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

RobertK,

I am sorry, but being able to find the "Google Search" slot no more constitutes legitimate research than ordering ten dollars worth of bumper stickers qualifies you to be a presidential candidate.

There are more proven carcinogens in a half-gallon container of 409 cleaning solution than in a carton of cigargettes. I know of no municipality which has outlawed, banned, or in anyway restricted its use.

Every supermarket in the country is selling "Febreeze" oder eliminator. Google that Robert, and see what it does to your pets.

If a local community in East Nosepick, Nebraska wasts to make its city limits a smoke free zone ... fine. I will stay out of your backyeard. But don't even think about coming into my yard and telling me what to do.

dawg

Wow wow wow wow, wowee wow, wow. Fine, ban smoking, ban the sale of smokes. But, then who and what will you blame lung cancer on? Or do ya'll think it will go away when smoking goes away?
And what about all those folks who have never smoked, and have spent very little time around those who have, but still get lung cancer? Is it really from the VERY limited exposure to smoke? I seriously doubt it.
Or...or...what about all the people who do smoke, and never get cancer? Is this some sort of miracle?

But after smokes are gone, it won't be long before we're bailin' hay with hydro-eco-slowmo-mobiles, and eating salad five times a day, waiting for the re-reruns of I love Lucy. Ban cars, ban perfumes and hairsprays, ban all cleaning products, especially bleach, ban diet soda it has what amounts to embalming fluid in it. Why is one more or less dangerous than another?

We all agree that smoking is unhealthy, but until someone can show me that it is undeniably more harmful than half the crap we consume/ingest then leave me the hell alone. I don't buy that second hand smoke is any more harmful than the chemicals I ingest sitting next to the Italian guy on the bus, who is wearing a gallon of "Cool Water" cologne. And as far as I'm concerned that's more bothersome to me than the smell of a cigarette.
At the end of the day, I don't like people telling me how to live my life. Or making me feel like a second class citizen because I make different choices than you do.

It is unfortunate for smokers that their chosen activeity cannot be "privite." I mean that in the sense that, if others are nearby, they will be included in the activity whether they want to or not. In that regard, smoking is a unique activity.

It's fine to say, "Well, leave then." But, does not a person have a right to be there?

This is a matter of rights. We all know that our rights are routinely limited when they interfere with, or clash with, the rights of others. A person has a right to breathe smoke. A person has a right not to breathe smoke. Rights clash. When they do, the government must mediate. For all of those who criticise the governments when they overstep their bounds, I suggest that mediating disputes is absolutely one of the key responsibilities of governments. And the smoking problem is certainly a mediation issue.

I take no side on the issue except to note that it is a very difficult issue. In my area, restaurants did not ban smoking until the counties forces them to do it. Before that, they did not provide non-smoking areas until forced to do so. They resisted until they forced the government to act. Whose fault, ultimately?

I am a non-smoker who grew up completely overwhelmed by second-hand smoke. I hate the smell and the stinging irritation that cigarette smoke causes. I'm VERY thankful that I can go to a ball game and not have the event ruined by smoke. I'm very thankful that I can ride an airplane without having to breathe that stuff. I have no problem avoiding other places where people smoke. I'm glad for no-smoking in bars and restaurants, but I'm not sure an all-out ban is completely fair to everyone. But that's the problem, isn't it? Being fair to EVERYONE. Sometimes, it can't be done.

A guy wants to raise chickens in his backyard. It's his property and he can do what he wants, right? The neighbors say the odor interferes with THIER rights. Makes sense. SOMEONE is going to have his rights limited because there is NO OTHER WAY TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE. Both parties cannot be satisfied. It is the nature of society.

Less than 2% of smokers who have smoked thirty years or more develop lung cancer and less than half of those die. So you have over a 98% chance of not getting cancer from a lifetime of smoking and over a 50% chance of not dying from it if you do. There are also plenty of doctors who dispute smoking causes cancer at all.

true enough - but don't you think that's a bit of an oversimplification? i mean - so far as i know there is no culture of spraying lungfuls of formula 409 all over the people around you.

and we can smoke all we want in our backyard. but bars and clubs and grocery stores and restaurants aren't really your backyard...

i dunno i'm really torn about this. i don't like restrictive government policies any more than anybody else. but on the other hand - i don't think people should be allowed to do harm to other people.

before anybody chimes in -- yes i'm aware that people can choose not to go to clubs and restaurants that allow smoking... and i think that smokers ought to have the ability to go somewhere where they can socialize AND smoke... hell i'm a light smoker myself, and i like having a cigarette with my whiskey as much the next fella.

but people have a point on the other side too. our right to go about in the world unharmed can't really be left to the mercy of the free market... and what happens if you can't really go anywhere without having to wade through someones carcinogenous fumes simply because the current fashion changes again and suddenly everybody has picked up smoking?

frankly i don't have an answer to any of that. but if one of my friends asks me not to smoke around them - or if the guy sitting next to me doesn't want to breathe my smoke -- then i'm probably going to put my cigarette out.

i just don't think i have an iota of a right to breathe smoke in anybody's face... carcinogenous or not. it just seems rude that people should have to suffer the ill effects of my bad habit - merely because we both would like a draft beer.

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

best post so far in this debate.



