Premier Rock Forum

Mayfair wrote:

Ty Webb wrote:
So far, the only anti-smoking ban argument that holds any water rhetorically, logically, and ethically is that you can create non-smoking bars and allow free market choice to decide rather than mandate of law (ie, if you don't like it, go somewhere else). I think that argument also has its weaknesses, but I'm too goddamn busy at my goddamn job to get into it.

No, I disagree. Separate but equal does not work in most cases. I couldn't open a bar and say no blacks or gays or jews or handicap people since there are places for those folks to go instead of my place.

You're falling into the same specious analogy trap. You could not reasonably assert that you made the decision for your business because being black, gay, or Jewish poses an unavoidable hazard to the health of your customers or the public at large. Being a smoker is not an inalienable right nor is it intrinsic or otherwise covered by the Bill of Rights. Being Jewish and black are (sadly, I wish I could as easily and confidently being gay is).

This isn't about free expression. It's about public health. They're two different rights.

As for just not going into a smoky bar or restaurant...where do you go if they're all smoky?

Ty Webb wrote:You're falling into the same specious analogy trap. You could not reasonably assert that you made the decision for your business because being black, gay, or Jewish poses an unavoidable hazard to the health of your customers or the public at large. Being a smoker is not an inalienable right nor is it intrinsic or otherwise covered by the Bill of Rights. Being Jewish and black are (sadly, I wish I could as easily and confidently being gay is).

This isn't about free expression. It's about public health. They're two different rights.

Yeah, you are totally right... my analogy is flawed big time. You are correct, the smoking decision is based on safety concerns. I should have used my fireworks analogy... or toxic chemical fumes one. I guess it was in response to Ford's assertion that owners could make such choices as long as there was a place with or without it somewhere else.

Ty Webb wrote:As for just not going into a smoky bar or restaurant...where do you go if they're all smoky?

I do my best to avoid smoky restaurants but I do go to smoky bars to see bands (also worked at one for 8 years) and to play in bands. I have had no choice up until now (except in a few West coast states).

I worked the door at a very packed show once and a woman asked me if she could step outside for a smoke. I said sure but that she didn't have to leave to do so. She told me it was too smoky in there to smoke. Ha!

You should see the filters and the smoke eater filters that were changed out EVERY WEEK in that place. If you has ANY doubt of what a smoky bar does to the air quality, this would right it.

Mayfair wrote:It would be illegal for me to light off fireworks inside a bar for the same reasons... probably harm to others. It would infringe on their rights of safety.

You should probably skip the Big Black show then...

Haben Stinkenbomben?

steve wrote:

Mayfair wrote:It would be illegal for me to light off fireworks inside a bar for the same reasons... probably harm to others. It would infringe on their rights of safety.

You should probably skip the Big Black show then...

I am taking that as CONFIRMATION!!!

Thanks Steve! Passing it on...

Fuck second hand smoke.

Mayfair wrote:It would be illegal for me to light off fireworks inside a bar for the same reasons... probably harm to others. It would infringe on their rights of safety.

i did this once when i was 21 and visiting chicago. it was at the rainbo on damen. apparently there was some tragic stampede in a bar like a week before that and people seemed to take the incident very seriously. i got chased down the street by three dudes wanting to kick my ass.

same wrote:

Mayfair wrote:It would be illegal for me to light off fireworks inside a bar for the same reasons... probably harm to others. It would infringe on their rights of safety.

i did this once when i was 21 and visiting chicago. it was at the rainbo on damen. apparently there was some tragic stampede in a bar like a week before that and people seemed to take the incident very seriously. i got chased down the street by three dudes wanting to kick my ass.

Only three?

Antero wrote:Fuck second hand smoke.

Man, I would if I could.

Mayfair wrote:I know you are being (or trying to be) a funny guy...

Pretty much, the argument is rapidly approaching a "pro-life vs. pro-choice" absurdity. I started smoking when I was 15 and just recently quit; I don't mind being around second-hand smoke and I am certain I will not die of something related to it. Maybe there are no statistics to support it, but there are a lot of things out there aside from second-hand smoke that can and will kill us. Fatalistic? Absolutely. But I'd prefer a fatalistic approach over the constant crowing of statistics which, more often than not, is used in the same manner as a drunkard would use a lampost: for support, not illumination.

...you can create non-smoking bars and allow free market choice to decide rather than mandate of law (ie, if you don't like it, go somewhere else)

This is the way it should be. The only flaw is that it doesn't take into account the universal characteristic of human laziness that, in my opinion, has become the real threat to our health.