bit. Drinkers on the other hand were coralled into a small area at the side, and the poor bastards smoking cigarettes were forced to huddle OUTSIDE in the cold.
At this point it's effectively easier to publicly smoke marijuana in many areas than it is to smoke cigarettes... Which I admit is fine by me, but is fundamentally unfair I suppose. I've even smoked it on the street in front of cops.
posted by glider at 10:55 AM on January 30, 2005
At this point it's effectively easier to publicly smoke marijuana in many areas than it is to smoke cigarettes... Which I admit is fine by me, but is fundamentally unfair I suppose. I've even smoked it on the street in front of cops.
posted by glider at 10:55 AM on January 30, 2005
There have been a couple of news stories about diners and smaller places going out of business here, but not many. Here in NY, Monroe county was way ahead of the rest of the state in restricting smoking in the workplace and public places and was also way ahead on an outright ban. There was much grumbling before, but little or none afterwards.
I can still remember the smell of my clothes the day (or more) after going out to a bar or restaurant, I don't miss it a bit. The only drawback is the inevitable phalanx of smokers you have to get through to go into a building. That you still have to even when it's below zero tells you how additictive smoking is.
posted by tommasz at 11:03 AM on January 30, 2005
I can still remember the smell of my clothes the day (or more) after going out to a bar or restaurant, I don't miss it a bit. The only drawback is the inevitable phalanx of smokers you have to get through to go into a building. That you still have to even when it's below zero tells you how additictive smoking is.
posted by tommasz at 11:03 AM on January 30, 2005
As a student in Montreal, I find this deeply unsettling. I quit smoking cigarettes a while ago, but I find there to be something fundamentally wrong with drinking in an un-smokey bar, or seeing a show in a clear-aired venue.
But I understand that my cognitive dissonance is weighted less than others' desire not to, like, die and stuff.
posted by ITheCosmos at 11:09 AM on January 30, 2005
But I understand that my cognitive dissonance is weighted less than others' desire not to, like, die and stuff.
posted by ITheCosmos at 11:09 AM on January 30, 2005
Well, I guess they'll just have to start going to pot-smoking bars now...
posted by delmoi at 11:49 AM on January 30, 2005
posted by delmoi at 11:49 AM on January 30, 2005
I smoked for 15 years... I completely support the notion that the tobacco industry should simply be shut down.
posted by Bort at 12:12 PM on January 30, 2005
posted by Bort at 12:12 PM on January 30, 2005
Where I am all the dire warnings about business problems came out but no one even attempts to float that anymore because it didn't happen that way.
See, I'm curious about the social geography of your area. I used to work in a restaurant in exurban Minnesota, located in a town called Champlin. Champlin, being in Hennepin County, will be affected by the smoking ban as of March 31st. This town is right next to a town called Anoka, which is not part of Hennepin County and not part of a county which is banning smoking. The problem for my former place of employment is that 95% of their clientele lives within 15 minutes of both Anoka and Champlin, and their potential clientele (the people who live close enough to the restaurant to consider dining there) definitely has a higher rate of cigarette use than most of the other 3rd-ring suburbs of Minneapolis. Thus, since so many of their clients and regulars are smokers, and since they can so easily choose to go somewhere where smoking is permitted, the restaurant in Champlin will lose business.
Now in a large urban center like NYC such a ban will not negatively impact business because I doubt there are many smokers willing to travel far enough to dine in a smoking-permissible establishment. But when smokers are given a choice between a smoking and non-smoking establishment they will probably prefer the smoking environment, even if the quality of food and service isn't as good. Sure it doesn't make sense, but neither does smoking cigarettes.
Sorry for the long diatribe, I was just trying to show that smoking bans can hurt businesses, especially in border areas where lots of people smoke. That said, I'm not against smoking bans in general. I'm just opposed to smoking bans enacted by a small group of politicians, rather than the affected population. I think this issue is important enough, and that people are opinionated enough about it, that a referendum is a perfectly reasonable and completely legitimate way to enact such a proposal.
posted by baphomet at 12:15 PM on January 30, 2005
See, I'm curious about the social geography of your area. I used to work in a restaurant in exurban Minnesota, located in a town called Champlin. Champlin, being in Hennepin County, will be affected by the smoking ban as of March 31st. This town is right next to a town called Anoka, which is not part of Hennepin County and not part of a county which is banning smoking. The problem for my former place of employment is that 95% of their clientele lives within 15 minutes of both Anoka and Champlin, and their potential clientele (the people who live close enough to the restaurant to consider dining there) definitely has a higher rate of cigarette use than most of the other 3rd-ring suburbs of Minneapolis. Thus, since so many of their clients and regulars are smokers, and since they can so easily choose to go somewhere where smoking is permitted, the restaurant in Champlin will lose business.
Now in a large urban center like NYC such a ban will not negatively impact business because I doubt there are many smokers willing to travel far enough to dine in a smoking-permissible establishment. But when smokers are given a choice between a smoking and non-smoking establishment they will probably prefer the smoking environment, even if the quality of food and service isn't as good. Sure it doesn't make sense, but neither does smoking cigarettes.
Sorry for the long diatribe, I was just trying to show that smoking bans can hurt businesses, especially in border areas where lots of people smoke. That said, I'm not against smoking bans in general. I'm just opposed to smoking bans enacted by a small group of politicians, rather than the affected population. I think this issue is important enough, and that people are opinionated enough about it, that a referendum is a perfectly reasonable and completely legitimate way to enact such a proposal.
posted by baphomet at 12:15 PM on January 30, 2005
What are you trying to say, Bort? That because I was a smoker, I'm hypocritical for now wanting to see the tobacco industry shut down?
posted by 327.ca at 12:19 PM on January 30, 2005
posted by 327.ca at 12:19 PM on January 30, 2005
Vancouver and Ottawa have both gone smoke-free while I've lived there. business went down for a year or so, in both places, by about 10%. Some of the smokers watering holes went out of business. Two to three years on though, most bars and restaurants wouldn't go back---traffic is higher than pre-ban.
Believe me, as a non-smoker it makes a huge difference in going out. Friends who wouldn't consider going to bars a few years ago, now have no trouble stopping for a few after soccer or on friday night. Smoke-free bars == more social life and more of the older crowd too, I think.
On preview: I don't really buy the boarder argument either. Ottawa is just across the river from Quebec, where the bars stay open an extra hour. In recent years, post ban, the smoky Gatineau bars have been losing business to the smoke-free Ontario ones.
posted by bonehead at 12:21 PM on January 30, 2005
Believe me, as a non-smoker it makes a huge difference in going out. Friends who wouldn't consider going to bars a few years ago, now have no trouble stopping for a few after soccer or on friday night. Smoke-free bars == more social life and more of the older crowd too, I think.
On preview: I don't really buy the boarder argument either. Ottawa is just across the river from Quebec, where the bars stay open an extra hour. In recent years, post ban, the smoky Gatineau bars have been losing business to the smoke-free Ontario ones.
posted by bonehead at 12:21 PM on January 30, 2005
something fundamentally wrong with drinking in an un-smokey bar
If you're out to cure society of its ills, it is strange to ban smoke, firsthand or otherwise, in a place whose purpose is to sell a much more damaging drug. "Come on in, folks, get wasted and dangerous, and drive safely [*nudge nudge*], but don't go lighting those little firesticks."
I suppose there's no getting around that some of the staff might not want to work in a smoky room, and I suppose you can't tell employees who want a safe working environment to just go and find another job, but if you sell alcohol you're still making people work around chemically deranged customers, and even making employees push those chemicals.
posted by pracowity at 12:38 PM on January 30, 2005
If you're out to cure society of its ills, it is strange to ban smoke, firsthand or otherwise, in a place whose purpose is to sell a much more damaging drug. "Come on in, folks, get wasted and dangerous, and drive safely [*nudge nudge*], but don't go lighting those little firesticks."