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

And while we're on the subject (off of your original one Brian, sorry) WHO gave these people making commercials the authority to use our children as their spokespeople? OOOH, it pisses me off when I see those commercials come on with some adult asking children to ASK their parents to stop smoking.
I don't think kids, especially today, need the frickin' extra pressure. That's worse than the lady from PETA sneakin' around and spray painting someones Fur Coat. At least she does the dirty deed on her own.

I was a kid once too, and I know I asked my parents to quit once or twice, and I'm sure they laughed it off. (silly kid). Their both still alive by the way, no cancer in sight. I'm workin' on my own T.V. spot, it features me at a bar drinkin' a cold one, and smoking a Marlboro Red, when my nosy neighbor walks in and asks me, "Why do you smoke?", and I reply, "Because I CAN!"

At least you can see both sides of it and wrestle with the answer. I still maintain that private property is private property, open to the public or not and as such the owner should make the rules not the government. I can honestly say I've had drunks bother me much more in bars than smokers. I do however feel it's rude to blow smoke in someone else's "space" and if it was a problem for me I wouldn't give that business my business, but I have to say this as well, I can't remember ever being bothered by smoke when the smokers were sitting in a smokers section of a restaurant.

IT USED to be fair TC, remember when we had smoking sections and non-smoking sections. That's about as fair as it could get. I realize some don't like smoke, and I also realize that there is a chance my smoke will float over to the other section if the ventilation system is'nt that great. But smokers should not have to huddle in the cold to practice what is their choice. I think sections should have been the last stop. You don't like my smoke, and I don't like that look of contempt on your face when I decide I want a cigarette. We both give a little to get a little. Neither getting more than the other.

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cal:
[B]
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.

QUOTE]


Should smoking be allowed on PRIVATE property, no matter if it's open to the public or not? Unequivocally, it "should" be allowed. The government isn't paying the bank loan, the public isn't paying the bank loan, our taxes aren't paying the bank loan, THE OWNER of the business is paying the bank loan and as such it's his property and for him to decide if smoking is allowed or not.

well - most of the anti-smoking laws and ordinances that are so popular right now were put into effect in order to protect *workers* not customers. this is, in fact, the germ idea of Brian's original post. and anyone who can say that wage workers in bars and restaurants should exercise more choice in where they work hasn't seen the latest unemployment statistics. there are lots of people working today that have to take work where they can get it -- and would like to have an environment where they won't be required to breathe possibly cancer-causing fumes.



you know -- this statement is really the heart of the issue for some. many smokers are under the impression that non-smokers are complaining merely because they Don't Like Smoke. But this totally ignores the fact that, for some people (not me, particularly), smoke causes actual physical pain and discomfort -- ranging from stinging/watering eyes, asthma, difficulty breathing, to even more severe allergic reactions.

(i'm purposefully ignoring the cancer argument since i'm not a doctor, and everyone has a statistic in their pocket)

i mean - pinching people hurts, but doesn't really kill them. it just causes discomfort. would anyone seriously argue that you have the right to run about in public places pinching people against their will just because you derive great satisfaction from pinching people, and have therefore made a "lifestyle choice" to indulge yourself in it?

would i be depriving you of your rights if i tried to have you prevented from pinching people against their will?



unfortunately, i agree with you here, and this is the crux truman's excellent point: it's sad that sometimes our rights overlap with others. i'd like to add here that i think that where rights overlap - it's up to the person whose "choice" causes harm to others to make the sacrifice.



again, true enough. but it might be a good idea to stop and realize that maybe the person giving you the look of contempt doesn't think yr an ******* for being a *smoker* - maybe they just think yr being an ******* for making them breath your smoke.


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

You don't have to work in a stable if the smell of crap gets to you. You don't have to work as a window washer if you don't think it's safe. You don't have to live and work in LA if the smog bothers you and you don't have to work in a bar that allows smoking if smoke bothers you.

But you can serve a drunk five more rounds in a "smoke free environment" then watch him get in his car and "try" to drive home.... as you count your tips.

I realize I am in the vocal minority here. But I have seen the devastating effect on local, tobacco driven economies brought on by zealots, whom I think of as a*******, who cared not a whit that those people lost jobs, homes and livihoods.

I can still tell you that Arby's was the first fast food chain to ban smoking. I don't give Arby's my money. Have they gone bancrupt, of course not. Have they lost share of market. Yes, and that makes me happy. I can tell you that Northwest / Continental was the first airline to ban smoking. I have not flown on one of their planes since.

The chicken anology only holds so long as the busy-body neighbor is a vegatarian, who uses no animal produced fertilizer for his or her vegies.

In many cities throughout the south there are still streams classified as "runs". A "run" cannot by law be fenced off, dammed, or impeded in any way. It is the public water source for cattle.

dawg

Kit:

I'm assuming you are calling me an a*****E for the purpose of making your point. I hope I'm not an a*****e for the fact that I still enjoy what rights I have left. But if that makes me an a*****e, so be it. Any way you cut it FAIR is FAIR. We can't all be happy, but none of us should be discriminated against as blatantly as smokers are. As I said earlier I all but quit smoking, I have one on occasion. But I will stand firm for smokers rights, just as I will for many, many, rights whether I agree with someones personal choices or not. There is a much bigger picture. And as I said before, if YOU or anyone else can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that second hand smoke is worse than any other form of crap floatin' in the air, feel free to fill me in. Until then, sit in your non-smokin' section, eat your burger, and be happy i'm not sittin' next to ya.


Oh, yeah, I don't shop at Wal-Mart either, are you gonna persecute me for that? Does that make me an A*****e?


