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

Hi Folks,

Though the laws were supposed to primarily protect daily employees working at bars from cigarette smoke, many performing artists have also been relieved of the negative affects of smoke on their health and especially for singers, their voices. Best of all, the numbers released today have shown that the bars have ALSO benefited beyond health concerns. Since the ban in NYC of smoking in public places, clubs have shown a net 9% increase in business. This pretty much wipes out the notion that banning smoking will kill bar business completely (and among some artists kill bars booking bands). If anything, they should have more funding to pay now (if they want to) and probably over the short and long term will spend far less on sick employees. The entire country of Ireland just went smoke free, so it will be interesting to learn their results as well. If they also show no harm and an actual increase in business after the ban, the question now is: how long will it be until the entire United States is smoke-free in public like Ireland just became? I think places like Las Vegas would likely fight tooth and nail not to become smoke free (though to be honest, we spent very little time in the casinos specifically because of smoking stench), but if NYC can do it, how long til everyone else? Also, have any artists noticed a plus or minus effect on their gigs and/or crowds in areas where smoking has been banned?

Brian

here in fla it has been a change. but the dui laws are more the factor than anything...

------------------
www.barkinbarney.com www.barkinbarneyand the tallboys.com

The country will probably never be smoke free. I don't agree with the blatant discrimination against smokers. If smoking should be banned then ban selling smokes. Whil we're at it ban soda pop, chocolate, microwave popcorn, and all fire which creates smoke, no smoke is healthy to breathe. Think of all the things we could ban, that are LEGAL but may bother someones else. We would be left with, well... nothing.I smoked for thirteen years because I wanted to, and I quit becuase I wanted to. Actually I still enjoy one every now and then. I support smokers rights, because it STILL is a right. I don't go to restaraunts and bars, etc... that are smoke free, so i don't know about the effects on gigs at those clubs.

Sorry Brian...

I quit smoking a year ago...

I'm glad I did....

I wish everybody would choose to do the same..
BUT!!!!

the whole second hand smoke deal is an unproven myth...
For this country to allow cigarettes to be sold and then ban smokers from public places is wrong !
If I own a restaurant and the govbernment tells me no one can smoke in my restaurant..I tell the government to f--k off !
If my employees don't want to work there because of smoking, they can go find another job!
Prohibition didn't stop people from drinking...
All this crap anin't gonna stop people from smoking if they want to.

It's wrong....period !

Jeez....what are they gonna ban next....

Gay Marriage ?

Bob( madly in love with a beautiful woman who smokes two packs a day) Young

Ahhhh, yes...looks like the potential beginning of a good JPF spat, here..

I guess the New Yorkers should ring in on this, or perhaps the Irish.
Yet.. I must say that I know a lot of musicians, and they are nearly split down the middle... about half are smokers and half non-smokers...perhaps more leaning towards the non-smoking side lately.
Ask the non-smokers if a non-smoking bar is better, the answer is yes. Ask a smoker the same, and the answer is no. There are indeed smokers who can and do complain if the smoke is too heavy however. Understandably so.
Perhaps the bigger question is: Would Keith Richards play the non-smoker game?..even in New York? Would he get booted offstage and out of the venue? And exactly who would kick his ass off the stage? Hillary Clinton?
More of a curiosity to me is if the attitude, atmosphere, and general nature of the clientel changes along with the smoking ban. I can only suggest or assume that the reason for increased traffic in NY bars is from people who flat refused to go into bars with smokers, only now attending these non-smoking venues.
Venues should have a choice. I don't believe government of any kind should take that decision-making ability away from a venue owner.
Say something negative about smoking, and one can in-all-probability only agree. Yet at the same time I see the issue as a political hotbed where there should not be one. I see TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT.
On one front we have people fighting to ban smoking cigarettes, and on another front we have people fighting for the legalization of pot, as well as other drugs. What-the-%(@$)???? Will each group win? Will society be bettered if they do? Film at eleven.

-Gary

Sorry Gary...(smiling)

There won't be any big argument from me on this one.

Brian and I have been thru this before..
We're 180 degrees apart on this one and that's fine.

I know alot of good and true people who disagree with me and each other on this issue..
I think it's just gonna have to be sorted out in the courts....

I do wonder what Brian means when he says Ireland is a smoke free country.

does that mean people can't smoke in their homes, or walking across a field somewhere, or while they're fishing or what ?

I doubt that will happen here...I hope not....that's the taking away of a matter of personal choice..and like I said, that's just wrong.

But....no shouting from yours truly......
I love Brian....
I love all my sisters and brothers on this groovy (if smoke polluted) planet.

And...may I say again, that I think it's wonderful that New York has seen fit to make a place that dispenses poison to it's customers a safe, smoke free place for said customers and the folks who foist the poison called alcohol on the patrons !

New York, New York....it's a Helluva town !

Bob

I think that it's a positive and difficult step in the right direction. Having played a couple thousand venues myself, it shows that we as a whole nation veiw smoking differently now. I am a non smoker. I grew up in a family of heavy smokers. Some are no longer here because of it. It was their choice though long before all the studies and evidence came to view. It's a double edged sword. If you aren't going to let people smoke, then you shouldn't let them drink either, or be involved in war, play with guns, drive a car, eat at fast food joints, watch T.V., etc... I'm sure there's a whole list of other things that should be illegal to protect us from ourselves. Law makers love this stuff. That's the price of freedom though I guess. But look where freedom got quite a few people. And while smokers do not really bother me all that much. I'd rather live with out it. That being from a non smoker of course. Then there's the "example" we as adults set in the eyes and minds of the very young. That's a whole 'nother can "O" worms. All you have to do is turn on T.V. to see the "finest" of wrong examples in history. Quitting smoking is a difficult thing. Much more than my coffee drinking. Ah the caffine. I watched my Mom try to quit. She couldn't. My Father did only after it helped damage his heart. A Grandfather and two Aunts ended up with Cancer. 2 are dead. One has had a major life change. All smokers. They made choices in a free society. Obviously smoking was probably a wrong choice. Our current government is finding new ways to invade and control our lives all the time. No different than the one before. Their stories are different. But their goals are roughly the same. This is only one of hundreds of things to come. As for the smoker, I heard a comedian once say that "smoking has become a dying art". No kidding. The last issue is concience. People with a concience would probably not continue to sell a product that on a regular basis slowly poisons, kills people, and hurts the ones left behind both financially and otherwise. I wouldn't hand my own child a one million shot revolver with a single shell, spin it, and say to her or him;"Take a chance", "It's your choice". I'm an adult, and it's my duty to protect my children from things like that. Corporations and share holders don't have a concience. It's impersonal and it's big money. If they had to look each customer in the face though, they might develope one {concience}.