I suppose there's no getting around that some of the staff might not want to work in a smoky room, and I suppose you can't tell employees who want a safe working environment to just go and find another job, but if you sell alcohol you're still making people work around chemically deranged customers, and even making employees push those chemicals.
posted by pracowity at 12:38 PM on January 30, 2005
The difference being that the employees don't have to actually drink alcohol themselves, but it's virtually impossible not to inhale smoke in an enclosed place.
Whether you believe that secondhand smoke is as dangerous as smoking itself or not, inhaling smoke of any sort 8 or so hours a day can't be good for you.
posted by tommasz at 12:51 PM on January 30, 2005
Whether you believe that secondhand smoke is as dangerous as smoking itself or not, inhaling smoke of any sort 8 or so hours a day can't be good for you.
posted by tommasz at 12:51 PM on January 30, 2005
The difference being that the employees don't have to actually drink alcohol themselves, but it's virtually impossible not to inhale smoke in an enclosed place.
I do see that, but I'm wondering whether it makes sense to save people from secondhand smoke but not firsthand drunks. Which one is more likely to cause you injury or death? And even if smoke turns out to be the more dangerous of the two, is it so much more dangerous that it makes sense to stop one but not the other?
posted by pracowity at 1:17 PM on January 30, 2005
I do see that, but I'm wondering whether it makes sense to save people from secondhand smoke but not firsthand drunks. Which one is more likely to cause you injury or death? And even if smoke turns out to be the more dangerous of the two, is it so much more dangerous that it makes sense to stop one but not the other?
posted by pracowity at 1:17 PM on January 30, 2005
You seem to have this impression of people in restaurants and bars as raging drunkards who can't wait to pummel their server or run them over in the parking lot. Having worked in that industry, I can say that in my experience that's not the case, but I'm willing to concede you may have had different experiences.
If every customer were to have a single drink and leave it would have a much smaller impact on the employees' health than if every customer were instead to have a single cigarette.
posted by tommasz at 1:26 PM on January 30, 2005
If every customer were to have a single drink and leave it would have a much smaller impact on the employees' health than if every customer were instead to have a single cigarette.
posted by tommasz at 1:26 PM on January 30, 2005
bars are still hurting here in NY, and there are compromises being fought for.
and what other people said about drinking--far more people die and are hurt by alcohol, yet there are no new restrictions put on them. If you want to make tobacco illegal and drive it underground like pot, just do it, and stop these bans, which inconvenience consumers--consumers whose money is just as good as non-smokers. Many of us smokers don't go out as much now, and when we do it's for shorter periods of time than before the ban--in addition, when it's below freezing, it's cruel to force people out on the street for partaking in a legal activity.
posted by amberglow at 1:39 PM on January 30, 2005
and what other people said about drinking--far more people die and are hurt by alcohol, yet there are no new restrictions put on them. If you want to make tobacco illegal and drive it underground like pot, just do it, and stop these bans, which inconvenience consumers--consumers whose money is just as good as non-smokers. Many of us smokers don't go out as much now, and when we do it's for shorter periods of time than before the ban--in addition, when it's below freezing, it's cruel to force people out on the street for partaking in a legal activity.
posted by amberglow at 1:39 PM on January 30, 2005
You seem to have this impression of people in restaurants and bars as raging drunkards who can't wait to pummel their server or run them over in the parking lot.
Obviously I'm not saying that all drinking leads to injury, just as you are not (I think) saying that all exposure to secondhand smoke leads to illness. I'm saying that drinking can lead to dangerous situations for the server, and I was wondering which is more likely to injure the server, working around drinkers or working around smokers, and whether it makes sense to ban public smoking and not public drinking.
posted by pracowity at 1:43 PM on January 30, 2005
Obviously I'm not saying that all drinking leads to injury, just as you are not (I think) saying that all exposure to secondhand smoke leads to illness. I'm saying that drinking can lead to dangerous situations for the server, and I was wondering which is more likely to injure the server, working around drinkers or working around smokers, and whether it makes sense to ban public smoking and not public drinking.
posted by pracowity at 1:43 PM on January 30, 2005
327.ca: What are you trying to say, Bort? That because I was a smoker, I'm hypocritical for now wanting to see the tobacco industry shut down?
Yes, that was what I meant. The "shut down Big Tobacco" opinion was discussed quite a bit a few days ago in the tread about Weyco firing employees for smoking, so I didn't go into details - but I'm willing to re-hash it.
Ban smoking in enclosed public places. Fine. I'm not going to argue that one. I don't necessarily agree (or disagree) with it, but I don't care a great deal one way or the other. What I do care about is when you say I cannot smoke in my home. Now you are trying to protect me from myself, and that's something I don't think should be legislated. Whether I choose to smoke, shoot heroine, be 150 lbs overweight, pickle my liver with whiskey, or blow my brains out, its my choice and I don't want you telling me I cannot do it. I get very upset when people try to take away my rights (and yes, I consider paying $2000 a year to slowly kill myself my right).
Now, back to the ad hominem. It was probably too harsh and not strictly following the definition of hypocrisy, so I apologize for that. However [I bet you saw the "however" coming... :) ], if you call for the ban on tobacco without wanting to ban things that are bad for people like alcohol, junk-food, sun bathing, caffeine, etc. then you are being a hypocrite.
posted by Bort at 1:47 PM on January 30, 2005
Yes, that was what I meant. The "shut down Big Tobacco" opinion was discussed quite a bit a few days ago in the tread about Weyco firing employees for smoking, so I didn't go into details - but I'm willing to re-hash it.
Ban smoking in enclosed public places. Fine. I'm not going to argue that one. I don't necessarily agree (or disagree) with it, but I don't care a great deal one way or the other. What I do care about is when you say I cannot smoke in my home. Now you are trying to protect me from myself, and that's something I don't think should be legislated. Whether I choose to smoke, shoot heroine, be 150 lbs overweight, pickle my liver with whiskey, or blow my brains out, its my choice and I don't want you telling me I cannot do it. I get very upset when people try to take away my rights (and yes, I consider paying $2000 a year to slowly kill myself my right).
Now, back to the ad hominem. It was probably too harsh and not strictly following the definition of hypocrisy, so I apologize for that. However [I bet you saw the "however" coming... :) ], if you call for the ban on tobacco without wanting to ban things that are bad for people like alcohol, junk-food, sun bathing, caffeine, etc. then you are being a hypocrite.
posted by Bort at 1:47 PM on January 30, 2005
[...] if you call for the ban on tobacco without wanting to ban things that are bad for people like alcohol, junk-food, sun bathing, caffeine, etc. then you are being a hypocrite.
No worries. I've been called worse. ;-)
I make a distinction between tobacco and the other things you mention because there is no safe level of consumption for this "product". It is sold specifically because its addictive properties make it so profitable.
Your libertarian stance is fashionable, but flawed. You don't exist in a vacuum. You have relationships with people who care about you, your behaviour influences others (including children), and (at least in Canada) the cost of treating your cancer will be borne by all taxpayers.
posted by 327.ca at 1:56 PM on January 30, 2005
No worries. I've been called worse. ;-)
I make a distinction between tobacco and the other things you mention because there is no safe level of consumption for this "product". It is sold specifically because its addictive properties make it so profitable.
Your libertarian stance is fashionable, but flawed. You don't exist in a vacuum. You have relationships with people who care about you, your behaviour influences others (including children), and (at least in Canada) the cost of treating your cancer will be borne by all taxpayers.
posted by 327.ca at 1:56 PM on January 30, 2005
All of British Columbia is smoke-free in indoor public places.