Justin.

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

Again, whether it "bothers" anyone isn't the point. The point is: working in a smoke-filled environment is generally accepted to be health risk, period. It may be a small risk, but so is slipping on ice on the sidewalk. And a health risk is a business risk.

To bring this back on-topic, I'll tell you precisely how smoking affects me as a musician. In the area where I play, I have the opportunity to play at both non-smoking coffeehouses and standard, smoke-friendly clubs. Overwhelmingly, people choose to come to the coffeehouse shows. I've had quite a number of people tell me that they usually skip the club shows, because they dislike "dark, crowded, smoky" bars.

So I don't avoid smoky clubs because I Don't Like Smoke. I avoid them because my audience avoids them. And they're the ones that pay my bills, so I pay attention.


------------------
Scott Andrew and the Walkingbirds
Lo-fi DIY acoustic pop
Hear it: http://www.scottandrew.com/main/music

Actually Scott, The point is some of us don't see it as any more of a health risk than breathing the air that God provided for us. SO who's opinions should warrant more attention? I just want the field to be equal, that's all. And for the record, although I am certain there are many out there, I have never met a bartender who didn't smoke something. I'm from the south originally though, and as has been stated before things are different (better) down there. No one has concrete evidence that second hand smoke is any deadlier than smog, so until someone can show me how all this cancer is the result of smoke, I could care what their personal opinions about the health issues concerning it are. If there is no concrete evidence to show that, then there is no foundation for discriminating against people because of it. The only argument left then is that they just don't like the smell, and so what. I don't particularly like watching extremely obese people shoving burgers in their faces at Burger-King, but do I have the right to ask them to go outside and eat?

dude - it was meant to be taken lightly, so relax. i wasn't trying to call you or anyone else who lights in public an a[/b]sshole ( i would have to implicate myself if i was doing that - i smoke in bars all that time )

i was trying to explain why you might get nasty looks when you light up - that maybe it isn't connect primarily to the fact that you smoke - but more primarily to the fact that they don't want you to smoke near them.

i use profanity easily and casually and it wasn't meant personally - more as a general illustration of what some people think. (lots of people think i'm an as[b]shole, for instance)



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

Second hand smoke can be annoying and unpleasant I'm sure, just like smog in LA and car exhaust in NYC, but it has never been "proven" to be a health risk. On the other hand I have friends who live in Hanover, PA where lead in the drinking water is 100+ times the EPA allowance for safe consumption, and cancer rates are a thousand times the national average in a town close to there (I don't remember the name) but the government isn't banning the water or even doing anything about it. My point, there are much more serious concerns for the government then second hand smoke, which again, hasn't been proven to be a health risk at all. Even if it was a proven fact, it still doesn't matter, no one is forcing anyone to be around it.

Thanks for the clarification KIT. Taken in stride. I figured if you were calling me one, you probably would have done it more directly, still, it's difficult to guage the context in which these words are written sometimes.

It's obvious, as Dawg stated earlier, that this is a regional argument that may never be figured out. I've said all I can say, so I am leaving this discussion for good. Unless someone calls me back. I live in Ohio currently for college, but will move back to the south when I am done. And when we southern folk smoke ourselves to the pine box, ya'll Yanks can finally have the more beautiful half of the country. But don't hold your breath.

just jokin' guys, southern pride and all.

Justin.

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

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

I've seen some good arguments from all angles. Kit, Bob, many of you.
I can definitely see the smoke being a concern for the bartenders and waitresses who deal with it all day long, as well as any singer whom smoke bothers. And, sure....anyone who is truly sensitive to it.
As for the rest, I've always viewed bars and nightclubs as places where people go to unwind, cut loose, perhaps even get a little rowdy and loud, be themselves among friends, or even fake themselves among strangers. While they *are* public places, they are restricted public places, allowing no minors and toddlers *because* of the nature of what goes on inside of them... adult endeavors of imbibing, as well as a plethora of other behaviors often not deemed suitable for the pursuit of youth...even if it's only that of being childish and wreckless adults.
Much as Bob stated, there's not much of anything healthy going-on in the average bar.
Your odds of dying in a car wreck after leaving a bar (with a few drinks under your belt) by-far surpass the odds of getting cancer from the passive smoke.
There are two big causes of cancer: genetics and high-stress living. Everyone reading this thread has cancer cells flowing through their bodies at this moment, yet they are routinely squashed by the immune system. Carcinogens are the elements which help trigger the development of cancer cells, yet it's a matter of genetics and the immune system as to what ultimately happens.
I'm not saying we should all bathe in carcinogens and take our chances. Yet, I seem to see a grossly exaggerated fear that people are going to get lung cancer from entering a smokey bar once a week.

Getting back to what bars are about, it seems to me that many generations of people have known what goes on inside of bars, and it's always been accepted that you enter at your own risk, so to speak...yes...even if that means you go home with a stinky sweater, drunk as a louse. You may throw-up 4 times in the next 12 hours, but damned that stinky sweater and those smokers!

I think smokers have the right to unwind in a bar, as do non-smokers. That's why I fully support non-smoking bars in additon to traditional bars. Of course, anyone is welcome in the smoking bars.
And for me the "anyone is welcome" sign wins hands-down, as in that atmosphere
we have people accepting people, people tolerating people, possibly embracing the differences in each other, and maybe even diggin' on the presence of somebody who truly isn't quite exactly like theirself.