On the lighter side. Wouldn't it be nice for families to have more places to go to see live music? It all comes down to the freedom to choose. Use it before you loose it.

Kris Karr

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/kriskarrmusic.htm

This is a regional economic game which has been playing out forever....against smoking, we have three from Minnesota, Indiana and what, New York. I don't suppose tobacco is too big of a cash crop in those states. It has historically been taxed at much higher rates up north, as has whiskey, made in the south. To get even, southern stated, before Anheuser Busch and Miller began building breweries all over, taxed the heck out of beer which was coming from Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Brooklyn and Baltimore.

I can still go into a grocery store here in Tennessee and buy a carton of full flavored, 100 millimeter cigarettes, made here in the USA for under $11.00 a carton with tax. What are you paying in New York City?

The more the northern attitudes get forced on he south, the more we resent yankees... period.

If you don't want to smoke, fine. Leave me the hell alone.

As far as individual clubs making their choices, fine. It is their choice. When a venue is non-smoking, but goes out of its way to accomodate smokers with a well covered outside smoking area, or porch and mounts good speakers outside so the smokers do not have to miss the show, I will frequent the place with regularity.

When a place like the Bluebird, (and I love Barbara Cloyd) overpacks its customers so you can not hardly get outside to smoke, does not provide a porch enclosure and the speakers are tinny sounding...it is my least favorite live entertainment venue in Nashville because the management specifically makes it uncomfortable for me to be a customer. It has to be a writer I really want to catch for me to drive 45 miles each way and be subjected to the elements.

dawg

[This message has been edited by greydog (edited 03-29-2004).]

I'm against public smoking, but I'm more against passing laws about it. Let the venues decide if they want to be smoke free, have smoking sections, have smoke free performances, or whatever. People can vote with their wallets. Outlawing smoking will only give the clubowners another excuse to pay less to the musicians, that is, those who actually pay anything to the musicians to begin with.

Smoke in a venue has rarely bothered me, even in the old days when practically everyone smoked. If a place was or is terribly smokey, my eyes will burn and my clothes will smell bad when I get home. Other than that and taking a few years off of my life, that's about it.

Quitting smoking was one of the hardest things I've ever done in my life. I stopped smoking cigarettes thirty two years ago after smoking for eight years, two packs a day. I still smoke cigarettes in my dreams.

Today it's cigarettes, tomorrow it's your amplifier. The volume police are coming, mark my words. Outlaw freedom and only outlaws will be free.

All the Best,
Mike



------------------
Mike Dunbar Music

Ok... I am from the enchanted state that taxes us for breathing..
I have to agree with Bob on this one... except for restraunts. I think that they should never have banned smoking from bars. C'mon it's a bar... not a health club.
Should they require less fatty chicken wings next.
Those will kill you sooner than the smoke.
I also am a quitter.. 6 years ago last month.
When you drive around our lovely state on a friday or saturday night all you see is people standing out front of the bar puffing away.
Please Send em back in...
I also agree with BOB again..
If you work at a bar than you might expect that you are going to encounter a few things that aint good for you.
Idiot drunks, Loud ear damaging music on occasion, bad food, fights, etc..
Now that makes smoke seem silly now don't it.
I'ts not like your workin in a coal mine for heaven's sake.
The parakeet will live damn it...
and no need for a hard hat..


DAvid

Hi Brian, all-
Good topic.
I smoked also. From ages 16, to about 38.
I was a, maybe, one pack a day smoker (not including other sorted materials), and quit probably 25% of that time.
I'm glad I did.
There has always been a "coolness" associated with "smoking." We were brought up with the habit. Smoking was always honored. Most of our parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and friends, at one time, smoked.
Way back in the hay day of radio, then in movies, ultimately in Television, cigarette commercials were hot. i.e. Jack The Bellboy: "Calling for Phillip Morris."
How about those classic movies where the viewer would always find someone enjoying smoking. The lonesome cowpoke on the dusty trail after a long ride; smoking a "roll your own" at the campfire. The off beat character in a James Dean/Marlon Brando movie. In those romantic movies, classic duos such as, Bogart and Bacall, Tracy and Hepburn, The Thin Man, (among a host of others), are good examples, in which the star players always somehow, seemed to "lite up," as they romanced each other, looking in each others eyes, through that fine drifting, misty bluish thing, we call smoke.
During the world wars, sometimes your only buddy was that "butt" you saved for days, just to keep yourself from going insane.
After sex who was your best friend other than your mate?
Where would the "Greasers" be without smokes?

One drawback folks, it's a nasty, dirty, dangerous habit.
It "stinks up" everything, it comes in contact with, and lingers there.
The smell, is absorbed into the smoker's, and other's clothes.
If you don't smoke, you really notice it's awful, distinct, fowl smell.
The general public took this long, to face reality, and finally discovered, we are all better off, without humans smoking cigarettes, cigars, and pipes.
Now unfortunately for the smokers, the current intelligence level of the people, (in this sometimes, still crude society), has had enough of the smoke.
In most cases, regardless if one agrees, the majority usually rules; that's why we have rules.
Sometimes, laws/rules may change, and now we
may be headed to a non-smoking society.

I met a piano player years ago, playing at Hudsons. It was around Christmas. He was an older gent. At times he coughed. He told me he contracted Emphysema, playing in smoke filled nightclubs. I was convinced, I would never let myself get "Emphysema," by means of smoking. Shortly afterwards, I quit for good. It has been 15 years now.
I watched my best friend, my uncle, suffer from the same condition for about ten years.
He contracted the disease from second hand smoke. His wife, my aunt, God bless her, was a chain smoker. In their house, the white walls turned brown from the smoke.
He suffered greatly, trying to breathe by short gasping breathes, using an oxygen tank when necessary. He never smoked a day in his life!