As far as I know, business has increased for most restaurants, pubs, and other venues.
Come to think of it, I think the latest twit government partially reversed the law. The restaurants and pubs in my town continue to be smoke-free: it's far more profitable for them.
Pleases me to no end, because I'm now able to go out on the town. Back in the bad old days I refused to go out anywhere there was smoke.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:56 PM on January 30, 2005
As far as I know, business has increased for most restaurants, pubs, and other venues.
Come to think of it, I think the latest twit government partially reversed the law. The restaurants and pubs in my town continue to be smoke-free: it's far more profitable for them.
Pleases me to no end, because I'm now able to go out on the town. Back in the bad old days I refused to go out anywhere there was smoke.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:56 PM on January 30, 2005
I forgot to comment on this:
If every customer were to have a single drink and leave it would have a much smaller impact on the employees' health than if every customer were instead to have a single cigarette.
That's probably true, because one drink doesn't make people change, and because not everyone smokes, so one smoke each could even raise the smoke level in a bar. But neither drug dosage (one drink or one smoke) is typical. Having three or four or seven or ten drinks changes a person.
None of which means I'm an advocate of smoking (or drinking), but that I see an inconsistency in the reasoning for regulations.
posted by pracowity at 2:08 PM on January 30, 2005
If every customer were to have a single drink and leave it would have a much smaller impact on the employees' health than if every customer were instead to have a single cigarette.
That's probably true, because one drink doesn't make people change, and because not everyone smokes, so one smoke each could even raise the smoke level in a bar. But neither drug dosage (one drink or one smoke) is typical. Having three or four or seven or ten drinks changes a person.
None of which means I'm an advocate of smoking (or drinking), but that I see an inconsistency in the reasoning for regulations.
posted by pracowity at 2:08 PM on January 30, 2005
pracowity and tommasz: The ironic part of that argument, which is the argument being used to actually pass many of these smoking bans, is that many restaurant workers (in my experience, most) smoke a ton of cigarettes anyway. After the bans take effect they're going to be stepping outside of their safely non-smoking workplaces so they can get their fix regardless. Not to mention the fact that if a non-smoking server didn't want to work the smoking section she wouldn't have to.
And just to further stimulate this discussion: if it was much more profitable for bars and restaurants to ban smoking, then why haven't more establishments independently decided to do so?
posted by baphomet at 2:49 PM on January 30, 2005
And just to further stimulate this discussion: if it was much more profitable for bars and restaurants to ban smoking, then why haven't more establishments independently decided to do so?
posted by baphomet at 2:49 PM on January 30, 2005
If it's so profitable to have smoking, why haven't more establishments in BC decided to revert back?
Answer: because they've discovered, wonder of wonders, that it's more profitable to remain smoke-free.
I'll wager employee sick days are down, cleaning costs are down, and customer levels are up. The first two are guaranteed, the latter appears to be the case in my town.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:10 PM on January 30, 2005
Answer: because they've discovered, wonder of wonders, that it's more profitable to remain smoke-free.
I'll wager employee sick days are down, cleaning costs are down, and customer levels are up. The first two are guaranteed, the latter appears to be the case in my town.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:10 PM on January 30, 2005
There's no denying the high rate of smoking (along with alcohol and drug abuse) in the foodservice industry. I'm glad I no longer do that for a living. But I'm speaking more of incidental exposure as part of doing a job, which if you already smoke, is like smoking more. Yes, some jobs are more hazardous than others, but waiting tables in a bar isn't usually considered as such (and the pay would tend to back that up).
I was happy when there were separate smoking areas, provided the ventilation was good. There was always a wait for non-smoking tables, no matter where I went. Considering that the smoking areas were not 50% of the total area, but much less, that's interesting.
If I was a bar/restaurant owner, I'd look at my clientele and draw the obvious conclusion that smoking was good for my business. That's because you can't measure the customers you don't currently have, for whatever reason. I suspect a desire to have the best of both worlds would point to the separate smoking area model, since that gives you your best chance for retaining existing customers while attracting potential new customers.
But the reality is that most food service businesses have extremely tight margins (and get by based on the drink markup at the bar) and they simply can't afford to isolate the smoking area, even if it pays off in the long term. That's really the driver behind their reluctance, they can't afford the short term hit.
posted by tommasz at 3:12 PM on January 30, 2005
I was happy when there were separate smoking areas, provided the ventilation was good. There was always a wait for non-smoking tables, no matter where I went. Considering that the smoking areas were not 50% of the total area, but much less, that's interesting.
If I was a bar/restaurant owner, I'd look at my clientele and draw the obvious conclusion that smoking was good for my business. That's because you can't measure the customers you don't currently have, for whatever reason. I suspect a desire to have the best of both worlds would point to the separate smoking area model, since that gives you your best chance for retaining existing customers while attracting potential new customers.
But the reality is that most food service businesses have extremely tight margins (and get by based on the drink markup at the bar) and they simply can't afford to isolate the smoking area, even if it pays off in the long term. That's really the driver behind their reluctance, they can't afford the short term hit.
posted by tommasz at 3:12 PM on January 30, 2005
Your libertarian stance is fashionable, but flawed. You don't exist in a vacuum. You have relationships with people who care about you, your behaviour influences others (including children), and (at least in Canada) the cost of treating your cancer will be borne by all taxpayers.
I'm not sure how useful that first part is. Yes, you have many relationships in your life, but ultimately it is you who chooses your own actions. Your relationships do not dictate your behavior. They influence it, which is what being responsible and compassionate is all about. But it is not the government's place to make me behave responsibly or compassionately. I can consider the consequences of my actions, and if see that they would have consequences for others and still do it, that should be my choice, as long as I am harming only myself. That being said, I think I actually agree with you about smoking. The problem with smoking in your home, if you have a family, is that you are exposing them to danger. Unlike a restaurant, where you choose to go and experience an hour or two of smoke, your family has little choice about being at home, and will be exposed to smoke for many years.
As for your second point about the issue of cost to the tax payers, this is the aspect of socialized health care that terrifies me. If people have to pay for something, then people will want to manage that thing so that they pay as little as possible. The "thing", in this case, is your health. This reminds me of a this story about a group of doctors in Australia who advocate denying elective surgeries to smokers because their slower recovery rates and greater health risks make them more costly to the state. This sort of thing scares me. You say that you make a distinction between tabacco and other things, but the issue of state cost applies to everything. People who choose to become obese have more health problems and cost the state more money. People who drink do the same. , as do people who participate in dangerous sports. Since cost is an issue, should the government be able to control our habits, to reduce the tax burden our choices create?
posted by Sangermaine at 3:33 PM on January 30, 2005
I'm not sure how useful that first part is. Yes, you have many relationships in your life, but ultimately it is you who chooses your own actions. Your relationships do not dictate your behavior. They influence it, which is what being responsible and compassionate is all about. But it is not the government's place to make me behave responsibly or compassionately. I can consider the consequences of my actions, and if see that they would have consequences for others and still do it, that should be my choice, as long as I am harming only myself. That being said, I think I actually agree with you about smoking. The problem with smoking in your home, if you have a family, is that you are exposing them to danger. Unlike a restaurant, where you choose to go and experience an hour or two of smoke, your family has little choice about being at home, and will be exposed to smoke for many years.
As for your second point about the issue of cost to the tax payers, this is the aspect of socialized health care that terrifies me. If people have to pay for something, then people will want to manage that thing so that they pay as little as possible. The "thing", in this case, is your health. This reminds me of a this story about a group of doctors in Australia who advocate denying elective surgeries to smokers because their slower recovery rates and greater health risks make them more costly to the state. This sort of thing scares me. You say that you make a distinction between tabacco and other things, but the issue of state cost applies to everything. People who choose to become obese have more health problems and cost the state more money. People who drink do the same. , as do people who participate in dangerous sports. Since cost is an issue, should the government be able to control our habits, to reduce the tax burden our choices create?
posted by Sangermaine at 3:33 PM on January 30, 2005
It is sold specifically because its addictive properties make it so profitable.