-gary

Pattycakes, it really doesn't matter if it's a 100% proven risk or not. Simply put, there's enough scientific and ancedotal evidence to convince business owners, insurance companies and local governments that it IS a risk, to the point where whole cities and states (and in the case of Ireland, countries) are going smoke-free rather that deal with that liability.

The decision to go smoke-free has everything to do with economics and business sense and nothing to do with discrimination. I feel bad when I see smokers huddled outside the building where I work, but my company has decided that allowing smoking on the premises is not a risk they want to deal with. It doesn't matter that secondhand smokes is an "unproven" risk. They decided it WAS a risk, and made a business decision. The smokers are the minority here, so they either deal with it, or quit. To my knowlege, no one has quit. Job security trumps freedom to smoke every time.

------------------
Scott Andrew and the Walkingbirds
Lo-fi DIY acoustic pop
Hear it: http://www.scottandrew.com/main/music

I'm sorry everyone, I lied, I had to come back for a second. In response to your post Scott, just because it is deemed an economical risk, does not mean it isn't discrimination. And did it ever occur to anyone, that the people who complain, and stage the biggest stand AGAINST smokers rights, are standing on the same side of the political line, as those making BILLIONS in frivilous lawsuits against Tobacco Corporations on behalf of those who will not take responsibility for their own decisions, who coincidentally often stand on the same side of that line.

Justin.

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! = )

The "key" is this. You said of your company:

"They decided it WAS a risk, and made a business decision",

YES, I'M ALL FOR THAT! They have every right to make that decision because it's THEIR company. Our Government on the other hand has NO right to force businesses to do it. Therein lies the problem. This is about our rights and we are losing them faster then you can say "I'm gonna write me a hit song!". Government is taking over, two decades ago the government represented just 4% of the nations economy and we had almost no debt, hundreds less government assisted programs, very low taxes, a higher standard of living and thousands less laws. Today Government represents 40% of the nations economy, we are in debt up to are eyeballs, pay a disgraceful amount of taxes, have needless worthless tax payer funded government programs,have are rights being trampled on to the point of a dictatorship etc., etc., etc. Do you know how troubling is that the government represents 40% of the economy? Doesn't that tell us all something? TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT IN OUR LIVES!

(not yelling at you)

First as a side note. Asbestos is still everywhere in America. Most buildings have never had it removed which means the fibers are floating around all over America in older buildings for millions to breath in on a daily bases. I worked for an asbestos removal company years ago as a secretary. We had to watch videos and take tests and all that jazz. Asbestos is another overtyped sensationalized government scare tactic. But lets move on. You said:

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"

You are missing the whole point. It's not up to the smokers or the non smokers. It's up to the OWNER of the establishment. They can say, YES, you can smoke in MY establishment or NO, you cannot smoke in MY establishment. That's the key you are missing. Why conform to let government come in to YOUR property and order you around, telling you, you can't allow a perfectly LEGAL activity to go on on your on property? Brain, Government was not designed to control the people. Smoking is legal. You'll understand when they start coming into your home (which they absolutely will) and start telling you, you can't smoke or drink or do this or do that or your kids can't drink soda or have to be in bed by nine! Thinks it's funny, it's not. Ten-fifteenyears ago NO ONE could have dreamed goverment would be able to ban smoking on private property.

Brian, I think we all agree that smoking is unhealthy, but the question I want answered is:

Is it any more unhealthy than exhaust from automobiles, or anything else for that matter? If someone says yes, based on what? And if it's merely someones opinion,(that it's more dangerous than exhaust) then what makes their opinion any more important than mine?

Why is this the number one culprit, when there are comparable numbers with many other product and or byproducts listed in this thread. When I ask myself "why are they going after cigarettes with so much vigor, when there are many other things out there just as harmful, but no one says a word?"

I think that it has much more to do than Big Brother caring about the public's health.

I would absolutely have no problem with the law, if the law is to ban the SALE of cigarettes; it's a mite hypocritical to sell you smokes, and then smack you in the mouth for smoking them, though. And I wouldn't have a problem with bans if someone could give me concrete proof of the situation, one way or the other. If you're gonna ban one, ban 'em all, or don't ban any.

Justin.

Folks:

The late Oliver Wendell Holmes summed the dilemma up kinda nicely: "My right to swing my fist stops at the end of your nose." The closer the proximity in which we have to live with each other, the more our freedom of action is mutually restricted.

Emphasis on "mutually." I do not think any person or any group has the right to trample roughshod upon the rights of others simply because they have the power to do so. Instead, I think we have to treat each other with mutual respect. Remember E.T.: "Be Good."

Joe

Pattycakes,

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but your notion of private property is a few hundred years out of date ... ever since the onset of imminent domain. If you think you own your home, try giving it to the government of North Korea, or Cuba, or Iran. You cannot do so.

Brian is correct in his conjecture that most bar and restaurant owners are smokers ... because they were trained and worked in the bar and restaurant business. I know of no state in the country where it is legal to smoke in a food prep area. But virtually everyone in the kitchen is a smoker... because the boss is a smoker. He may not understand, "I need ten minutes to call my girlfriend, but as a smoker, he understands, "I haven't had a break in two hours. I need a cigarette." Many bar and restaurant emmployees began smoking because it was the only way they could get a break.

By the same token, bar and restaurant owners love to hire Mormons because they don't smoke, drink, use caffeine...ie they are more profitable.