Now, regarding the second hand smoke theory:
I honestly will have to make a sound call here. I feel the dangers of second hand smoke have to be proportionate to the amount of smoke, one is subjected to inhaling.
To support the smokers, it could seem a bit silly for some to blame the smokers for other's health problems.
In doors, second hand smoke can be not only offensive, but also a threat to ones health. Outdoors, I believe second hand smoke is less harmful, and offensive to others. I believe, this is a hard call to make, and prove; to what extent, does second hand smoke "outdoors," in open spaces, actually cause "any" damage to a human being.
If one chooses to smoke, by all means, enjoy yourself; do your thing and have fun. Just be aware of the health risks to yourself and others, and be considerate of those who choose not to smoke.

Brian-
I am very happy you pointed out the rise in attendance at clubs and bars; particularly, for those who make a living in the industry. One of the reasons I quit playing clubs, was the smoking.
Maybe I'll be more enthused, now that you have made us aware of the latest statistics.
Should smoking be allowed in public indoor
buildings? Particularly clubs, bars, and restaurants? Because of the the health risks
cigarette smoke attributes to the public, particularly in a confined, congested space; absolutely, positively, unequivocally, it "should not" be allowed.

Sincerely

Cal
















[This message has been edited by Cal (edited 09-06-2006).]

Uh Oh.......

that's the second time in less than 6 months that DavidW and I are in agreement....

Get out your Bibles, everybody....

It can't be long now !

Bob

Oh, my, what an interesting topic! Let me say that as a smoker, I am quite willing to frequent establishments that are non-smoking, and to tolerate the preachifications of those who don't smoke, or used to but saw the light, and am occasionally regretful that the tolerance is increasingly one-way. I think it's fine if establishments want to limit their clientele on their own, and if they think they're going to increase their business because of it, more power to 'em (myself, I haven't noticed as it's made any difference). When you start using government to *force* people to act in a certain way, that's when I put the "Don't Tread On Me" pin back on and start dusting off my "individual rights" speech.

Myself, the thing that bothers me most about taverns and bars is the drunks, because I don't drink. (Probably why I'm understanding about people being bothered by smoke.) Nonetheless, when one of our local taverns had a jam session every Thursday night, I was there. And if they started it up again, I'd be back. I always figured if people were really bothered by smoking or drinking, they could always stay away on their own, and if they weren't, they didn't have to.

Back to the original question. We did a sort of local-option thing here, at the county level, a couple years ago. The county commissioners (bless their li'l pointy heads) put an anti-smoking-in-public-places law on the ballot, and said it wouldn't apply in any city where the voters voted it down. It went down by a rather sizable margin here in little Garibaldi, so smoking is still allowed in any tavern or bar that wants to allow it. Some other cities in the county voted for it, so their bars and taverns are officially non-smoking. Was there a mass shift of customers from one "species" of establishment to another? Nope. Near as I can tell, not a single person, smoker or non-smoker, even changed barstools. The preachifiers got to have their self-righteous muscles massaged a little bit, but I'm really not sure anything else got accomplished.
Joe

Interesting to find all the "libertarian" type responses here. I must admit that, for some reason, it wasn't what I expected to find.

Smoke-filled rooms have never bothered me, whether before I began smoking or afterwards. (I started at around 22, much later than most of my compatriots.)

Tell you what's interesting: Some years ago, my wife decided to quit smoking. I tried to quit with her, but I just couldn't make it. But she asked me not to keep any cigarettes around the house, because she knew it would blow her quitting.

So I took up smoking a pipe.

At that time, we lived in Arizona, just across the state line from Laughlin, Nevada, and we'd go to the casinos a lot. When we were both smoking cigarettes, we'd walk up to a blackjack table and the non-smoking types would frown, make faces, wave their hands to blow the smoke away, etc.

But when I walked up to a table smoking my pipe, everyone would go, "Oh, that pipe tobacco smells so good! What kind is it?" One woman even got all emotional, telling me how her Grandpa smoked a pipe when she was a little girl and the tobacco smell reminded her of him... (Gee, there's a song in that one somewhere, isn't there?)

I definitely felt like I moved up a few social classes when I took up the pipe.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand: I've never had a problem with people smoking, whether in clubs or anywhere else. What I have a problem with (apparently like a lot of other people here) is with those who feel they must legislate everyone else's lives for them. I am seriously considering voting for the Libertarian candidate for President this year.

--- Ed


------------------
http://www.edperrone.com/music/index.shtml
http://edperrone.rideonmusic.com

I'll keep it short and sweet...

I can sing better in any venue that bans smoking. My throat doesn't as sore and my eyes don't string. I don't notice any difference in the crowd. Other than they probably drink more.

Jody

I dont smoke. I dont mind if you smoke as long as I dont have to breath it or take that lovely smell with me on my clothes and hair,ect.

I have been in places that have advertised the latest in "smoke eaters". I still had to that meds to be able to breath. I have had 4bypass open heart surgery at age 38. I will always believe it was caused by the 2 bowling leagues.

Anyway smoking IS a right...forcing others to smoke your smoke IS not. Cant some nice engineer invent something that will take the smoke out of these places?? that really works. This WILL be a long thread.

Love and fresh air to all...............Rick

------------------
www.fallingforever.net

Being the person closest to Ireland on these boards, I can safely say that most UK smokers will probably feel 'more' persecuted if the new law in the Republic of Ireland is crosses over into mainland Britain.

Not being one myself, I heartily agree with Jody: I *don't* like smelling like a smoker the morning after a gig.

Most of the places in the UK that are smoke free at the moment are the usual ones world over - offices, public transport, cinemas, theatres etc etc.

Difference is that in Ireland it is now illegal to smoke in pubs and bars as well. Everyone is waiting to see how it affects tourism in Dublin.

::Chi-chi::
http://www.thisischichi.com/audio.htm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob young:


the whole second hand smoke deal is an unproven myth...


The only "myth" is the belief that second hand smoke danger is an 'unproven myth'.

Anyone who wants the true facts, directly from the EPA and the American Lung Association, here's the link:

http://www.lungusa.org/tobacco/secondhand_factsheet99.html

Of course, no one truly needs an org like the American Lung Association to tell them what is patently obvious after spending an evening in a smoke-filled establishment.

Just ask your own eyes, nose, throat, and lungs.



[This message has been edited by RobertK (edited 03-30-2004).]