No, it's sold because it's legal and there is a market for it. It's vanishingly unlikely that anyone who started smoking in the last 20 years or so (especially in Canada) was unaware of tobacco's addictiveness and health risks. Banning smoking in enclosed public spaces makes sense to me, banning smoking outright is the worst of paternalistic government.
And what Sangermaine said.
posted by biscotti at 4:29 PM on January 30, 2005
No, it's sold because it's legal and there is a market for it. It's vanishingly unlikely that anyone who started smoking in the last 20 years or so (especially in Canada) was unaware of tobacco's addictiveness and health risks. Banning smoking in enclosed public spaces makes sense to me, banning smoking outright is the worst of paternalistic government.
And what Sangermaine said.
posted by biscotti at 4:29 PM on January 30, 2005
To take amberglow's point in another direction:
(a paraphrase) "If you want to keep tobacco legal, just do it, but get smoke out of these establishments, which inconvenience consumers -- consumers whose money is just as good as smokers' money. Many of us non-smokers don't go out as much as we'd like because so many places are smoke-filled, and when we do it's for shorter periods of times since we can't tolerate the smoke. "
Just a thought.
One more thought, and this time I am quoting amberglow directly:
"In addition, when it's below freezing, it's cruel to force people out on the street for partaking in a legal activity."
But isn't it cruel to force those who don't want to partake to breathe the smoke? You might say "no one is forcing them to be in this establishment, but they could just as well say "no one is forcing you to smoke, either."
*sigh* Never mind, it's a smoking thread; it's doomed. I should know better than to get involved.
posted by litlnemo at 5:05 PM on January 30, 2005
(a paraphrase) "If you want to keep tobacco legal, just do it, but get smoke out of these establishments, which inconvenience consumers -- consumers whose money is just as good as smokers' money. Many of us non-smokers don't go out as much as we'd like because so many places are smoke-filled, and when we do it's for shorter periods of times since we can't tolerate the smoke. "
Just a thought.
One more thought, and this time I am quoting amberglow directly:
"In addition, when it's below freezing, it's cruel to force people out on the street for partaking in a legal activity."
But isn't it cruel to force those who don't want to partake to breathe the smoke? You might say "no one is forcing them to be in this establishment, but they could just as well say "no one is forcing you to smoke, either."
*sigh* Never mind, it's a smoking thread; it's doomed. I should know better than to get involved.
posted by litlnemo at 5:05 PM on January 30, 2005
litlnemo--there are thousands of places to go--some of them smokefree (at least in my city, even before the ban).
there's nowhere for me to go. if it's legal for me to smoke, then it should be just as allowed as drinking or other legal things that are bad for you and those around you.
people aren't willing to take on the tobacco lobby, but they're willing to stop those of us that partake from doing so--a passive-aggressive approach to say the least. go after them and make it entirely illegal to even sell them if they're so dangerous and deadly. by the reasoning of anti-smoking people, no one should be allowed to smoke anyway, so stop making my life miserable and go after the source like adults.
posted by amberglow at 5:09 PM on January 30, 2005
there's nowhere for me to go. if it's legal for me to smoke, then it should be just as allowed as drinking or other legal things that are bad for you and those around you.
people aren't willing to take on the tobacco lobby, but they're willing to stop those of us that partake from doing so--a passive-aggressive approach to say the least. go after them and make it entirely illegal to even sell them if they're so dangerous and deadly. by the reasoning of anti-smoking people, no one should be allowed to smoke anyway, so stop making my life miserable and go after the source like adults.
posted by amberglow at 5:09 PM on January 30, 2005
another thought: it's not moral or helpful to anyone's health to make them stand outside in subzero weather either, including barstaff.
all of the anti-smoking people really have to stop punishing us, and go after the source, and make it illegal to sell them entirely--it really weakens the entire argument you guys make by just going after us consumers.
posted by amberglow at 5:13 PM on January 30, 2005
all of the anti-smoking people really have to stop punishing us, and go after the source, and make it illegal to sell them entirely--it really weakens the entire argument you guys make by just going after us consumers.
posted by amberglow at 5:13 PM on January 30, 2005
one more thought: all the arguments presented against smoking in bars are incredibly (and childishly) selfish: I, I, I, me, me, me...
I don't like a lot of things, but i don't try to have laws passed forbidding them--the world is a big place, and it'll never be exactly to your or my desires.
posted by amberglow at 5:19 PM on January 30, 2005
I don't like a lot of things, but i don't try to have laws passed forbidding them--the world is a big place, and it'll never be exactly to your or my desires.
posted by amberglow at 5:19 PM on January 30, 2005
Compromises are very easy and I'm surprised they're not being enacted.
If the intention is to protect the workers, then allowing smoking rooms where staff won't enter would be a great compromise. Or, take a page from Vegas casino's or the higher end bars in my area, and create ventilation systems where you can happily puff away at a Gurkha cigar and the table next to you won't smell a thing. The usefulness of this ventilation system could be verified with hand-held pollution monitors.
Even though these solutions would be expensive, I would imagine most bars would be willing to pay the extra money in order to keep their smoking customers, who tend to drink and tip more than non-smokers. Its a compromise that would make everyone happy, except for the puritanical souls who simply want to eliminate smoking.
Of course, in the long term, I'm hoping technology will win out in the end. I love nicotine and I love the flavor of cloves and a good cigar but I don't like what they do to my lungs. So I'm hoping for a battery or flame powered vaporizer which will leave nothing but non-carcinogenic mist in the air and will not damage the lungs of the user.
I've found a few vaporizers, but they're designed around the needs of marijuana smokers. They're either bulky and designed for home use, or they're very awkward to use and require a light every time you take a puff.
With luck, this sort of thing will become mainstream and smoke will become a thing of the past.
posted by pandaharma at 5:49 PM on January 30, 2005
If the intention is to protect the workers, then allowing smoking rooms where staff won't enter would be a great compromise. Or, take a page from Vegas casino's or the higher end bars in my area, and create ventilation systems where you can happily puff away at a Gurkha cigar and the table next to you won't smell a thing. The usefulness of this ventilation system could be verified with hand-held pollution monitors.
Even though these solutions would be expensive, I would imagine most bars would be willing to pay the extra money in order to keep their smoking customers, who tend to drink and tip more than non-smokers. Its a compromise that would make everyone happy, except for the puritanical souls who simply want to eliminate smoking.
Of course, in the long term, I'm hoping technology will win out in the end. I love nicotine and I love the flavor of cloves and a good cigar but I don't like what they do to my lungs. So I'm hoping for a battery or flame powered vaporizer which will leave nothing but non-carcinogenic mist in the air and will not damage the lungs of the user.
I've found a few vaporizers, but they're designed around the needs of marijuana smokers. They're either bulky and designed for home use, or they're very awkward to use and require a light every time you take a puff.
With luck, this sort of thing will become mainstream and smoke will become a thing of the past.
posted by pandaharma at 5:49 PM on January 30, 2005
I smoke. I wish I didn't, but I do, and I go to bars in NY. A lot of them near me lost so much when the ban started that they now just leave it up to their customers to take chances with fines, etc. I do notice a lot of people still don't come around as often as they used to, and the weekends really aren't the same now.