I believe Brian to be incorrect on his asbestos anology. We have known about coal miners and black lung longer than tobaccor or asbestos.... How many coal mines is the government shutting down ... zero. Because they need the coal slurry to keep the power plants runnig. Same with automobile emmissions.

Wait 'til they decide the emmissions from Van Camps Pork and Beans are dangerous and outlaw an industry in your backyard. Then, maybe, people will get on their bandwagon and you will see whet it is like for five or six family members at once to loose their jobs.

There is one other legal aspect of the non-smoking bans which has not been discussed. Laws change all the time. To protect those existing businesses which have been operating under previous law, the practise of "grandfathering" has been long established and recognized. Does anyone know of any "anti-smoking" ordnance which grandfathered any business? That to me, is the mark of legal fanaticism.

One last point. This country-wide ban in Ireland is fairly new, yet a web search will reveal several "smoking speakeasies"have already sprung up.

Ahh... back to prohibition.

dawg

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

wow what happened here ?...
Jeez this thread almost makes me want to light up again after six years of being smoke free.

Where there's smoke there's......

I'm asking this with no sarcasm at all. But seriously, if so many of the people who work in these type of establishments are smokers, than I would assume that they didn't ASK for protection from second hand smoke. Did Big Brother take it upon himself to save these workers? And if most of the owners are also smokers, would they have asked for Big Brother to poke around? Or might it be the insurance companies padding pockets with dollars out in the "Lobby", putting pressure on the politicians, so that they wouldn't have to pay claims on people who get sick, whether from tobacco or otherwise? I find it hard to beleive that smokers would ask for "protection" from other smokers. And if it's the insurance companies, then doesn't it all boil down to the money, first? Both, that of which they save on real/phony claims, but also that which is paid from Big Tobacco in damages in all these court cases? Or am I way the hell off base here?

Justin.

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

Justin,

For your theory to be correct, you'd have to admit that second hand smoke CAUSES health problems, which would then motivate insurance companies to try and ban it to save money on claims. You can't have it both ways. If the insurance companies want to keep second hand smoke out of a venue, it has to be because they think it harms people are increases sickness and thus health insurance claims. Otherwise, they wouldn't spend the money to stop it. So if your conspiracy theory is correct, then by default, it also supports the reason for doing it it seems.

Smokers are in the minority. My point was bar OWNERS and MANAGERS.. not employees. I am guessing the percentage is a bit closer to average once you get away from the career bar people.

Brian

Patty,

Government regulates all sorts of things at bars and restaurants. They regulate how food is handled too. Should they have no right in saying how cleanliness standards are enforced? Should they not be able to forced places to keep rodents out? It's a health concern. People in some countries live with bugs and rats and have no health problems (some eat both). Should we stop inspecting health codes in bars and restaurants too? Also, Government gives business license for operation. Having a business open to the public is not a right in our country either. It's a licensed priveledge. And if liquor licenses have run out in an area, you don't even have the legal right to open a bar.

What about capacity limits? Should the government stick their noses in or out of that factor? Isn't it up to the customer to decide whether too many people are in a venue? Isn't it up to them to decide if they want to risk their lives or be trapped in a fire? What about all the other regulations? Seriously.. why is banning smoking an unreasonable precaution, but all these other health related regulations are okay? Aren't people on this post suggesting NONE of those government restrictions should be in place?

I used asbestos as 1 simple example. If you don't like that one (not sure if you were stating that asbestos is just fine for your health and should still be used going forward or not), choose any of the above. If you don't want to acknowledge those, I'll come up with plenty more.

As for the car exhaust crowd, I agree, we should definitely ban running car engines inside bars and restaurants as well. I doubt many people will have a problem with that either.

Brian

Responding to greydog post;

"I realize I am in the vocal minority here. But I have seen the devastating effect on local, tobacco driven economies brought on by zealots, whom I think of as a*******, who cared not a whit that those people lost jobs, homes and livihoods."

I don't think that you are the minority. I think that times have changed is all. Years ago I had this conversation with a friend about people smoking less and said that this will be a double edged sword. Good for peoples health. But, farmers in the south will loose big on their tobacco crop. You see, we are aware of the economic hardship there. Remember too, that there are tobacco employees up here in the North as well on edge. I guess we just don't know what to say about it is all. I have relatives who work farms in Iowa {my home state} and Minnesota. I am too well aware of the B.S. that comes down on them. However, corn in Iowa has found a new niche for awhile at least in ethanol. And of course it has other uses too. Are there multiple uses for tobbaco? I dunno'. If not, has anyone explored this?

Getting back to original question. I have enjoyed playing smoke free venues. A nice change. My gear is cleaner.

Back to the rights issue. I think that it should be left to the individual drinking establishments to decide. You simply can't make one illegal with out the other, which more or less what I said in my earlier posting. I think that the decline in smokers here in America is a clear signal to a large shift in attitude. And I like the fact that I have a choice now as to which bar I can go to. Where as before, I had none. There have been some very good points made here.

Take care,


Kris Karr

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

As much as smoking (2ndH) DOES effect my health
I dont think Club owners should be told how to handle it in their place of biz. However I DO think the ones looking to increase business should make a good effort to cater to both smoker and non. I just dont know how they are to go about this.

ps I did tell you this would be a long post, this subject is right up there with politics and religion.