With smoking on the decline, as it is, I doubt if the smoking ban in Ireland will affect tourism that much. That's when the legislator types really get going, when they smell blood (look at the Janet Jackson flap). They can jump on a social bandwagon, write another law, and get on tv congratulating themselves for protecting the public. Meanwhile, the guy in his basement who develops the perfect smoke eating machine is S.O.L., his potential money is now fed to the lawyers, legislators, insurance industry, and social engineers of various agendas.

With the decline of smoking, I've seen the rise of smoke-free nights at clubs, smoke-free clubs, and smaller smoking sections, all without the need for another law and all that entails. Let me guess...these laws that prohibit smoking, they wouldn't carry fines, would they? This was rapidly on its way to being settled in the marketplace. Let's start fining the legislators for passing redundant laws.

Ed, the only problem with libertarians is that we won't follow our party bylaws. We don't have conventions, we have unconventions.

Stay Free,
Mike

------------------
Mike Dunbar Music

Hi All,

Wow.. we must all be collectively maturing since we've managed to have both sides represented on this issue and not a single name has been called.. maybe there's hope yet.

I've never cared much about what people do to themselves. Take all the drugs, eat what you want, smoke what you want.. makes no difference to me. Just don't coat me in the residue of what you partake. I don't want your popcorn butter poured over my head, I don't want your beer foam sprayed all over my jacket and I don't want your smoke stench invading the fibers of my clothes, the mucus membranes in my eyes and clinging to my skin. The moment some smart smoker creates a method to keep their smoke 100% away from me, they are welcome to light up 24/7 anywhere they want. To me, that seems like a reasonable request. But, with all that said, I am really more curious about the actual impact smoking bans have had or are having on Musicians playing out in clubs.

When this topic was last discussed at length, I believe some in the Pro Smoking crowd vehemently argued that Bars would close down en masse and artists/bands would lose even more bookings than ever before. I am of the opinion that if a club doesn't want to book live music (or pay a fair wage for it) they won't.. and they'll find any old convenient excuse they feel like.

I said Ireland had gone smoke free, meaning that the entire country has a public smoking ban. Interestingly enough, the Irish ban sounded more far reaching than some other bans I have heard. The only exceptions are places where people work AND live both. (And they gave, as an example: nursing homes????) Apparently there are many workplace lawsuits still in the courts. I am guessing that if any find their way into judgements, especially where municipalities are involved, we'll see a rapid succession of public and workplace smoking bans spread across the country.

If smoke had zero "health" effects, I'd still be for banning it because the stench ruins clothing, furniture and the decor of any business. That should be enough alone. If there are negative health factors on top of it, caused by someone else, then it's a no brainer to ban. I don't think someone finishing a bag of doritos should legally be allowed to dump the crumbs down a smokers shirt when they are through either. Who wants to smell like someone elses vice?

I am really happy to learn that business not only wasn't harmed, but actually increased. (Common sense suggested it would go up, but it's nice to have proof). Has anyone seen any studies or published numbers suggesting a negative economic impact? If so, please share them. Interestingly enough, I've heard some cities that still have smoking, have been losing business (not BECAUSE of smoking, but because of competition from the Internet, Cable TV, DVD's etc.). Perhaps a way for these businesses to get some of that foot traffic back is to create a more pleasant environment to get folks back out of their homes.

Brian

There's hope for me and Bob yet..
Amen brother Bob...

As far as the economic outcome of smoking.
Without stating any statistics...
I would say the ban probably has not made any difference on whether folks choose to stay home or go out.
I think how they just decide is by looking in their wallets...
Not if the venue allows smoking..

DAvid

To me, the whole wording of banning smoking in "public" is flawed and deceptive. To me, "public" buildings and property would be those owned by the government (and therefore, by us, the public); be it federal, state or local. If a majority of people in a particular jurisdiction want to ban smoking in these areas, fine, let them do it.

If I own a bar or nightclub, that is not "public" property in the same sense that the post office is. It is MY property, which I allow the public into. It requires a certain amount of high minded gall, in my opinion, to enact the types of bans that we are seeing an increase in, considering they are not affecting truly "public" properties.

If you don't want your clothes to smell like smoke, don't go to clubs that allow smoking. Forcing your views and will on others, via the heavy hand of law, is a pretty draconian way to avoid something you don't care for. In this case, it's not about your rights as a non-smoker or someone else's rights as a smoker. It's about the owner's rights to do as he pleases with his own business.

Smoking, in general, is on the decline in this country. There are still marked differences by region, though. I have to second much of what Dawg had to say on the subject, really. Smoking is much more acceptable in the South than elsewhere. Culturally, we've always had a fondness for certain vices. That's why we produce the best tobacco products and the best whiskey in the country. But why shouldn't a gaggle of activists and politicians from places we have little real connection to determine what industries we engage in and how we behave in public?

Whether on the personal level or on a broader national level, one's "preference" does not automatically translate into a "right". Then there's just the whole weird thing that someone would sit in a bar drinking themselves silly, but manage to sit on their high horse and dictate behavior to others. I guess the way one views the issue is largely determined by their attitudes about individual liberty and personal rights. I do know that in my experience, there are many non-smokers in this part of the country who would be against such smoking bans, because they would view it as an audacious infringement of personal rights.

Randy

------------------
http://www.songramp.com/homepage.ez?Who=RandyB

i'm a light smoker, but i have mixed feelings about smoking bans...

the comparisons to banning junk food and personal freedom et al aren't really apt here - when i order a plate of cheese fries, i'm not forcing the people around me to eat them.

on the other hand - it doesn't seem right to tell a property owner that they can't do whatever they want with their venue.

on the other other hand - we do that all the time in the name of protectioning people from one another, employee workplace protections etc... isn't that basically what OSHA is all about?

hell i dunno.

i like that i can still smoke in some bars. i guess in the end i come down on banning smoking in public places... and then providing an easy and inexpensive way for certain venues to become designated smoking areas if they want.

i mean - if that 9% increase in business is real... it's hard to see why a bar would resist going smoke fee -- and that might benefit "designated" smoking bars - because they'd be able to lay claim to a dedicated niche audience.



------------------
kit malone
http://www.kitmalone.com

Did I actually type "protectioning?"

Jesus. It would appear that I did...

Kit....

I was just starting to chuckle, thinking to myself "is protectioning a word?"....

But....I kind of like it.....

I may steal it and call it my own if you don't mind !