What I find odd is that so many people I've seen in bars over the years, especially ones that don't smoke, will do so when they drink. It just seems to go well together for many. I can understand and support banning smoking in resteraunts as it can certainly be offensive around food, but to ban it in bars just goes too far, I think. Christ, they're serving drugs already!
posted by LouReedsSon at 6:00 PM on January 30, 2005
What I find odd is that so many people I've seen in bars over the years, especially ones that don't smoke, will do so when they drink. It just seems to go well together for many. I can understand and support banning smoking in resteraunts as it can certainly be offensive around food, but to ban it in bars just goes too far, I think. Christ, they're serving drugs already!
posted by LouReedsSon at 6:00 PM on January 30, 2005
New Zealand last month outlawed smoking in bars. And I think in certain establishments it can work; but probably only in summer.
As I started smoking through drinking I am in the process of cessation as I like booze more than cigarettes. However, the biggest single affect on me has to be that it is much easier now to have a smoke while drinking.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 6:09 PM on January 30, 2005
As I started smoking through drinking I am in the process of cessation as I like booze more than cigarettes. However, the biggest single affect on me has to be that it is much easier now to have a smoke while drinking.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 6:09 PM on January 30, 2005
The smoking/non-smoking argument has always struck me as one of freedom to verses freedom from. Smokers argue that they should have freedom to smoke, non-smokers argue that they should have the freedom from the harmful affects of second hand smoke. Society has to make a choice between whether, in this case, we value people's freedom to smoke or people's freedom from harm.
Where I fall, personally, is that all work places should be free from smoke. We, as Canadians, have made the safety of our citizens one of the concerns of government. It is appropriate to ban harmful but legal substances in the case where a person at work does not have a choice about consuming that substance. It is irrelevant if that person chooses to consume the substance on their own time, because that is a choice over which they have control.
Since our government has admitted that tobacco is addictive, we should *not* treat smoking as a moral weakness for which indulgers should be punished. Compromises that protect the health of smokers should be considered. In my town, several establishments offer partially enclosed, heated patios.
posted by carmen at 6:12 PM on January 30, 2005
Where I fall, personally, is that all work places should be free from smoke. We, as Canadians, have made the safety of our citizens one of the concerns of government. It is appropriate to ban harmful but legal substances in the case where a person at work does not have a choice about consuming that substance. It is irrelevant if that person chooses to consume the substance on their own time, because that is a choice over which they have control.
Since our government has admitted that tobacco is addictive, we should *not* treat smoking as a moral weakness for which indulgers should be punished. Compromises that protect the health of smokers should be considered. In my town, several establishments offer partially enclosed, heated patios.
posted by carmen at 6:12 PM on January 30, 2005
compromises definitely are the key word, and i see no compromising from the anti side on this, unfortunately.
posted by amberglow at 8:09 PM on January 30, 2005
posted by amberglow at 8:09 PM on January 30, 2005
one more thought: all the arguments presented against smoking in bars are incredibly (and childishly) selfish: I, I, I, me, me, me...
But you're using the exact same arguments back. You want to smoke, you don't think you should have to go outside when it's cold. You phrased it in generalities but I could frame my concerns the same way - people shouldn't have to breathe second-hand smoke when they go out, servers shouldn't have to breathe it either, etc. (Although the servers one really is less selfish than any of the smokers' arguments, I think).
But really, all the arguments are selfish, in the end. I'm not ashamed, however, to be selfish about the fact that if you want to smoke, great, but I refuse to let you kill me with it.
I don't like a lot of things, but i don't try to have laws passed forbidding them--the world is a big place, and it'll never be exactly to your or my desires.
There's a difference between "not liking things" and "things that can kill innocent bystanders". True, I hate smelling like smoke, having to wash my clothes, etc. if I go somewhere smoky. But what I really hate, and am glad for the legislation about, is the fact that smoke damages my health. It's so incredibly trite, but if you want to kill youself, go ahead, but please, please, leave me out of it.
To try to desperately go back on topic, I still can't quite believe Quebec's going smoke-free. I live in Ottawa and went to Hull twice a week last term. It was so amazing - I could see Ottawa, it was right there, but it was like a whole different world - everyone was French, and absolutely everybody smoked. I wonder if it'll end up working out.
posted by livii at 8:45 PM on January 30, 2005
But you're using the exact same arguments back. You want to smoke, you don't think you should have to go outside when it's cold. You phrased it in generalities but I could frame my concerns the same way - people shouldn't have to breathe second-hand smoke when they go out, servers shouldn't have to breathe it either, etc. (Although the servers one really is less selfish than any of the smokers' arguments, I think).
But really, all the arguments are selfish, in the end. I'm not ashamed, however, to be selfish about the fact that if you want to smoke, great, but I refuse to let you kill me with it.
I don't like a lot of things, but i don't try to have laws passed forbidding them--the world is a big place, and it'll never be exactly to your or my desires.
There's a difference between "not liking things" and "things that can kill innocent bystanders". True, I hate smelling like smoke, having to wash my clothes, etc. if I go somewhere smoky. But what I really hate, and am glad for the legislation about, is the fact that smoke damages my health. It's so incredibly trite, but if you want to kill youself, go ahead, but please, please, leave me out of it.
To try to desperately go back on topic, I still can't quite believe Quebec's going smoke-free. I live in Ottawa and went to Hull twice a week last term. It was so amazing - I could see Ottawa, it was right there, but it was like a whole different world - everyone was French, and absolutely everybody smoked. I wonder if it'll end up working out.
posted by livii at 8:45 PM on January 30, 2005
My smoke is killing you; your car exhaust is killing me. We all kill each other a little bit every day. La, la, la. How about we stop treating fat people and drivers? (Think about all those accidents.) I don't want my money paying for their bad choices. La, la, la.
posted by dame at 10:51 PM on January 30, 2005
posted by dame at 10:51 PM on January 30, 2005
As for your second point about the issue of cost to the tax payers, this is the aspect of socialized health care that terrifies me.
Sangermaine, private health care should terrify you too, I just posted about an employer that was firing smokers to cut costs. If you think not being able to smoke in bars is bad, can you imagine having to submit to a test or be fired? Someone even suggested in that thread that national health care would eliminate the problem of being tested by your employer.
posted by bobo123 at 12:20 AM on January 31, 2005
Sangermaine, private health care should terrify you too, I just posted about an employer that was firing smokers to cut costs. If you think not being able to smoke in bars is bad, can you imagine having to submit to a test or be fired? Someone even suggested in that thread that national health care would eliminate the problem of being tested by your employer.
posted by bobo123 at 12:20 AM on January 31, 2005
All of British Columbia is smoke-free in indoor public places.
Seriously? When did they do that? Man, I've been away a long time.
I'm willing to bet that they're still smoking up a storm at 'the Zoo' in Fort Saint James. I simply can't imagine it otherwise.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:23 AM on January 31, 2005
Seriously? When did they do that? Man, I've been away a long time.
I'm willing to bet that they're still smoking up a storm at 'the Zoo' in Fort Saint James. I simply can't imagine it otherwise.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:23 AM on January 31, 2005
I have yet to see convincing evidence that second-hand smoke is worse for you than, say, living downtown and breathing exhaust fumes.
With that said, all the local bars I do business with have lost a lot of money since the local smoking ban went into place. I'm sure there are bars/clubs out there that are seeing an increase, but without exception, all the ones I work with have seen income drop 10-50%.
posted by Jairus at 4:13 AM on January 31, 2005
With that said, all the local bars I do business with have lost a lot of money since the local smoking ban went into place. I'm sure there are bars/clubs out there that are seeing an increase, but without exception, all the ones I work with have seen income drop 10-50%.
posted by Jairus at 4:13 AM on January 31, 2005
Jairus, the bars i go to too.
...but please, please, leave me out of it.
Smoke doesn't damage your health anywhere as much as industrial/environmental pollution, and exhaust, as others have said.