Love and Peace to all, smoke and smokeless

rick

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

Seems to me there is a narcissistic viewpoint presented by each side here. There's an aweful lot of I/Me, and a whole lot of efforts to bend people to the will of "Me".
Narcissism is a very negative thing, yet a common thing which has swept America's value system, especially politics, since the civil rights movements began decades ago. Many good things came from these early efforts. Yet it's all blossomed into a monsterous element, as everyone is always a victim of somebody.
I think it all has to backfire, and implode upon itself, because nobody will be able to afford life in this country if everyone becomes a back-biting victim pursuing legal recourse for everything that takes away from the "personal entitlement" of having everything and every second of their life perfect and free of danger and bad smells.
Nacissism is silently ripping this country to shreds, be it through profiteering corporations jobbing-out to China, or our elected officials trying to present and support every consituant as a victim in need of legislative and legal entitlement.
Somethin's gotta give....


-gp

Kris and Rick,

Why is it okay for some regulations involving health codes to be enforced at bars but not ones involving smoking? Seriously.. if you are against bars having to answer to government mandated regulations, that includes all of them, not just the one concerning smoking. No fire/electrical regulations. No capacity regulations. No food handling regulations. No safety regulations of any kind. There would also be no licenses (which might be a good thing to most) but I am guessing a lot of abuse and bad things would come out of a lawless/guideline/regulation free public society. Would any laws be enforced in a publicly accessible but privately owned building or would they only start when you got out on the street? Or, as I suspect, would everyone prefer to only be against SOME of the laws they don't like, but continue to tolerate the government sticking their noses in on all the rest?

It's an interesting conundrum for sure.

But, I am still not finding any evidence that any artist/musician has in fact been negatively affected by the smoking bans. If someone new to this post DOES have a first hand experience to share, please do. The Pro Smoking/Anti Smoking debate can go on forever, but it's unlikely either side is going to move from their point, just as it's unlikely the extreme left and right wingers around here will change from their staunch party lines. = )

Brian

PS: Gosh.. can't wait for this Presidential Election to heat up..

In fact, the majority of this country's history was relatively free from the burgeoning piles of codes, restrictions, health codes, licensing requirements, etc. that a bar or restaurant owner now must comply with. So, it then boils down to whether one thinks things were so awful prior to these things being implemented or not, and if so, in what ways.

I have no allusions that smoking can cause serious health problems. Second hand smoke, one could logically assume, poses less of a threat, but still there could be health problems. Many people obviously feel that these risks aren't great enough to warrant the kind of reaction displayed by the advocates of smoking bans.

One oddity I find in this type of argument, including in this thread, is how adamantly and wholeheartedly someone will try to convince everyone else of the grave danger posed by second hand cigarette smoke. Many of these same people, I'm guessing, go to clubs and venues that allow smoking. Now, if they truly thought that second hand smoke posed such an imminent threat to their health, I can't imagine why they would go there. I can only draw two conclusions from that. One, they don't really believe their own sermons, despite the zeal with which they preach....or two, they feel the risk is negligible enough to go hang out in a smokey bar anyway. In either case, I'm left thinking that such a person's motivation for trying to regulate someone else's behavior is rooted more in "I don't like your habit" than "I'm concerned for people's health".

As for asbestos, it still exists in the majority of commercial buildings that I'm aware of (and I work in commercial property management). Do you need to chew on asbestos? Probably not. Does its mere existence in the building you work in mean you're going to die from cancer? Probably not. Interestingly, mold seems to be on the launching pad as the next big environmental threat in our homes and workplaces. Yes, some people are allergic to mold. Yet, again from my occupational experience, I know that even so-called "sick" buildings typically contain far less mold spores in the air inside than you would find in the air outside that everyone breathes all day.

All of these, in my opinion, are examples of issues that become radicalized by various interest groups. Smoking, like some of these other issues, is not going to improve anyone's health. Nor is it likely a death sentence for someone who wants to go watch a band in a nightclub (or even for the person serving drinks).

Randy

[This message has been edited by RandyB (edited 03-31-2004).]

There is already a city in the US, i think in Maryland is about to ban all outdoor smoking EVERYWHERE, inside and out. You don't find this a huge problem when the government tells you THEY OWN THE OUTSIDE AIR?


As far as your other comments. You are referring to laws and codes that go directly to the safety of the food and patrons. These are laws and codes that one knows before they even go into business. It's illegal to pick up meat off the floor, it's not illegal to smoke. Furthermore there is no scientific proof secondhand smoke causes anything.

Check this out: FLORIDA CITY BANS OUTDOOR SMOKING IN FRONT OF KIDS! http://www.local6.com/news/2928081/detail.html

How any American can support this disgusting abuse of power is beyond me. Conformists let big brother run their lives. Americans with a backbone value their rights and fight for them. The same government who invaded Iraq claiming weapons of mass destruction sold them chemical agents over a decade ago. I'm truly amazed at how people trust this government to do what's best for them and are willing to not only watch their rights go down the drain, but do the flushing themselves.

Good post Randy! I wish there were more people who "got it". It does seem most posting to this thread get it though. I feel the ones who don't simply need big brother to make their choices for them. It's a shame.

HEY BRIAN, If i have to say it one more time, I'm gonna go crazy. I have no doubts that second hand smoke and smiking are unhealthy, I have stated that numerous times. A lot of things are unhealthy, I don't think it is anyMORE dangerous than say, smog, or cleaning chemicals, etc...And it's still legal to smoke. If you want to make it illegal then stop selling cigarettes.