Bob

Following the argument of some, it seems fair that all the non-drivers should get together and get automobiles banned for belching all that exhaust into the non-drivers air.
I don't care for rap music much, so the kid next door better never play it loud enough for me to hear AT ALL !
Even a whisper...that would be invading my "earspace" and I'm not gonna stand for it.
I don't like green cars either and I don't think it's fair that I have to see them !
I don't know if the smell of cigarettes in a bar is worse than the smell of stale beer or vats of greasy french fries....

It just seems hard to isolate all our "rights"..
There are several hundred million of us walking around and bumping into each other....
God help the next person that breathes bad breath into my face !

Where's my AK 47 ?!?

I wonder if some of the people going back into those joints in New York are people who had been staying home because of 9?11...?

Hmmmm....

Here in Chicago, our Mayor Daley (a non smoker) is against a smoking ban in taverns

He thinks people should have a choice...
He's not a libertarian...just a plain old Democrat...

You smokers out there take heed.....
When I quit smoking I did not gain weight...
My breathing got better....
And I did notice fewere colds and respiratory stuff happening..

so...if you can quit, it would be a good thing.

But, infringing on the rights of those who choose to smoke....
Well that's a bad thing.

PS...I quit caffeine (except when I go to Dawgs house) at the same time..been caffeine free for a year as well....
Some of my friends call me the Muslim !

well - frankly -- doesn't it seem fair?

I mean obviously the suffering we cause one another is on a sliding scale -- but there is a germ of a point in that kind of argument. It may not be very practical, but that doesn't make it untrue.



loud rap music (or my neighbor's noisy dishwasher) may invade your earspace, but it doesn't give you cancer, either. again - yes it's a slippery slope, but there's a pretty obvious difference between things that cause actual physical harm and things that may only annoy you.

i would argue that nobody really has the *right* to be protected from minor, harmless annoyance.



again, if you could show me that the color green causes eye cancer, then you'd have a point.



but again the smells of stale beer and greasy french fries aren't likely to give you lung cancer.



maybe so -- but i propose this: if your intended action causes someones else actual physical harm and not just minor annoyance... maybe you don't have the right to do it.



i'd theorize in a purely unscientific way that it's more likely that people who drink socially will continue to drink socially regardless of whether or not they have to step outside to smoke. And people who are turned off by smoke, aren't dedicated social drinkers, but still like a beer or a martini now and then are more likely to come out a little more often when the environment is friendly to their lungs.

anyway i don't have cut and dry feelings on this... my views can be summarized pretty easily:

i don't think anybody has a guaranteed right to expose crowds of other people to a known carcinogen.

on the other hand -- i think that people who own property should have the opportunity to do pretty much whatever they want with it, within the bounds of reason.



------------------
kit malone
http://www.kitmalone.com

Brian/all,
I'll have to digress from your main question a bit-
I'll keep it short for once, and try to be realistic, regarding both sides of the issue.

People's rights, and hazardous materials-
Fine line regarding smoking-

Also, one nit I have about banning smoking is; "In the privacy of ones own home."
I heard a topic on the radio about this, and people were getting slammed legally-
This aspect not only annoys me, but is outrageuos!!!
The audacity some people have, claiming heart or lung problems, attributing their condition to smoke dissipating from a neighbors house- even when the smoker was smoking "inside."

somewhat miffed-


Cal

Kit...

If you buy the theory that occasional exposure to second hand smoke is going to give you cancer...well...OK...
that's your opinion...

I don't buy the second hand smoke stuff....

I just don't believe it..

It's a power trip for some....and that's not new...

In the year that I've quit, I have noticed the smell of cigarettes in our house (my wife smokes ALOT)
But..am I choking, or coughing or are my eyes watering?....No...no they're not.

What about those poor toll collectors on toll roads...
Can you imagine the junk going into their lungs....
Shouldn't they be suing somebody?

Come on folks.......

BUT...having said all that...
If I own a joint that allows smoking and I see the place next to me banning smoking and getting a 9 percent increase in business....Well.....

I dunno.......

Bob

Bob-
You are very fortunate, and blessed, you have not had any health issues being around cigarette smoke.
But I'll have to disagree-
You are at best, "off point" and grossly misinformed, blinded by your ego, and ignorance of the facts-
You seem like an intelligent man-
Why don't you do the "proper research", and
quit supporting your altered theories on the subject-
Second hand smoke causes health problems-
It's a known, documented, proven fact-

Nothin personal-

Cal



[This message has been edited by Cal (edited 03-30-2004).]

I'm not blinded by my ego Cal...that's rude...

The second hand smoke theory is no more a proven fact than the moon is made of green cheese.

It's an ongoing debate within the AMA itself

There are learned opinions on both sides of the issue..

Your statement shows tha you are a victim of propaganda..

thank goodness...I'm smarter than that.

You are old enough to have been through the milk scare..the cranberry scare..the radiation from cell phones scare...it goes on and on.

No Cal...I'm just not buying it..and who better than myself to take as a personal example ?

I believe that cigarettes are not healthy...
I do not believe that breathing in a little second hand smoke is gonna necessarily get you sick with cancer or anything else.

I'm not alone in that view..and for you to imply that it's ego or anything like that is insulting....

but...I've been insulted by smarter folks than you..so...

Whatever...

Bob

If you buy the theory that occasional exposure to second hand smoke is going to give you cancer...well...OK...
that's your opinion...

Eh... sheeesh!

As I already cited in a previous post, it's also the 'opinion' of the American Lung Association, the EPA, the American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society, not to mention the medical profession in the majority.

I think I'll trust their 'opinion'. I'm not so jaded as to think that the Surgeon General, for example, is spreading propaganda, leastwise, not in this case.

Here are some more links to go with the first I cited, in case anyone really wants to know the truth of the matter, rather than spread falsehoods that can mislead others into risking the health of those around them.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/c...al_Tobacco_ Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp

"The 1986 US Surgeon General's report on the health consequences of involuntary smoking reached 3 important conclusions about secondhand smoke:

Involuntary smoking causes disease, including lung cancer, in healthy nonsmokers.
When compared with the children of nonsmoking parents, children of parents who smoke have more frequent respiratory infections, more respiratory symptoms, and slower development of lung function as the lung matures.
Separating smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space may reduce, but does not eliminate, the exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke."

