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

Oh, my. I know EXACTLY what it is about. You seem to be under the illusion that the government cannot regulate what happens in a provate establishment. My post simply informs that you are wrong. the government regulates many, many things in private businesses. Smoking is just another one of them.

This issue is about the rights of one group clashing with the rights of another group. It is that simple. You want the right to smoke...not just in your home, your yard, or your car. You want the right to smoke near where I am sitting. Sorry. You lose.


This notion the public has the inherent right to go anywhere at anytime and bestow their higher morality is nonsense.

Okay. But the notion that a person has the inherent right to go anywhere, anytime and force others to inhale their smoke is not nonsense? Yikes. And who said anything about morality. Does anyone here think it is immoral to smoke? Foolish, yes. Immoral, no.

Everything you mention above (paying slave wages/illegal dumping, etc.) is going on as much today as ever before ...

You can't really believe that. Oh, God. Maybe you do.

Brian,
I've faced the issue head on. Of course there has to be regulations and laws. Just because I say the government shouldn't stick their nose in where it doesn't belong doesn't in any way mean it doesn't belong in some places. You seem to be forgetting that smoking is legal, you come from the point of view it's been outlawed. Dropping meat on the floor is a common sense issue, after all, the meat itself is the essence of the service being provided, food. You seem to really give the government a lot of credit and faith. Too bad, you really don't understand the scope of all this. You are part of the problem, blindly supporting a government you no almost nothing about. I don't want to get off topic so I wont go into all that. Perhaps if you understood the scope of this problem as I do you would feel different. Believe me when I say, when it hits you personally, you'll remember back and think, Damn, That Patty wasn't just blowing smoke (pun intended) after all. Conform all you want, but you are hurting yourself and every other American when you allow big brother to run your life as they see fit and just meekly accept what they tell you to do. Remember this, twenty years ago we had almost no debt and government only represented 4% of the economy. Today we are in such debt we wont get out of it in our life time and the government represents 40% of the economy. Do you understand why it's not good for the government to have such a hold on the economy? Do you know how we have gotten to this point? OK, I'm getting way off subject. God Bless and I hope you get it someday.

The government should have the right to regulate things related to the purpose of the business itself, to insure things are done with reasonable safety, it steps over the line when it tells one they can't smoke on their on property. That's not pertaining to the essence of the business, that's a right afforded to us in the constitution, the right of choice. No one has to blow smoke in your face if you don't want them too, simply give your business to an establishment which doesn't allow smoking. What right do you have to walk in establishment and tell the owner, "Hey listen, no more smoking in this place, yeah, I know YOU OWN IT and I know IT'S LEGAL, but I don't like it!" Well, that's exactly what the government has done and it's not right. These are places of entertainment, where people can chose to go or not to go. You say (quite cocky I might add) that, I LOSE! no, my uninformed friend, if you are an American, you lose too.


Your last bit of sarcasm is very telling. Yes, I do believe it, and yes, it is fact. If you think otherwise, you are very naive.

Pattycakes, It's obvious that they don't understand, the real issue has been brought up by me, you and several others, they continue to deny that smoking is not proven to do anything more harmful than a lot of other things. They continue to deny, that Big Brother has no other interest in this other than "peoples health". They DO Continue to deal with the topic as though smoking is not legal.

Truman, the only point I see in your posts, is that if we don't flow in the direction someone wants us to, then we should accept the government FORCING us to flow. Smoking is not illegal, some say it hurts people/as many others say it don't. No one can say it's any more harmful than many other things, so why should one persons "preference" over rule someone else's, based on conjecture?

And Brian continues to "miss" the point completely.

No on has answered this yet. I've asked it several times.

Justin.

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

Sorry Truman, ol' friend,

but I have to agree with Patty on this one. Sure the government passed a law mandating higher wages ... so the corporations moved the jobs overseas ... where they still pay slave wages. The government made it illegal to dump waste in the rivers here, so Union Carbide did it in India...

It is not a one-on-one issue. You do not go in a bar that has a capacity of 100 people and say, "I have a problem with cigarette smoke. So please ask one smoker to refrain from smoking....Noooo, you want all 99 to stop smoking. This is the problem I have personally with rabid non-smokers.