In addition, unless you're in a bar without any ventilation or doors or windows 8 hours a day or more, it's not an issue. I'm still listening for some compromise out of you, but am hearing the same Me, Me, Me, Me...how much time a week do you actually spend in bars?
posted by amberglow at 5:27 AM on January 31, 2005
...but please, please, leave me out of it.
Smoke doesn't damage your health anywhere as much as industrial/environmental pollution, and exhaust, as others have said.
In addition, unless you're in a bar without any ventilation or doors or windows 8 hours a day or more, it's not an issue. I'm still listening for some compromise out of you, but am hearing the same Me, Me, Me, Me...how much time a week do you actually spend in bars?
posted by amberglow at 5:27 AM on January 31, 2005
Don't know why I started in on this, sorry. I'm sorry you're hearing "me, me, me" but frankly, that's all I hear out of smokers, so I'm not too inclined to change my tune either, I suppose. Not that I think that's what I'm doing, but you clearly don't see how you're being self-centered either, so this is going nowhere. Oh well.
posted by livii at 5:45 AM on January 31, 2005
posted by livii at 5:45 AM on January 31, 2005
We all choose to go to bars, and we all have a choice of bars. We all share these societies, and desire a range of places and environments to go to. We all have to make accomodations for all sorts of behaviors and things that aren't good for us. We all have to make compromises daily because of the behavior and actions of others. We all live in a big world filled with all different sorts of people and it's in our interests to give and take to get along and be happy, in nightlife as well as other parts of society
Show me where you indicated anywhere that you believe what i just wrote--something i know to be true.
posted by amberglow at 6:13 AM on January 31, 2005
Show me where you indicated anywhere that you believe what i just wrote--something i know to be true.
posted by amberglow at 6:13 AM on January 31, 2005
I'm sort of surprised noone has mentioned the condescending and prejudicial tone of that Maclean's article.
Or is it ok, because it's making fun of francophones?
posted by Human Stain at 7:35 AM on January 31, 2005
Or is it ok, because it's making fun of francophones?
posted by Human Stain at 7:35 AM on January 31, 2005
I don't see what's so harmful about a free-market solution: give a tax break to restaurants and bars that choose to ban smoking. Since so many restaurants operate under such tight profit margins I'm sure lots of them would be grateful for the break and choose to ban smoking. Other places, not wanting to offend or part with their smoking clientele, would chose to waive the tax break in leiu of the profit they think they're getting from their smokers. Thus a choice is possible: people who complain about smoky bars can go to the smoke-free bars, and if smoke-free establishments really make more in the long run, before long all the places will be smoke-free. Seems like a simple, unobtrusive way to accomplish the same thing the anti-smokers are advocating while still allowing some the choice to smoke, and without all that icky government intrusion too.
Compromise?
posted by baphomet at 7:38 AM on January 31, 2005
Compromise?
posted by baphomet at 7:38 AM on January 31, 2005
another thought: it's not moral or helpful to anyone's health to make them stand outside in subzero weather either, including barstaff.
No one is making anyone stand outside in subzero weather.
posted by agregoli at 7:39 AM on January 31, 2005
No one is making anyone stand outside in subzero weather.
posted by agregoli at 7:39 AM on January 31, 2005
Actually, the state and city is doing that, to the staff as well as the customers. The staff has no choice--they're stuck at work.
posted by amberglow at 7:51 AM on January 31, 2005
posted by amberglow at 7:51 AM on January 31, 2005
amberglow, I think you're wrong (as in mistaken) to see this as a health matter; it seems more cultural to me.
Health issues aside, I suspect that the real reason that places ban smoking indoors is that it is increasingly seen as offensive.
Which is basically the same reason that we don't allow people to urinate on the table when they're done eating a meal at a restaurant, or at a bar. There's no real health hazard to doing so, assuming that the pisser doesn't have a urinary tract infection. If anything, it probably has a mild germ-killing effect. All it does is make things wet and maybe stinky, but you still are legally forbidden from doing so on a restaurant or bar table, because it's just nasty and people shouldn't have to put up with crap like that.
Cigarette smoking has been increasingly lumped in with other things as a nasty practice that people shouldn't have to put up with; it has a necessary and inherent offensive odor, and it imparts that odor to other people and their belongings, and is otherwise unpleasant to be around. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily right or proper that it be banned, but I think you're mistaking the actual reasons for the ban.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:25 AM on January 31, 2005
Health issues aside, I suspect that the real reason that places ban smoking indoors is that it is increasingly seen as offensive.
Which is basically the same reason that we don't allow people to urinate on the table when they're done eating a meal at a restaurant, or at a bar. There's no real health hazard to doing so, assuming that the pisser doesn't have a urinary tract infection. If anything, it probably has a mild germ-killing effect. All it does is make things wet and maybe stinky, but you still are legally forbidden from doing so on a restaurant or bar table, because it's just nasty and people shouldn't have to put up with crap like that.
Cigarette smoking has been increasingly lumped in with other things as a nasty practice that people shouldn't have to put up with; it has a necessary and inherent offensive odor, and it imparts that odor to other people and their belongings, and is otherwise unpleasant to be around. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily right or proper that it be banned, but I think you're mistaking the actual reasons for the ban.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:25 AM on January 31, 2005
Actually, the state and city is doing that, to the staff as well as the customers. The staff has no choice--they're stuck at work.
Please show me where people are being forced to stand in the cold. There is a choice - if they don't like standing in the cold, then they should stay inside!
posted by agregoli at 9:28 AM on January 31, 2005
Please show me where people are being forced to stand in the cold. There is a choice - if they don't like standing in the cold, then they should stay inside!
posted by agregoli at 9:28 AM on January 31, 2005
This is a public health issue, plain and simple, and it's about employees, not patrons of these establishments. I love the arguments that I hear, both on this thread and locally (I'm in Minnesota where this is being debated at the State level):
"what's next? are they going to outlaw fatty oils in food or driving your car because those activities are dangerous?"-- wow does that miss the point entirely. These proposed smoking bans do not ban smoking, they ban smoking in someone's workplace (just like it's very likely banned in *your* workplace already)
"don't people realize that drinking is far more dangerous than smoking?"-- personally, I've never heard of getting sick from second-hand drinking. People can get violent when they overdrink to be sure, and drunk driving kills a really horrible number of people every year. But then, both beating someone up or driving drunk have been against the law for quite some time...
"If people don't like working in a smoking bar, they can just get another job."-- this argument really gets under my skin, and one I've never heard from anyone that's had to fight and scrape just to pay the rent. It's akin to someone yelling "get a job" to a beggar on the street. Vulgar.
Second-hand smoking is proven to be a serious health risk. This whole thing is a no-brainer. Of course you shouldn't subject employees of a public establishment to a legitimate health risk, especially when the solution to the problem is so simple.
posted by mcstayinskool at 11:17 AM on January 31, 2005
"what's next? are they going to outlaw fatty oils in food or driving your car because those activities are dangerous?"-- wow does that miss the point entirely. These proposed smoking bans do not ban smoking, they ban smoking in someone's workplace (just like it's very likely banned in *your* workplace already)
"don't people realize that drinking is far more dangerous than smoking?"-- personally, I've never heard of getting sick from second-hand drinking. People can get violent when they overdrink to be sure, and drunk driving kills a really horrible number of people every year. But then, both beating someone up or driving drunk have been against the law for quite some time...
"If people don't like working in a smoking bar, they can just get another job."-- this argument really gets under my skin, and one I've never heard from anyone that's had to fight and scrape just to pay the rent. It's akin to someone yelling "get a job" to a beggar on the street. Vulgar.