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3011851

“Respected, science-based organizations have agreed for over 20 years that second-hand smoke is linked to coronary heart disease, lung cancer and respiratory diseases,” said Robert O. Bonow, M.D., president of the American Heart Association. “Credible health organizations from around the world, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency, the World Health Organization and several U.S. Surgeons General, have all concluded that second-hand smoke is responsible for thousands of deaths each year.”

Recent evidence has added to this scientific consensus. Just last month, researchers in Helena, Montana, showed that the incidence of heart attacks dropped by 60 percent following the city’s adoption of a smoke-free policy in local restaurants and bars."


[This message has been edited by RobertK (edited 03-30-2004).]

Robert-

Thank You!!!!!

Cal

Hi RobertK...

Isn't it a shame that CBS took Martha Stewart off in the afternoon !?!

Gosh....is nothing sacred ?

Bob Young

Like Brian says, it's a no-brainer.

At worst, smokers kill and injure themselves and those around them (albeit the latter are done in at a slower pace).

At best, smokers still stink to high heavens and make everything and everyone around them smell bad.

Quit now, folks, and LIVE!

And here I thought I heard someone praise you for 'seeming intelligent'.

I was going to dissuade them from that opinion, based upon past debates, but...

Looks like you've beaten me to it (yet again!).


[This message has been edited by RobertK (edited 03-30-2004).]

Hey !

I just looked at the calendar...

It's my friggin' bithday !!

No wonder I'm so forgiving today !

Bob

Also....
It's good to see that some of you agree with my advice to give up smoking..

Good luck to you

I wish I could get Mary to quit...but...she's just not ready.

I'll tell you what tho....
We've been married a long time...and she still gives me that "special" look every now and then....
And suddenly....that cigarette smell ain't so bad after all !

I guess some things matter more to some of us than others...

[This message has been edited by bob young (edited 03-30-2004).]

Well, have a happy friggin' birthday, then... as a gift, I'd like to give you a clue, but I haven't any to spare myself.

Smoking is not a particularly healthy activity to engage in, but there are certainly disparate views within the medical community regarding the risks posed by second hand smoke. Suggesting that giving credence to any of these alternate theories is merely the result of ignorance and egotism is a bit much, in my opinion, not to mention arrogant. I guess Brian was premature in applauding the lack of name calling.

Such arguments seem to exhibit a blind faith in government sponsored medical research that I personally find unwarranted. Certainly, our government caretakers have proven themselves grossly incorrect on many medical matters. In some cases, their faulty research led to closing down entire industries and the economic hardships that accompany such incidents (saccharine comes to mind--causes cancer, conveniently for the makers of Nutrasweet, perhaps...but wait, now it doesn't cause cancer). In other cases, faulty government sponsored medical research has cost lives (banning DDT lead to a resurgence of malaria that wiped out millions worldwide--oops, years later we decided it wasn't so bad after all). So, while I don't think smoking a pack a day will put you on the road to better health, I also don't think it ridiculous that studies on the effects of second hand smoke could be interpreted partly on the basis of pressure from special interest groups.

Whatever my opinion on the subject, I will concede that those opinions are not based on my personal scientific research on the matter. Some of the statements in this thread do highlight the fact that health concerns are often secondary to the fact that someone "just doesn't like it". So, if "smokers stink" is the underlying basis for supporting smoking bans in bars and nightclubs, regardless of real or imagined health issues, I'll stick with my original stance. I'm more worried about a society that shows an increasing desire to control people's behavior than I am of second hand smoke. The latter I know how to avoid, if I so desire.

Back to the original point, though....if there is an obvious economic benefit to banning smoking in bars and nightclubs then I imagine we'll see much more of it without need of government intervention. When we see a flood of bar owners outlawing smoking in their businesses in locations with no ordinance forcing them to do so, then we'll know that, yes, smoke free bars are more desirable in the marketplace and it won't take a survey from questionable sources to tip us off to that fact.

Randy

------------------
http://www.songramp.com/homepage.ez?Who=RandyB

Good news for you, RobertK..

It looks like USA is gonna be picking up the Martha Stewart shows..

I think she's going to handle the delicate
"Does the prlonged exposure to Chenille cause sterility in adult lab rats?"

More good news for you is that they'll be posting the results on the internet so you can provide us with quotes AND links.

Once again you'll be able to espouse your opinions based on neither logic nor personal knowledge.

Maybe I should be wishing you happy birthday !

Bob

but there are certainly disparate views within the medical community regarding the risks posed by second hand smoke

The vast majority of the medical profession supports the findings of the above-mentioned organizations, and the fact that there will always be one or two doctors to step up and say something different does not mean there are LEGITIMATE "disparate views", which connotes that no irrefutable facts have been discovered.

Also, last time I checked, the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, and American Heart Association were not government agencies.

But you believe what you wish. It might indeed be naive to take any government agency or official at face value, but it's equally (if not moreso) foolish to automatically dismiss the information they present, merely because they're the "gummint".

And the "smoker's stink" argument was the "at best" scenario, and certainly not the main gist of the debate.

[This message has been edited by RobertK (edited 03-30-2004).]

Geez, learn to admit when you're wrong.

Oh, I forgot... you're much brighter and provided much more evidence for your point of view about SHS than those idiots from the ACS, ALA, and AHA that I quoted.

So... by all means, continue to enjoy those 'special looks'...

the yellowed and blood-shot eyes, the stained teeth, the foul breath. If the smoking continues long and hard enough, you might even get to enjoy that old tube-up-the-nose and oxygen-can-by-the-side look. Or perhaps that sexy "come hither" voice that emerges from those hand-held things they give folks after cancer of the larynx?



[This message has been edited by RobertK (edited 03-30-2004).]

I suffer from allergies. The symptoms increase when I'm in a place that allows smoking. I don't like my eyes stinging and "bleeding tears" when I'm in the middle of performing a song.

I used to smoke but no longer do.
I now find that I'm more sensitive to the smell of smoke on myself and anyone standing close to me.

BUT...

I still think it's wrong for the government to try to control this aspect of private enterprise. Although I think that it makes sense to ban smoking in places like grocery stores, elevators, etc. (places where people MUST go), I DON'T believe it's ok to ban smoking where people congregate for recreation. Clubs, restaurants, and other places of PUBLIC CHOICE should be allowed to set the smoking/non-smoking rules for their own establishments.