They want to force their wishes on all. In one of Kit's responses on page 2, it was stated that "smokers want a way...." "non-smokers want a world....." That pretty much sums it up.

Dear Doo Wah Diddy,

Thomas Jefferson's cash crops at Monticello were wheat and tobacco. He was a tobacco farmer.

George Washington's cash crops at Mount Vernon were Tobacco and Wheat. He was a tobacco farmer.

James Madison's plantation, Montpelior was a tobacco plantation.

William Randolf and his family were the largest tobacco planters in the entire country.

Thomas Jefferson designed a portable writing desk at Monticello and sent copies of the design to his wife's cousin (she was a Randolf), Benjimen Randolf, a noted cabinet maker in Philadelphia. Ben made the small desk for him on which most of the Declaration of Independence was written. When he left Philadelphia, Jefferson sold the desk to John Dickinson, Governor of Delaware. In turn, his estate sold it to the family of William Gallagher of Pennsylvania, who still own it.

Jefferson stayed with relatives in Philadelphia, but others on the committee did not. Mr. Franklin loved to tipple and flirt with the ladies and wished to meet in taverns. John Adams wrote in a letter that "the City Tavern in Philadelphia is the most genteel tavern in the country". Paul Revere also frequented the City Tavern.

George Washington, Richard Henry Lee, John Randolf, and Harrison of Virginia; Alsop of New York; Chase of Maryland; and Rodney and Read of Delaware reserved the same tables there each night.

Taverns were not just bars in Colonial Times. They were the newspapers, Inns, restaurants and meeting places. If a tavern also served as a stage coach depot it was called an "Ordinary".

Might I recommend "Rum Punch & Revolution, tavern going and public life in 18th century Philadelphia, by Peter Thompson published 1999 by University of Pennsylvania Press.

Taverns and Drinking in Early America by Sharon V. Salinger, 2002 by John Hopkins Press.

You might also wish to check with the Historical Society of Philadelphia at http://www.hsp.org/

Residents of Detroit make automobiles. Virginians make history.
dawg

PS...It is a long held business axiom that "the customer is always right". Only in this thread have I heard the arguement, "the government is always right".


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

I would still like one of the supporters of the smoking ban to honestly tell me what is wrong with having BOTH smoking and non-smoking bars? Please answer that in a manner which doesn't speak of you and you only.
What is it in yourself that essentially demands that *all* places cater to your own design? What is it in yourself that demands a redefining of the current and historical status of bars?
Like Bob said... people go to bars to pour poison down their throats, to have their eardrums beat to bloody hell, to shoot pool, throw darts, be ignorant, crass, silly, daring, careless, joyous and festive.. and to intermingle with other people who, HOPEFULLY, are like themselves in one way or another. This is precisely the reason bars vary in the nature of their entertainment, their themes AND their clientel.
Where exactly in this land of freedom has the flag-waiving puritans, (whose used-cars smell more like a locker-room basket than an ashtray), gained the right to control every venue of adult night-life and what every adult does inside of those places?

I'm going right back to my insistance that this issue stems from narcissism, as it's all about control.."me vs. the world and how I require it to fit my needs and visions"

Sorry, but controllers piss me off.

People are free to control and regulate their own lives, and that includes whether or not they might decide to spend the evening in a gay bar, a disco, a cigar bar, a non-smoking bar, a micro-brewery, a stripper-bar, a smokey pool hall, a smoke-free pool hall, OR.. an everyday, typical bar which is inclusive of everything most people expect to find... OR no bar at all!


I am only discussing bars here, nothing else.
Adults *can* control the way they, as individuals, choose to socialize..and that involves issues of when, where, why, and for how long.
No individual adult will EVER realize any true success or power in making those decisions for *all* other adults. It will always be a false and imagined power, temporary at best, and reality will eventually land hard upon that individual.

-finite-
Buona Notte

Hi all-
One thought-
I have heard members post comments about "everything else which is dangerous to our health" and is not banned by the government-
i.e. car exhaust, household chemicals, things of this nature-
These too are regulated, and are more of a necessity rather than a preference.
Most people have the common sense to not
to drink Mr. Clean, or in-hail, hair spray-

Cal

Brian- regarding your post (last post on page two-)
Very well stated, focused, unbiased, and
professional comments.