My theory is correct, whether a person who smokes gets sick from smoking or not is hard to prove, and if they didn't get sick from smoking they generally will still claim they got sick from smoking because that's where the money is. You can't sue The big three in Detroit, or anyone else, 'cause everyone else is protected.


[This message has been edited by JUSTINHAUSER (edited 03-31-2004).]

[This message has been edited by JUSTINHAUSER (edited 03-31-2004).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by greydog:
RobertK,

I am sorry, but being able to find the "Google Search" slot no more constitutes legitimate research than ordering ten dollars worth of bumper stickers qualifies you to be a presidential candidate.


Yes, you are sorry indeed, if you're trying to make an argument that information found over the web, from acknowledged authorities in the field (who themselves have done hard research and gathered facts over a thirty year period) doesn't consititue legitimate research.

The American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, and the American Lung Association (not to mention the vast majority of the medical profession) are not lying to you, nor trying to force propaganda down your throat. They're actually your friends.

As far as telling you what to do "in your own yard"...

So long as non-smokers are paying health insurance premiums for the various maladies that smokers inflict upon themselves and others, I would say that YOU are the one doing the trespassing.

this is a straw man -- caricaturing the anti-smoking argument as just a product of pro-big government conformity is both immaterial to the conversation and intellectually dishonest. it's like comparing your opponent to hitler -- it doesn't advance the discussion and just looks ill tempered.

whether you come down on one-side or another, no reasonable person can deny that:

--> smokers have a reasonable complaint about people going overboard when demonizing their habit. in a free society - they ought to be able to have a way to smoke without being persecuted for it.

*and*

--> non-smokers deserve a world in which they can live and work without having smoke puffed in their face.

the interesting part of the debate happens between those issues -- and lots of people have offered information on both sides in a civil way.

i just don't understand why each side in these sorts of arguments has such a vested interest in contending that the other side "doesn't have a leg to stand on" or whatever.

real intellectualism is about trying to get arrive at the real truth by giving all possibilities a fair shake.



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

RobertK,

I do hope your music (and at least some of your thoughts)are more original than your "cut 'n paste" responses.

The three groups you named are LOBBYING ORGANIATIONS with a vested interest in determining legislative policy and agenda.

Not a single one of them have filed a tax return showing a profit, or paid any taxes, much unlike tobacco corporations.

If you honestly believe insurance corporations are "subsidising" anything unprofitable, you need to take another look at Berkshire-Hathaway's quarterly earning report.

Funny how both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution got written in Taverns, by pipe smoking tobacco farmers... not lawyers, lobbyists, or big government advocates.

dawg

It really does not matter if second hand smoke is a proven health hazard. It's sorta like the idea that we had PROOF that Iraq had WMDs. If people waited for irrefutable proof of something before acting, nothing would ever happen.

The issue is: does the government have the right to regulate such things? The answer is yes. That's it.

It is physically impossible for an establishment to offer both a smoker's enviormment and a non-smokers' environment. It CANNOT happen. They could offer one and ask the others to leave, but which group should have the right to stay? Why? Do smokers inherently have greater rights than non-smokers? Or vice-versa?

I like Greydog's attitude. He votes with his wallet...it's his right. He can smoke at home all he wants, but he can't smoke at the Bluebird, so he stays home. Works for me!

The government has not shut down coal mines, nor baked bean factories, but they HAVE instituted procedures for those businesses that makes working there, or living nearby, safer and more secure. Nobody is suggesting that the government shut down bars and resturants.

It is an absolute responsibility of government to handle such disputes. Who else is going to do it? Businesses, who exploited workers and children for decades before the government made them stop ("hey, why didn't the little brats get a job somewhere else?")? How about the businesses who dumped ungodly amounts of crap into the water and air, with absolutely no regard for anything except MONEY ("Hey, it's THEIR property. Why can't they do what they please.")? Or how about the businesses that refused to hire blacks, or Jews, or women, or Catholics ("hey, let 'em work somewhere else.")? American businesses do not have a very good track record of operating in the public interest, although it is their responsibility to do so "Hey, let's show everyone that phony film about how our gas tanks don't explode. They'll eat it up.")

There is no way to settle some disputes so that everyone likes the result. Unfortunately for smokers, they are on the downside of the pendulum swing, and they are just going to have to huddle outside of buildings, or stay home. It's their right to choose.

I see you aren't big on researching your facts either. No offense.

Again, you just can't see what this is all about. This is not about public property, as in tax funded. In that case, I'm with you! This is about PRIVATE property. No one has to go ANYWHERE they don't feel comfortable. Whether that's because of smoke, drunks, fatty foods, Toxic waste, the color of the walls or ten million other reasons. The public has freedom of choice. Why does a person not go into a seedy pool hall? Because likely there will be a seedy cliental and all kinds of things that go with it. Well, they can use the same common sense and say I'm not going to that bar because they allow smoking. This notion the public has the inherent right to go anywhere at anytime and bestow their higher morality is nonsense.

Honest people have and always will run their businesses respectfully. If you think laws are going to make the bad guys running bad business go away you are sadly mistaking. Everything you mention above (paying slave wages/illegal dumping, etc.) is going on as much today as ever before and will continue to go on regardless of laws. Laws don't stop this kind of activities, just as laws don't stop thief's, rapists and murders. If you're the type person/business who does this sort of thing, you are not affected by laws, you simple find another way. But by and large most business would do the right thing no matter what law is shoved down their throat by the good OLE US Government.