As an entertainer, I PREFER to play smoke-free venues. But I accept that smoke-filled rooms are also be part of my chosen vocation--on those nights, I load up on the non-drowsy allergy pills and do the best I can.

For the purpose of this survey, however, I can't really compare the crowd sizes at one type of venue against the other because it's an apples-to-oranges thing: The smoking venues in Ohio generally offer a different type of atmosphere and entertainment than do the non-smoking facilities.

I'm not usually one to hop onto the bus with the ACLU types...but issues like this--coupled with the whole 911 security backlash--are beginning to make me a **little** nervous about how cozy we're getting with the idea of legislating morality ...

(Good topic, Brian. I can't believe the number of responses already generated! And I'm proud of everyone here for the calm dialogue and well-presented, yet varied, positions... )

------------------
www.dianatyler.com

RobertK,

I don't recall stating that any of those organizations were government agencies, though I'd be surprised if any one of them did not receive healthy amounts of funding from the government. I also don't recall saying that I automatically dismiss information that may come from the "gummint", despite your condescending implication to the contrary.

For someone I would bet money has done no more scientific research into the health hazards of second hand smoke than I have, you certainly show a remarkable amount of zeal for arrogantly insulting others who aren't willing to bend to your view, based solely on the expertise with which you include hyperlinks in your posts. Again, you seem to make the assumption that someone who does not agree with you, especially after you've done them the favor of "explaining" yourself, must do so only as a result of their ignorance. Which, not surprisingly, is just the sort of attitude that leads to banning smoking in nightclubs. If some silly yokel can't figure out he's risking his health, someone needs to step in and *make* him stop. Or maybe the silly yokel just stinks, which should be reason enough, as well.

Randy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RandyB:
RobertK,

I don't recall stating that any of those organizations were government agencies, though I'd be surprised if any one of them did not receive healthy amounts of funding from the government. I also don't recall saying that I automatically dismiss information that may come from the "gummint", despite your condescending implication to the contrary.


Reread your previous few posts. The implications were strong indeed, as was your own condescending tone.


For someone I would bet money has done no more scientific research into the health hazards of second hand smoke than I have, you certainly show a remarkable amount of zeal for arrogantly insulting others who aren't willing to bend to your view, based solely on the expertise with which you include hyperlinks in your posts.

I quoted cites that specialize on the subject and are acknowledged authorities, which is a damn sight more than you have been doing. So even if that were the extent of my research, I'd still be a step ahead.

And for the record, you're the one who started throwing about words like "arrogant", "ignorance", etc., and intimating that people were showing blind faith in government studies (hence, they can't be too intelligent) so don't be putting off on someone else what you yourself do. If anyone sounds 'holier than thou' it's you, chum, but in a weird bizarro-world sort of way, in that you castigate others for showing evidence and facts, and then make it sound like they're spewing uniformed opinion, such as yourself. And then, of course, when they prove themselves better at defending their positions, you then resort to the old "arrogant and insulting" labels that you yourself exhibit.

How about from now on, since I rankle you so much, you agree to just ignore me, because I've already decided to ignore you, and your good buddy Bob Young, from here on out.

Oh, and light 'em up if you got 'em. They may help illuminate your continued journey through that long Egyptian night.


[This message has been edited by RobertK (edited 03-30-2004).]

i'm willing to admit that there's leeway in the interpretation of any scientific research done on smoking. i preserve a healthy sense of skepticism about everything.

of course, here i'm making the egotistical choice of trusting the American Medical Association (which is not a government entity, btw - but a private organization of doctors and medical professionals) and the Attorny General (which admittedly is, obviously, a government position) over the tobacco lobby.

coming down on the side of caution based on substantial evidence and the testimony of experts when the stakes (our good health) are high isn't entirely unreasonable, nor need that decision be based on egotism or lack of respect for anyone's rights.

i mean - i suppose i could go to medical school and become a doctor and the sponsor my own independant study on the effects of second hand smoke. but nobody can afford to do that every time an issue pops up that calls for independant judgement. and again i'm certainly willing to maintain a healthy skeptecism about all ideas -- eventually you have to pick the side that seems stonger and stick with that until someone else seems to have a better point.

right now - the majority of the medical professional seems to think second hand smoke is bad for you... so sure, educate yourself -- but you can't just discount that fact out of hand. and any decision that a layperson makes on the topic has to incorporate that information, or else it isn't an informed decision.

i know that it sucks that we can't all have PHDs in genetics, physics, medicine, physical anthropology, cosmology, chemistry, and metallurgy every time an issue comes up that calls for our judgement. it would be great if we could.

but as a reasonably informed layperson -- it seems to me to be clear that the scientific community has the beginnings of a coherent running theory about second-hand smoke and its link to cancer. yes, there are some (in some cases quite loud) dissenting voices in the community, and we should certainly keep an eye on those voices. maybe they'll be shown to be right someday.

but their arguments haven't been good enough to convince the medical community at large, and that is good enough for me, Mr. Layperson. if that makes me an intellectual dwarf and a slave to fashion then So Be It. come and take my subscription to Scientific American - for i am no longer worthy of it.

but in the meantime -- i think it's clear that a reasonable person (or town, or city, or state, or nation) can still come to the conclusion that second hand smoke represents a very serious *possible* health hazard. i don't think it's fair to accuse someone of being a "slave to propoganda" or of having a closed mind merely for having taken massive amounts of expert advice into account in making their decisions. we can only go with the best sources we have available to us --

who other than the majority of the medical profession should we trust... the tobacco lobby? congress? bob young?

as a civil society with a vested interest in protecting its citizens from one another through the rule of law -- maybe that little bit of information (the one where the majority of the medical profession agrees that second hand smoke is bad) *should* inform the decisions we make.

so with that in mind - let's look at this whole "individual rights" thing again:

we're not talking about proscriptive, paternalistic laws here (like seat belt laws, anti-drug laws, and motorcycle helmet laws). these are arguably only constructed to protect people from themselves - and rightly or wrongly, certainly represent limitations of our individual freedoms.

second hand smoke laws specifically to prevent people from harming one another -- and i think therefore fall somewhat outside the realm of individual rights, and more into the realm of protections against things like theft, robbery, violence, etc.

nobody would seriously argue that you have the right to spit poison on somebody, merely because you enjoy spitting poison.

in my opinion, if you agree that

1) second hand smoke is harmful

2) people should be prevented from harming one another

then

3) people should be prevented from blowing smoke in other people's faces

seems to follow.

certainly 1) may be open for debate, but most people agree that 2) isn't (if you think 2) is false -- then i probably wouldn't like you very much).

if 1) is true -- then it's hard for me to understand how this can be an issue of "individual rights."

of course, if 1) is false then the whole thing is off. and when most doctors in america decide that second hand smoke is actually harmless... come back and i'll recant this entire thing.