Second-hand smoking is proven to be a serious health risk. This whole thing is a no-brainer. Of course you shouldn't subject employees of a public establishment to a legitimate health risk, especially when the solution to the problem is so simple.
posted by mcstayinskool at 11:17 AM on January 31, 2005
I was almost not going to say this, but to quote Family Guy, "Dance puppets, dance!"
This is the inevitable result of any smoking discussion. Smokers like their smoke, non-smokers like their fresh air. I was once part of the latter, living in a very non-smoking city (in the legal sense). I have since moved to a smoking city and, three years later, started partaking in the occasional cigarette while drinking at bars. It still drives me insane in restaurants, as very few have enough ventilation, non-smoking tables are always a longer wait and I sometimes end up getting stuck next to some asshole who disregards the entire situation and lights up anyways (excuse the language please). Despite my own light smoking with beers, I hate coming home smelling like bar and sounding hoarse the next day. I have friends who smoke here who say they would love non-smoking bars, because in a non-smoking establishment they smoke a lot less (having to go outside for it) and therefore are spending less money and not exacerbating their addiction.
Here is my bottom line on this issue: things change. You used to be able to smoke at work, at school, in elevators and on airplanes. I cannot imagine what it would be like to have this lifestyle back. Things change.
We are recognizing as a society that certain things that were once acceptable, like smoking in lecture halls and libraries, like burning women at the stake because they were thought to be witches, etc. (tongue in cheek) are actually not beneficial to society as a whole. Being democratic, we attempt to benefit a majority without upsetting anyone too much (a utilitarian argument if you will let me have it). As a nod to your tax dollars/other negative lifestyle choice arguments, there are already whispers of a fat tax here in Canada, to offset the health care costs associated with obesity and related illnesses. I will spare you my opinion on the subject, but needless to say, if we as a society decide this is acceptable, it will come to pass as well.
I believe that in twenty or thirty years, our children will look back and think, "my god, they smoked what?!"
PS: This was my first post, I'm perversely glad to see I got some fires going...
posted by dazedandconfused at 12:49 PM on January 31, 2005
This is the inevitable result of any smoking discussion. Smokers like their smoke, non-smokers like their fresh air. I was once part of the latter, living in a very non-smoking city (in the legal sense). I have since moved to a smoking city and, three years later, started partaking in the occasional cigarette while drinking at bars. It still drives me insane in restaurants, as very few have enough ventilation, non-smoking tables are always a longer wait and I sometimes end up getting stuck next to some asshole who disregards the entire situation and lights up anyways (excuse the language please). Despite my own light smoking with beers, I hate coming home smelling like bar and sounding hoarse the next day. I have friends who smoke here who say they would love non-smoking bars, because in a non-smoking establishment they smoke a lot less (having to go outside for it) and therefore are spending less money and not exacerbating their addiction.
Here is my bottom line on this issue: things change. You used to be able to smoke at work, at school, in elevators and on airplanes. I cannot imagine what it would be like to have this lifestyle back. Things change.
We are recognizing as a society that certain things that were once acceptable, like smoking in lecture halls and libraries, like burning women at the stake because they were thought to be witches, etc. (tongue in cheek) are actually not beneficial to society as a whole. Being democratic, we attempt to benefit a majority without upsetting anyone too much (a utilitarian argument if you will let me have it). As a nod to your tax dollars/other negative lifestyle choice arguments, there are already whispers of a fat tax here in Canada, to offset the health care costs associated with obesity and related illnesses. I will spare you my opinion on the subject, but needless to say, if we as a society decide this is acceptable, it will come to pass as well.
I believe that in twenty or thirty years, our children will look back and think, "my god, they smoked what?!"
PS: This was my first post, I'm perversely glad to see I got some fires going...
posted by dazedandconfused at 12:49 PM on January 31, 2005
"what's next? are they going to outlaw fatty oils in food or driving your car because those activities are dangerous?"-- wow does that miss the point entirely. These proposed smoking bans do not ban smoking, they ban smoking in someone's workplace (just like it's very likely banned in *your* workplace already)
You drive where I live, which is actually worse than me smoking where you work. So, no, it does compare.
Why are you being disingenuous? I don't know; only you can answer that. Okay, you're being disingenuous because you are smart enough to know that essentially people are being forced to stand outside.
posted by dame at 1:22 PM on January 31, 2005
You drive where I live, which is actually worse than me smoking where you work. So, no, it does compare.
Why are you being disingenuous? I don't know; only you can answer that. Okay, you're being disingenuous because you are smart enough to know that essentially people are being forced to stand outside.
posted by dame at 1:22 PM on January 31, 2005
If you anti-smoke people want it outlawed, then fight for it to be outlawed and made entirely illegal--to purchase or consume. Right now, you're just being self-righteous asses about it, and making a quarter of the US population angry. If it makes you feel better to treat others as pariahs, then go right ahead.
What you ban today, others will ban tomorrow. One of these days, it'll be something you consume and enjoy.
posted by amberglow at 1:44 PM on January 31, 2005
What you ban today, others will ban tomorrow. One of these days, it'll be something you consume and enjoy.
posted by amberglow at 1:44 PM on January 31, 2005
I still don't agree - no one is forcing anyone to stand outside. I don't see how you can argue that.
posted by agregoli at 1:54 PM on January 31, 2005
posted by agregoli at 1:54 PM on January 31, 2005
First, does anybody seriously think that outlawing another plant is going to help anything? Seriously?
If the issue here is really air quality, why doesn't the government mandate a certain level of indoor air quality? That way not only would people be free from excessive smoke, they'd also be free from excessive amounts of other air pollutants. And as a bonus, if the resturant could keep the air clean enough while still allowing smoking...well, they could still allow smoking.
I've seen a couple people claim increased business for bars that ban smoking. Great. Now that we know this, maybe more resturants will do it. I live in Milwaukee, and lots of people smoke. There was a McDonalds you could smoke in until about two years ago. Guess what? Even though there's no mandate, there are still resturants that ban smoking. And there are some that allow it everywhere. And when you don't want to deal with the smoke, you go to a non-smoking resturant, and when you want to smoke, you go to a smoking one. Is it that fucking complicated?
And since when are people guaranteed a right from danger in the workplace? Wouldn't this eliminate jobs like being a police officer or studying volcanoes?
"The problem with smoking in your home, if you have a family, is that you are exposing them to danger."
Well, I guess we'll have to start sterilizing all those folks with heritable diseases.
"So I'm hoping for a battery or flame powered vaporizer which will leave nothing but non-carcinogenic mist in the air and will not damage the lungs of the user."
You've seen the Vapir, right? They even offer nicotine packets.
"there is no safe level of consumption for this "product"."
Please. I'm sorry but that's bullshit and you know it. I mean, you are still here after 15 years of it, aren't you? And even if you have suffered permanant damage, there's no way you can say that 1 cigarette is "unsafe", or at least more harmful than, say, visiting New York for a day. There is some level at which cigarettes cause negligible harm, why no one's bothered to find out what it is, I don't know.
posted by nTeleKy at 2:59 PM on January 31, 2005
If the issue here is really air quality, why doesn't the government mandate a certain level of indoor air quality? That way not only would people be free from excessive smoke, they'd also be free from excessive amounts of other air pollutants. And as a bonus, if the resturant could keep the air clean enough while still allowing smoking...well, they could still allow smoking.
I've seen a couple people claim increased business for bars that ban smoking. Great. Now that we know this, maybe more resturants will do it. I live in Milwaukee, and lots of people smoke. There was a McDonalds you could smoke in until about two years ago. Guess what? Even though there's no mandate, there are still resturants that ban smoking. And there are some that allow it everywhere. And when you don't want to deal with the smoke, you go to a non-smoking resturant, and when you want to smoke, you go to a smoking one. Is it that fucking complicated?