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

I've said what I want to about laws. Basically, I'm a libertarian, but I've not said enough about smoking.

Tobacco may only be one of several triggers for lung cancer, but it is a carcinogen.

Two years ago, Terri Lynn and I helped a good friend of ours die. Tom "the Hitman" Cerone had throat cancer. It was, at the very least, exacerbated by his smoking. We helped drive him when he could no longer do it himself. I had to practically force him to go to the emergency room, his airway was down to two centimeters and his thinking was unclear, so they performed a trachiotomy. We cleaned up his apartment. We cleaned up his blood. Terri stayed with him for a while, and co-ordinated a group of friends to make sure he wasn't alone. We put together two benefits for him to help with expenses. We put together a "goodbye" concert so his friends could see him one last time before he went off to spend his final few weeks with his daughter.

When I would stay with him, Tom would play tapes for me to teach me nuances of percussion. He made me learn the tambourine so I could play my own percussion parts when he was gone. He asked me to bring my children up to his hospital room so they could see why the should not smoke.

Tobacco is an irritant and a carcinogen. It may not be the root cause of respiratory illness but it is undoubtedly a contributor. If I owned a club again, I would make it a non-smoking venue. If possible, I'd provide an area, seperate from the main room, for smokers. I'd put cancer society posters on the walls there.

Mike

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

Cal..

try walking into a beauty salon without inhaling hair spray.

Perish the thought..it's "second hand" hairspray !

Bob Young

mike....i'll go to that non smoking bar, and i'll bet you'll have a full house every nite.
I acaully am severly allergic to smoke amoung a lot of other things. I think this is the better solution though verses gov reg...there has got to be a way that both parties can survive. I have friends that smoke like a train...when they come to my home they go outside to smoke...when i go to theirs...i go outside to clear my lungs and eyes once in a while...people smoke all you want...i dont want to stand in your way...but it is not that i dont like it...it really makes me sick to the point of having to medicate for about two days after i have been around heavy smoking for more than an hour or so. the problem is that when you smoke the people around you also must smoke.

love.rick

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

Someone mentioned that "smoking is foolish, but not immoral".

I'm hard pressed not to call it an abomination when I see a pregnant woman with a cigarette in her mouth.

To a lesser degree, when I see parents puffing away at a restaurant table with their young children sitting at their side.

Near the bottom of the 'heinous' scale would be he or she who patently does something that hurts themselves, even if for the moment it looks like he/she is the only one affected.

One doesn't have to be a Buddhist ascetic, Hindu mystic, Jewish rabbi, or Christian prophet for the word "immoral" to come to mind.

And with the twisted "don't tell ME what to do" morality of today, the person who walked past the woman poisoning her unborn child and remarked "Shame on you!" would be considered a Nazi, while the one actually harming herself and others would be looked upon as the victim of oppression.

[This message has been edited by RobertK (edited 04-01-2004).]

What kind of pretzel logic (in re the discussion at hand) refers to our founding fathers as being 'tobacco farmers', as if that had anything to do with their exploits in battle and in the realm of nation building and in many ways world, not merely local, politics?

(The weak connotation being that, since they were tobacco farmers and smoked and did great things, there's no warranted justification for regulation today of tobacco use by men far inferior to those giants, today's lawyers and other government bureaucrats?)

Those were men educated in law, history, politics, literature, etc., etc., and not merely "tobacco farmers" with pipes hanging from their jaws.

Is that supposed to stand as an argument that smoking shouldn't be regulated?

Should the fact that they owned slaves make arguments against slavery null and void?


[This message has been edited by RobertK (edited 04-01-2004).]

they continue to deny that smoking is not proven to do anything more harmful than a lot of other things

No one's denying that there are other things just as harmful, perhaps even moreso, than smoking and SHS.

But why should that affect the debate on what has proven itself to be harmful, namely smoking and SHS?

Are you saying that, just because we're allowed to drive cars that throw out exhaust, for example, then nobody should regulate anything else?

That because people are allowed to buy Big Macs and Twinkies, and partake of them in public, that cigarettes should likewise be left alone?

People? Have you noticed y'all are beatin' this issue to death without anybody changing anybody's mind? I am personally fascinated by everybody's opinion, but am getting the impression nothing is being accomplished. (Feel free to beat up on me now for interrupting.)