------------------
kit malone
http://www.kitmalone.com

You know, Kit...

I respect your opinion...and your right to it...

I got rankled a bit when you suggested mine was based on egoism or arrogance or whatever....

this was a friendly discussion till RobertK showed up..
It's OK to disagree, I think.

But bad form to suggest that those disagreeing with us do so out of ignorance, or ego.

RobertK chose to ignore the fact that I as an ex smoker encourage everyone to try and quit smoking....
Ignoring that makes his ranting and name calling seem palatable (to him at least)

thank goodness the vast majority of people here and eveywhere else can see thru that stuff....
But, I think RobertK might just be a lonely guy that needs a little attention.

He's pretty harmless.....

My feelings on the second hand smoke theory are partly based on my seeing misinformation from government and government supported groups for years.

I'm more than a little suspicious of their pronouncements...

simple as that...

I don't think that has anything to do with ego...just experience...

Hell...I smoked for 40 years...I'm a damn physical wreck and lung cancer is about the only thing I DON'T suffer from !

But, remember..we're talking aobut second hand smoke...and the original intent of this thread was to inquire about the advanrtages or disadvantages of no smoking policies on entertainers.

I don't gig in saloons any more so I don't have a qualified opinion on that aspect of the deal.

I have noticed a horrible stench outside the entrances of several no smoking places..a couple of restaurants among them..
It seems that concentrating the smokers into one small are does concentrate the bad smell..

I dunno...

Like I said several times...

I'm glad I quit...I wish more folks would.
But I don't want the government deciding if and when they should be allowed to smoke.

Seems a simple enough issue that it doesn't need all of RobertKs hysterics and unpleasant graphics.

But again...he just seems sad and pitiable so it's easy to forgive him.

bob

i never said anything about the presence or lack thereof of an ego in your argument.

maybe you're confusing me with another poster?

here's what i wrote - is this what you're refferring to?



here i'm arguing against the idea that seemed to be espoused earlier on that it's egotisical to trust the community of medical experts -- sarcastically referring to myself, not you.




here i'm just saying that choosing to side with the medical community in this issue doesn't mean anyone is egotistically blind here or that they don't respect the rights of smokers.

------------------
kit malone
http://www.kitmalone.com

[This message has been edited by kit (edited 03-30-2004).]

Hi Robert old buddy,

Yes, when people address an issue from a standpoint of arrogance and condescension, I often return the favor, assuming it's the methodology they're most comfortable with. If they don't expect it in return, I can't imagine why else they would behave that way. You know..."do unto others" and all.

When government enacts health related legislation, I give them the benefit of the doubt that they base their decisions on either their own research, or someone else's research (whether government funded or not). Those seem like the only two choices to me. In either case, though, it is the government who enacts legislation based on the research...this is a power that independent associations do not hold. Again, in the past, the government has enacted legislation or instituted regulations based on faulty research. I do not believe that stating this in any way indicates that I blindly and arbitrarily dismiss any medical findings that the government chooses to act on. I brought up that subject to support the point that there might be legitimate reasons why some folks don't go running every time someone cries "Wolf!".

I have not posted links to sites that would support one argument over another, nor do I plan to spend any time surfing to find such sites. If someone wants to know both sides of an issue, let them go read what the experts have to say for themselves. Unlike some, I'm not here to convert anyone. I'm merely giving my opinion, just as everyone else is. I'm under no misconception, though, that my opinion constitutes fact. Go read the medical journals, read the news, read whatever you can find on the subject, interview people who have been affected by these issues....do whatever you feel will make you best informed. Ideally, that's how we should all come to our conclusions, I suppose. If someone else did the exact same research, however, and came to a different conclusion I would not automatically assume they did so from a position of inferior intellect.

The "fact" is, showing evidence to support one's argument does not, in itself, constitute fact. So, I can save myself some time and trouble of doing the extra legwork just to strengthen my opinions of medical issues on a music forum. I just state my opinions and let it go at that, usually, unless some rabid zealot starts badgering at me(yes, that was name calling).

The funny thing is, I do think that smoking is bad for one's health. I also think that second hand smoke, though to a lesser extent, is bad for one's health. I don't choose to believe that everyone who disagrees with me in any way is an egotistical, ignorant buffoon. Nor do I choose to participate in relieving grown ups of their responsibility to avoid things that they know, or suspect, to be harmful. So, if someone hangs out in smokey bars and gets cancer, it's not the fault of the owner or the people who were smoking, unless they forced the person to be there.

Oh, and for the record, I don't know Bob Young from Adam. Offhand, though, he seems like a pleasant enough sort. People I've met other than in the anonymous world of internet forums seem to like him fine, too. That's more than can be said for some around here.

Okay, I'll let you get back to ignoring me now.

Randy

[This message has been edited by RandyB (edited 03-30-2004).]

Kit...

I am so sorry.....

I did get the posts mixed up..

You did not say that stuff...

Please accept my apology

bob

I understand and complete agree with a smoking ban in all TAX FUNDED PUBLIC DOMAIN properties/areas. But when it comes to the private sector, it's disgusting the abusive power the government is demonstrating. My sister-in-laws father has owned a restaurant in NYC for the past two and a half decades. He started the business himself, he paid over six hundred thousand for the property alone and put several hundred thousand more into the business and after 25 years big brother comes sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong and telling him not only can't anyone else smoke in HIS PROPERTY, but he himself can't smoke in HIS PROPERTY. This is absolutely incomprehensible and every American should be gravely concerned about their rights. Just because a business is open to the public, doesn't mean you have to give them your business, doesn't mean you have to work there, doesn't mean you have to perform there. If you are not comfortable with the environment for ANY reason, you have the right to walk right by the door and go somewhere else to eat, apply for a job or perform.

[This message has been edited by Pattycakes (edited 03-30-2004).]