This country is turning into a dictatorship. Do you realize General Tommy Franks said they are talking about declaring Marshal law if there is another terrorist attack? Do you know what the means? That means NO CONSTITUTION! and as frank himself said "That means this little experiment we call a democracy will be over" This is not a joke, this is what our former highest ranking officer said.

patty, i'm sorry but many people aren't sure that this is so clearly true. that's just oversimplification - and repeating it doesn't help us learn any more about your point.

i can think of lots of privately owned places that i kinda sorta hafta go into on a near daily basis. likely most people can, too. if all of our right to safety from each other were suddenly suspended every time we walked into work, or the grocery store, or the mall, or a bar, or a gas station -- well i can imagine that some of us might not last very long in that world.

(i've been playing grand theft auto nonstop lately, and i bet the world would look somewhat like that...)



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

attempting to link anti-terrorist hysteria and anti-smoking hysteria seems kind of out of left field to me. i'm not sure if i'm willing to follow you here - it doesn't seem to advance your basic argument:

that smokers deserve to have a right to smoke in privately owned bars. could you clarify?



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

I don't agree with you at all. Smoking in a private establishment is no big problem in America, most business don't allow it, that's their right. It should also be their right, as it's been for hundreds of years, to allow smoking if they so chose. I don't know of one grocery store that allows it, Gas stations don't allow it for obvious REAL reasons, most private places that the public MUST go don't allow it. An establishment that provids "nothing of necessity", but rather "entertainment" should certainly have the right to allow it, it's their property. Not the tax payers or the governments.

Patty,

You seem to like to argue "around" an issue, but rarely directly AT an issue.

There are laws that regulate health concerns in public places. Smoking would be one of those. Just as you claim you can't "prove" second hand smoke will kill someone on a case by case basis, neither can they "prove" that picking up a steak off the floor and cooking it will hurt anyone on a case by case basis either. Nor can they "prove" most things that are regulated will always harm people if those rules are violated. They take a large aggregate collection of opinions, data, history, public sentiment and common sense and decide on guidelines that make doing business the safest it can be without doing more harm than good. Ironically, the numbers seem to prove that banning smoking has no negative affect on business income. Because cigarette companies themselves openly ADMIT now that smoking causes cancer and all sorts of illness, the guildelines which curtail smoking actually HELP the smokers smoke less as well. That's 2 strong cases to be made without even bringing second hand smoke into the argument. Next, though some people are worried about yet another type of government infiltration into business, I haven't heard ANYONE argue that they LIKE second hand smoke of that it, by itself, is a GREAT thing. However, there is a very large chorus of voices that say they hate it.

So, businesses financially win.

Smokers are factually not harmed by smoking less, rather the companies that make their cigarettes admit that smoking less is a health benefit.

Non Smokers, even those who are against government regulations, don't like the stench of smoke either and would love to see it go.

The final piece, which some think is up for debate, is whether there's a direct cause/effect relationship between second hand smoke and illnesses of several types. But it appears that the public interest has been served even BEFORE we get to this issue. The fact that medical findings support the idea that smoke causes illness seems to make a smoking ban one of the most logical health "regulations" the government might want to put into place. There's no evidence that ban would HARM anyone.. none. Not business. Not the smokers. Not the non smokers.

In addition, the regulations could actually make doing business cheaper and more efficient. No longer would restaurants have to separate into smoking and non smoking sections. They could much more effectively utilize their entire facility for anyone on a first come first served basis without ruining the experience for anyone. They could also save on costly but ineffective air filtration systems that are always fighting a losing battle. Think of the combined productivity time lost by staff dealing with "smoking or non smoking" issues day after day at every food establishment? Tables that sit empty in one section or the other further frustrating clientele and cutting into earnings for the venue.

These are issues that deal directly with the topic at hand. The war in Iraq doesn't.

You say that rules against dropping meat on the floor and still using it existed BEFORE a business opened. Not true. Those laws didn't always exist. Nor did fire codes. Nor did sanitary bathrooms. No did any other health code. At some point society put them in and businesses have become a better place because of them. The public has had a safer and more pleasant experience. And companies do still violate those laws and rarely does that violation result in a death or serious illness. I've been into clubs many times when they clearly over filled them and nothing bad happened. I was also in the club in Rhode Island that burned down and killed 1 out of 3 people inside shortly before it burned and realized that had the laws been enforced, far fewer WOULD have died. The laws are a good thing. If not for them, most clubs with popular bands would be overstuffed every night and more people would die. Without rules against serving dirty food, more people would get sick and more people would die. And now, with smoking bans going into effect, smokers who refrain while in the club will be smoking less (which everyone knows is a good thing unless you don't believe EVERYONE on both sides of the issues) and people who have respiratory problems or who have to work in the smoke every day will be healthier. And, if you believe common medical opinion, fewer people will get sick and fewer will die from it.

I am not against someone being against laws for any reason. It's a free society that allows you to have your opinion. But I am against someone with a double standard that ONLY keeps laws they are against out, but looks the other way on all the other laws that do the same type of thing. Either the government should be able to regulate a venue or not. If you say they should be able to sometimes, then the only reasonable argument you have is to fight against allowing that law to be passed, just as you can fight any law. But don't make the blanket statement that Government doesn't have the "right" to stick their nose in on private property or privately owned business. They do. They should. And we're all lucky they can unless you want to remove ALL the government safeguards.

Brian