Tom wrote:

Marsupialized wrote:Ok, all you people so ban happy about shit you don't like, let's take it a lil further....
Why not ban loud live rock music? It's loud, it damages the ears of people who work at the place the band is playing....it damages the ears of the people going to the show...maybe there's a guy who just wanted to go into the bar and sit in silence, even though he knew damn well there was a loud band playing he still went in.... should the band stop playing because this man does not want his ears damaged? Fuck no you'd all say, he should go somewhere else.... he knew there'd be loud music there... plus we LIKE loud music, so it should stay.... what is the difference?
"Can you belive they used to allow people to hurt their ears like that? Thank god they passed that law outlawing it'

Excellent analogy.

Terrible analogy.

You can't get ear cancer and die from loud music.

-b

steve wrote:

run joe, run wrote:This is one of those weird topics that brings out the idiocy in some of the most otherwise intelligent people I know. Smoking in bars or pubs or clubs is crazy. It's just fucking crazy.

Right, it's crazy to smoke during recreation. In a bar. Crazy. All of culture has been crazy since tobacco was first brought into a bar, in a bar joke about 400 years ago.

I think it is nuts to increase the people around you's chances of getting cancer because of your personal habit/preference.I don't think the length of time it's been around validates it, if that's what you're getting at.

Defending it on any level is crazy. Having your "right" to smoke in a crowded public space taken away from you does not constitute an abuse of your freedoms. It is addressing a crazy activity, like drink driving.

I don't think there is a specific right to smoke. It being none of your business is where the rights come into it.

If I'm breathing your smoke, that's pretty much my business. I don't object to people smoking, although it saddens me a little. I also don't object in principle to an activity like kickboxing, but I don't want to get kicked in the nuts when I go for a bevvy.

To call the desire for wanting smoke free environments a mere "prejudice" is crazy. Unfortunately, as much as I'd like to stop attending stinky smoke filled venues, it isn't possible - at least not if I want to see any band that I like, or play a gig with my band, or just go to a pub or club whatsoever.

So... it is possible, you just won't sacrifice anything to do it. That tells us something about its importance to you. Exactly the point of my post.

It does stop me from going out sometimes...but yes, I suppose you're right. I could just quit being in a band and playing gigs and going to watch concerts if I hated it that much. But smoking in venues is so commonplace that everyone - including me - takes it for granted. When we're used to something that is readily accepted in our society, it seems normal. There are many things which at certain times in history have seemed normal to the people of that time and culture, but which can be seen for the madness it really was in hindsight. I get what you're saying: the fact that I do choose to tolerate it means it can't be of paramount importance to me. I would argue that both smokers and non-smokers are culturally conditioned into accepting it as a nice recreational activity/tough shit/unfortunate nuisance if they want to enjoy something they love (live music). I'm sure women thought it was normal that they couldn't vote at the time. It's difficult to see outside your own historical context when you're in it.

I'm sure many people would love to stop going to places that allow this insane activity, but it just isn't that realistic. Lots of people take bar jobs, particularly to fund higher education, because the hours fit and you don't need good qualifications to do it. Somebody mentioned loud volume...in many venues which have loud levels of music, the bar staff are provided with ear plugs. I'm thinking gas masks wouldn't be as readily adopted.

If it mattered to anyone, then gas masks would be there already. It doesn't matter except to the exceptionally selfish, and even they aren't bothering with gas masks.

You don't think smoking in a confined public space is selfish? Last time I checked, disapproving of something didn't fuck up the next guy's lungs.

People who smoke are addicted to cigarettes. The government has them tightly by the bollocks, and they are so confused by the whole matter that they think it has something to do with their rights.

Well, when you tell people that they are now criminals if they do something that has been an assumed right for hundreds of years, then yes, you are taking that right away from them. Things like that should be done rarely, and for extraordinary reasons, with an extraordinary burden of proof attached.

To suggest we're not affecting rights when we criminalize something out of the blue is ridiculous.

You know - and I'm not kidding here - I have heard this very same argument from people (of an older generation than me) on the subject of drink driving. Okay, so that hadn't been happening for hundreds of years, but the basic idea is the same - "we did it before, therefore we should be able to do it now." It isn't a very strong argument.

As I understand it, there is significant proof that passive smoking can fuck up your lungs and contribute to giving you cancer. Is your habit that important to you to inflict this possibility onto someone else?

Please, spare me.

You can spare yourself. You do it by sticking to those places you like already, rather than mandating that everwhere become more suitable to you under pain of penalty.