And since when are people guaranteed a right from danger in the workplace? Wouldn't this eliminate jobs like being a police officer or studying volcanoes?
"The problem with smoking in your home, if you have a family, is that you are exposing them to danger."
Well, I guess we'll have to start sterilizing all those folks with heritable diseases.
"So I'm hoping for a battery or flame powered vaporizer which will leave nothing but non-carcinogenic mist in the air and will not damage the lungs of the user."
You've seen the Vapir, right? They even offer nicotine packets.
"there is no safe level of consumption for this "product"."
Please. I'm sorry but that's bullshit and you know it. I mean, you are still here after 15 years of it, aren't you? And even if you have suffered permanant damage, there's no way you can say that 1 cigarette is "unsafe", or at least more harmful than, say, visiting New York for a day. There is some level at which cigarettes cause negligible harm, why no one's bothered to find out what it is, I don't know.
posted by nTeleKy at 2:59 PM on January 31, 2005
"what's next? are they going to outlaw fatty oils in food or driving your car because those activities are dangerous?"-- wow does that miss the point entirely. These proposed smoking bans do not ban smoking, they ban smoking in someone's workplace (just like it's very likely banned in *your* workplace already)
You drive where I live, which is actually worse than me smoking where you work. So, no, it does compare.
I don't. I don't own a car because I have concerns about air pollution. So now can I tell you not to smoke? Yeesh.
Arguing that this thing isn't bad because other things are worse is silly. Stabbing someone with a butter knife isn't as bad as severing their arm, but you still aren't allowed to do either one.
This is about workplace safety. In Canada, we expect our government to regulate workplace safety, and so smoking in workplaces is an appropriate area of governmental concern. Perhaps we should ask why it is so hard to find social / public space where people don't work.
posted by carmen at 3:31 PM on January 31, 2005
You drive where I live, which is actually worse than me smoking where you work. So, no, it does compare.
I don't. I don't own a car because I have concerns about air pollution. So now can I tell you not to smoke? Yeesh.
Arguing that this thing isn't bad because other things are worse is silly. Stabbing someone with a butter knife isn't as bad as severing their arm, but you still aren't allowed to do either one.
This is about workplace safety. In Canada, we expect our government to regulate workplace safety, and so smoking in workplaces is an appropriate area of governmental concern. Perhaps we should ask why it is so hard to find social / public space where people don't work.
posted by carmen at 3:31 PM on January 31, 2005
I don't. I don't own a car because I have concerns about air pollution. So now can I tell you not to smoke? Yeesh.
No. See: amberglow.
posted by dame at 3:42 PM on January 31, 2005
No. See: amberglow.
posted by dame at 3:42 PM on January 31, 2005
It would be fantastic if the people talking about health risks could link to any studies showing the imminent danger of second-hand-smoke that have not been thoroughly discredited.
posted by Jairus at 3:44 PM on January 31, 2005
posted by Jairus at 3:44 PM on January 31, 2005
Well, Jairus--here's a start. That's a hell of a good list of links, and it can be found by typing "second hand smoke" into Google. Tough research.
If you think second-hand smoke is not dangerous you are dreaming.
I also favor stricter air pollution laws, and I also don't drive to work. However, I don't really see how people driving in a city has anything to do with smoking in the workplace. Yes, car exhaust is bad for the air and your lungs. It's a problem, but a completely separate issue.
posted by mcstayinskool at 8:33 PM on January 31, 2005
If you think second-hand smoke is not dangerous you are dreaming.
I also favor stricter air pollution laws, and I also don't drive to work. However, I don't really see how people driving in a city has anything to do with smoking in the workplace. Yes, car exhaust is bad for the air and your lungs. It's a problem, but a completely separate issue.
posted by mcstayinskool at 8:33 PM on January 31, 2005
but it's not completely separate at all--ban cars from cities, like you're banning smoking from bars. they both pollute and both are dangerous. people will still be able to drive--just not in populated areas. isn't that the same argument?
posted by amberglow at 9:21 PM on January 31, 2005
posted by amberglow at 9:21 PM on January 31, 2005
No.
For starters, cars are a necessary component of our society. Western civilization as we know it would utterly collapse without them.
Secondly, cars are continuously improving. It is now damn difficult to kill oneself by sitting in the garage with the car running. The pollution emissions are getting lower and lower and lower.
Neither of these is true for smoking.
One might also note that when cars are run indoors (with the exception of suicide attempts), the law requires the exhaust be vented directly from the tailpipe to the outdoors. All due to employee health concerns.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:26 PM on January 31, 2005
For starters, cars are a necessary component of our society. Western civilization as we know it would utterly collapse without them.
Secondly, cars are continuously improving. It is now damn difficult to kill oneself by sitting in the garage with the car running. The pollution emissions are getting lower and lower and lower.
Neither of these is true for smoking.
One might also note that when cars are run indoors (with the exception of suicide attempts), the law requires the exhaust be vented directly from the tailpipe to the outdoors. All due to employee health concerns.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:26 PM on January 31, 2005
I would love to see clean air in cities, amberglow. But cars are not necessary in cities at all? That's quite a stretch, and an impossible sell. Zero-emission cars we may see in our lifetime, but a car ban? Dream on.
But, this thread was about smoking bans, which are being debated *today* in our countries, states, provinces, etc. I really think that for those favoring these bans, it's important not to lose your way:
second-hand smoke is dangerous,
employees at public workplaces deserve a healthy environment,
therefore,
banning smoking inside public establishments is valid
Take a lesson fromthe enemy Bush and stay laser focused on those "talking points".
posted by mcstayinskool at 6:32 AM on February 1, 2005
But, this thread was about smoking bans, which are being debated *today* in our countries, states, provinces, etc. I really think that for those favoring these bans, it's important not to lose your way:
second-hand smoke is dangerous,
employees at public workplaces deserve a healthy environment,
therefore,
banning smoking inside public establishments is valid
Take a lesson from
posted by mcstayinskool at 6:32 AM on February 1, 2005
those are the anti-smoking talking points, mcstay. and if they're all true, they're just as applicable to other things that cause the same harms.
posted by amberglow at 6:36 AM on February 1, 2005
posted by amberglow at 6:36 AM on February 1, 2005
I think it's cause you're not affected by car exhaust when you're inside a building. My clothes never smell like car exhaust just from going out. I don't get allergy attacks from walking near the highway - I will inside a smoky bar. You are affected by the person next to you smoking. You also can't stop traffic - but you can stop the pollution inside in your own airspace.
posted by agregoli at 7:35 AM on February 1, 2005
posted by agregoli at 7:35 AM on February 1, 2005
Just wait, amberglow. We'll start a ban-ban lobby. Then we'll ban people's ability to ban the things we like and they'll just have to put up with it.
Everybody vote to ban the ban!
posted by baphomet at 7:50 AM on February 1, 2005
Everybody vote to ban the ban!
posted by baphomet at 7:50 AM on February 1, 2005
I think this thread just Jumped the Shark. Bye bye.
posted by mcstayinskool at 8:36 AM on February 1, 2005
posted by mcstayinskool at 8:36 AM on February 1, 2005
Ventilation? If these bars and restaurants had adequate ventilation, do you think anyone would be complaining? That's not a good argument.
posted by agregoli at 8:53 AM on February 1, 2005
posted by agregoli at 8:53 AM on February 1, 2005
cars are not necessary in cities at all, fff.
[Rolls eyes.]
posted by five fresh fish at 9:40 AM on February 1, 2005
[Rolls eyes.]
posted by five fresh fish at 9:40 AM on February 1, 2005
« Older Bosnia's horrific war memories | Alex Grey Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by baphomet at 10:12 AM on January 30, 2005