JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Smoking in Clubs: Has it affected artists/performers?

Well, sadly the stereotypical arguments/slams/insults had to come out. So much for acting like reasonable people on a controversial topic.
A couple of factual points and opinions:

1. Many have suggested that a private business should be able to do anything they please. Does that mean they should be able to use asbestos for insulation again? It's a great fireproofing material. Sure, those "medical" people claim it causes cancer, but we all know (from the comments here) that they are biased and probably don't know what they are talking about anyway... so using the same logic some have used here, asbestos should be perfectly fine to use anywhere a business pleases. Heck, lets have asbestos fibers floating loosly through the air if an owner pleases. Sarcasm yes. But it illustrates the point pretty well.

2. Smoking bans seem to actually help business in the short and midterm (we don't know about long term yet), but only when ALL clubs are banned at one time. Very few business people will exclude even 1 potential customer if they can keep from it. If they could legally permit people to openly shoot up heroin in their clubs, I bet many still would if it was legal (and they'd be selling it as well). The fear of municipal and business lawsuits will cause the bans. After the bans, creative business people will find ways to attract any lost smokers business, but most will find a blanket increase in the end. One factor so many bar owners are against banning smoking is because: THEY ARE SMOKERS THEMSELVES. I'll bet anyone that the smoking rate of bar owners and bar managers is dramatically higher than the general public. If anyone can show me any details to refute that common sense notion, I'll buy you dinner when I visit your town on the next roadtrip. So, if you're a smoker, you probably aren't particularly anxious to ban it for your own convenience.

3. Smokers regularly say "just don't go to a bar if you don't like smoke" but that's no more valid a point than non smokers saying "just don't smoke if you want to go to a bar." It's an argument that can''t be won between 2 disparate opinions. So the law has to step in. In some communities, it is. If noise or beer stench or french fry odor becomes a major issue where large numbers of people are complaining, then the law will decide that as well. Very few cities/states have banned smoking so far. I just predict more and more will as they see that business hasn't suffered, but actually improved. In 20 years, I expect there to be a thriving, but small, business community that caters to those who still smoke with special permits and release forms from both employees and customers from lawsuits from using and being exposed to the product. Wait and see.

4. I find it a bit humorous to observe how short our collective memories can be. Remember when the cigarette companies insisted for decades their products didn't cause cancer? And smokers used that arguments to fight those who said it did? Now Philip Morris and others regularly run ads stating there IS NO SAFE CIGARETTE and SMOKING CAUSES ALL SORTS OF NASTY HEALTH PROBLEMS. These were the same folks who called the AMA etc.. liars and propagandists for years. Now the issue has moved to second hand smoke. Is it REALLY a stretch to think that if smoking is unhealthy for the smoker (which Cigarette companies openly admit now), that it would also be unhealthy for everyone else who breaths it in? How anyone with common sense could think it less likely than more likely that secondhand smoke causes a negative health impact on those breathing it second hand baffles me. Perhaps the question is how much of an effect rather than if it has any effect. If people argued THAT point, it would be easier to take them seriously.

5. These bans, by the way, seem to be centered around protecting employees rather than customers. It's the people forced to be there that everyone is concerned with. So, it's important for the anti smoking crowd to understand that fact. If employers could put their employees in "PODS" that kept smoke from them, I doubt they could ever pass the same law to protect the volunteer public. But to the Pro-Smoking crowd, is it really fair to limit someone's work potential by saying "if you want a job, breath the smoke and deal with the health risk?" Sure, you can tell customers not to go out to the bar, but it's not fair to the employees to say "don't go to your job or live (and die or get sick) with it." Should we allow workplace hazards back into the workplace and let people decide whether they want to risk their lives to have a job again? Of course not. That's what the bans are really in place for. Musicians (and finally I am dragging this back to the topic)are employees as well. I think artists have the same rights to be protected. Most vocalists (even those who SMOKE) are negatively affected by a roomful of smoke all night, night after night.

6. I am still looking for any evidence (even anecdotal) that artists have lost gigs or fan attendance due to smoking bans? Is it simple because it hasn't hurt?

Brian

PS: I also wanted to tell Truman that his post was simple, to the point and brilliant. One of the best I've seen on this message board in years. It reminded me of something Mike Dunbar might have said! = )