It's not like I want the walls painted in my favourite colour and only my songs played on the jukebox, y'know? I don't want to take people's rights away. To defend your "right" to smoke in an unventilated, crowded, enclosed space - where people who choose not to smoke will also be - is unreasonable. If you disregard the potential threat to other people's health, then that's something else, and I don't have statistics or facts to enter into that discussion.

If you do acknowledge that your habit is potentially very harmful to others, a continued insistence on being allowed to smoke in these places seems far more selfish than the desire to have it banned.

steve wrote:Things like that should be done rarely, and for extraordinary reasons, with an extraordinary burden of proof attached.

38,000 nonsmokers dropping dead every year due to second hand smoke isn't extraordinary?

steve wrote:

tmidgett wrote:i say this having smoked a half-dozen cigarettes this past weekend, albeit my first ones in over a year. in a bar, at that.

Dude, that's crazy.

Touche.

steve wrote:

tmidgett wrote:i say this having smoked a half-dozen cigarettes this past weekend, albeit my first ones in over a year. in a bar, at that.

Dude, that's crazy.

it was one for me and the rest for my homies

but let it never be said that i am not 'hardcore'

Okay.
There is a smoking ban here.
This does not bother me. I prefer to smoke outside
anyway. And one aspect of the ban is that it has
seperated true music fans from the ones who are
at the clubs simply to ratchet-jaw at each other
and look alternative(The latter sit in the
beer garden). I can go out and smoke between
bands. This is no problem.

BUT....
A couple of days ago, I'm at work.
Having just emptied a cart full of construction
debris into a dumpster, which is located in
a walled off corner of the parking ramp, I light up.
Mid-smoke, a Comic Bookstore Guy look-alike
enters the ramp through the 20'x7' garage door.
This door is 20' from where I'm standing and goes
directly outside. CBG starts to walk by me then
turns back slightly and says, "Excuse me, could you
not do that.". "What's that?", I say, not having been
paying full attention to the little squid. "I said, Excuse
me, but could you please smoke in the designated smoking
area instead of polluting the whole garage."
It's important to note here that the ramp is the size of
an entire city block. Two streets wide.

I say nothing. I can't. He is an employee of one
of the tenants. I am not in the designated smoking
area. If I say what I'm thinking, there will be trouble.
For me. So, I stare at him. Finally, he must decide
for himself that I'm debating whether or not to hit him
with that piece of conduit which is so handy. He waddles
off towards the elevator lobby.

My point? It's a slippery slope, I guess.
Can these people really believe that a few
molecules of smoke will cause them irreveresible damage?
And do they fear this enough to push legislation of
banning smoking everywhere?
And what will they decide needs to be banned after that?

steve wrote:To suggest we're not affecting rights when we criminalize something out of the blue is ridiculous.

We're not affecting rights when we criminalize cigarette smoking in bars. No one in this country has, or has ever had, any such right, any more than they have the 'right' to stick a syringe full of heroin in their arm, or the 'right' to drink 18 beers and go for a drive.
If we criminalized being a Muslim, or having Polish heritage, or the act of a woman working in a law firm, we'd be affecting rights. Actual rights, that courts will recognize, that are more or less rooted in the Constitution.
For the record, I'm not in favor of the smoking ban, although the worker safety argument is pretty persuasive. Much more persuasive than "I'm going to be inconvenienced" or "get the guvmint off my back." It just seems like all the money that is being spent on these campaigns could be better used elsewhere.
I believe almost all drugs should be legal to possess and use, under certain circumstances. But rights have nothing to do with it.

Rog, you should've asked him if he could help you out, that the reason you were standing there was so you could tell every person in a car that they had to stop driving, because car exhaust is so bad for your lungs. and THEN hit him with the conduit.

we're just in a really awkward time is all. people wanna go see rock shows and not breathe smoke. that makes perfect sense. it's as antithetical to the essence of "rock and roll" as anything i can think of, but it is certainly logical that people would want to do that.

this debate is a great occupier, one that will keep people focused on it and away from bigger issues. i like to debate issues like this one by extending the argument to the absurd.

but here, i will opt not to.

run joe, run wrote:I think it is nuts to increase the people around you's chances of getting cancer because of your personal habit/preference.I don't think the length of time it's been around validates it, if that's what you're getting at.

This applies to a lot of things. Why is this your target? Ignore for a moment that the only second-hand smoke study that I know of has no results outside its margin of error (eg we don't have reason yet to believe that it causes any health risks), and explain why this is your target. Not automobile exhaust, not open fire grilling, not dust, not aromatic solvents. Is it because you don't like the smell of smoke?

If I'm breathing your smoke, that's pretty much my business. I don't object to people smoking, although it saddens me a little. I also don't object in principle to an activity like kickboxing, but I don't want to get kicked in the nuts when I go for a bevvy.

Then don't go places where you will be offended by the conduct underway there. Don't go to bars that are too smokey for you. The conduct was underway happily for long before you made it your concern, and you are not entitled to change it to suit you.

It does stop me from going out sometimes...but yes, I suppose you're right. I could just quit being in a band and playing gigs and going to watch concerts if I hated it that much. But smoking in venues is so commonplace that everyone - including me - takes it for granted. When we're used to something that is readily accepted in our society, it seems normal. There are many things which at certain times in history have seemed normal to the people of that time and culture, but which can be seen for the madness it really was in hindsight. I get what you're saying: the fact that I do choose to tolerate it means it can't be of paramount importance to me. I would argue that both smokers and non-smokers are culturally conditioned into accepting it as a nice recreational activity/tough shit/unfortunate nuisance if they want to enjoy something they love (live music). I'm sure women thought it was normal that they couldn't vote at the time. It's difficult to see outside your own historical context when you're in it.

So, you agree with me then. Smoking in bars is normal, not crazy, and everyone is used to it. There are places where there is no smoke, and if it is a big deal, then you can just go to those places.

You don't think smoking in a confined public space is selfish? Last time I checked, disapproving of something didn't fuck up the next guy's lungs.

I didn't say it wasn't selfish, only that it is the established norm. If you want to disrupt centuries of leisure for everyone to suit your conception of what ought to be allowed, then please find a compelling argument first. I might even listen. So far the public health argument is wanting.

You know - and I'm not kidding here - I have heard this very same argument from people (of an older generation than me) on the subject of drink driving. Okay, so that hadn't been happening for hundreds of years, but the basic idea is the same - "we did it before, therefore we should be able to do it now." It isn't a very strong argument.

Where I grew up, drinking and driving wasn't illegal, only being drunk and driving. That makes some sense to me, but I understand that most folks wouldn't want to make that distinction.

As I understand it, there is significant proof that passive smoking can fuck up your lungs and contribute to giving you cancer. Is your habit that important to you to inflict this possibility onto someone else?

As I understand it, there is no statistically-significant link between "passive" smoking and any health risks. Penn and Teller even did a whole episode exposing this public policy charade.

It's not like I want the walls painted in my favourite colour and only my songs played on the jukebox, y'know? I don't want to take people's rights away. To defend your "right" to smoke in an unventilated, crowded, enclosed space - where people who choose not to smoke will also be - is unreasonable. If you disregard the potential threat to other people's health, then that's something else, and I don't have statistics or facts to enter into that discussion.

If I saw a bar where everyone was doing something I didn't want to do or be around -- kickboxing or curare darts or HIV infection night -- then I wouldn't go to that bar. I wouldn't make them stop so I could.

If you do acknowledge that your habit is potentially very harmful to others, a continued insistence on being allowed to smoke in these places seems far more selfish than the desire to have it banned.

I think the health issue is secondary to the "my clothes smell" issue, and the health angle is used as cover. There is a strong case to be made for not drinking in a bar all night, if health is one's primary concern.

A smoking ban was proposed where I live and approximately 30% of the city went absolutely apeshit. Suddenly, conspiracy sites like these started showing up, not only attempting to dispute the health risks of secondhand smoke, but to argue that smoking is, in fact, healthy for you. The smoking ban went on the ballot (popular vote being the only respectable way to settle this matter) and it won handily. 6 months later, an amendment to the ban was proposed, exempting bars from the ban; the amendment failed by 11 points.

My dual points are:

1) Smokers will come storming out of the woodwork when their addiction is threatened, usually making up talking points as they go along.

2) Put it to a vote.

Bob Weston wrote:

Tom wrote:

Marsupialized wrote:Why not ban loud live rock music? It's loud, it damages the ears of people who work at the place the band is playing....it damages the ears of the people going to the show...maybe there's a guy who just wanted to go into the bar and sit in silence, even though he knew damn well there was a loud band playing he still went in.... should the band stop playing because this man does not want his ears damaged?

Excellent analogy.

Terrible analogy.

You can't get ear cancer and die from loud music.

-b

I went to a Shellac show and suffered hearing damage. Said damage has caused me severe mental anguish. There should be a ban on Shellac shows, for they are obviously done rarely and in extraordinary circumstances.

I am, of course, making with the around-fucking.