Joe

I feel people should be able to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt others. Despite what some want to believe, cigarettes do hurt others. Cigarette smoking should be banned from places people are forced to go, like government buildings, public transportation, etc. But bars are voluntary; no one HAS to go to a bar. I myself avoid bars because the smoke reeks havoc on my throat. Since 75 % of the US population doesn't smoke, it seems like there would be a good market for venues that don't allow smoking. But non-smoking in establishments doesn't have to be forced.

On the other hand, smoking probably causes significant environmental damage. Though I haven't seen any studies, just back of the envelope calculations and the fact that I have yet to see any cigarettes with pollution control devices or catalytic converters on them indicates that a two pack a day smoker contributes more significant pollutants over a year's time than a typical modern automobile in all areas except CO2. Anyone who smokes and claims to be environmentally conscious is a bit of a hypocrite.



------------------
Stone Marmot
www.stonemarmot.com
Stone Marmot on Soundclick
Alternative pop-rock music:
Definitely rock, somewhat pop, but a bit more experimental.

It would be one thing if only smokers died from smoking! But it is another thing when they are killing others!



------------------
I write, therefore I am....

Mike,

You are ever the voice of calm and reason; well except maybe for the ALA posters in a smoking lounge. (That would be like inserting phots of terminated fetuses in the menus of a coffee house next door to a woman's clinic).

You know I work with and ask folks to play and support non-smoking venues. I am working with the owners there (who are non-smokers) to get the timing down for breaks between dinner and entertainment, and between sets so the smokers have time to grab a smoke outside and get back to their seats without blocking anyone's view of the show.

We are also choosing good quality, directional speakers, so that the smokers can listen as they smoke should they prefer, but not disturb the neighbors located close by.

I still believe an effort to accomodate both parties is preferable.

RobertK,

The next time you go to a smoke-free bar, I hope you don't get a tobacco chewer on one side of you and a snuff dipper on the other.

dawg

Exactly!

Hey again, everyone. No one has really answered my question, so I don't have anything else to add. Except. Today, in our (Ohio) local news, I learned that it is now against the law, the have a body odor of any kind,(in the workplace) that offends your coworkers, be it... perfume, sweat, bad breath, or just plain gas. Cigarette smoke too. Big Brother's fantastic brainiacs passed the law yesterday.
SO I suggest you don't work too hard, those of us here in the great northern state of communist OHIO, you wouldn't wanna break a sweat and get sued. I can see the wheels of labor slowing down as I type this.
Here's YOUR America, you kooky people, who think Big Brother is a suitable mediator. Be careful what you wish for.

Justin.

Okay, Justin, I think I see what your question is, namely, did "Big Brother" take it upon himself to want to regulate smoking or was it a push from the insurance lobbies.

My question in regard to that question is: what does it matter where the push came from?

If someone tells me to buckle my seat belt or get fined, because studies show that there are FAR fewer fatalities and serious injuries when people use their seat belt, then why should I care what the motive was, or who pushed it?

Especially when Big Brother is the one footing the bill for police, ambulance, and road services, not to mention private-sector Big Brother paying for health care costs? (sure, it's our tax money, but they're the ones providing the services).

Obviously there are motivations ranging from pure money to pure humanitarianism from one end of the scale to the other, and from one organization to the other.

But if the end result is a safer environment for the majority, why should an insurance company's motive of wanting to pay out less for hospital costs and such taint said end result?

My parents long ago urged me to attend to college and get as fine an education as I could. One motive might be because it helps create a well-rounded individual. Another motive might be because one has a better chance of earning more money in the future.

If one of their motives was that I would then be able to care for them better in their declining years, does that mean that their insistence that I go to college was somehow 'tainted' by an ulterior motive?

Likewise, if they told me I had to stop eating Wow-Wow Puffs for breakfast and instead have a few pieces of fruit, because it was healthier (and oh by the way, a few pieces of fruit happened to be cheaper than Wow-Wow puffs), would that mean it was wrong because one of their motives was to save money?


[This message has been edited by RobertK (edited 04-01-2004).]

Robert,

The problem is if Big Brother finds it to his benefit to pass a law, he might find ways to fudge the statistics, or to choose which research goes along with his way of thinking. Of course, our leaders would never present flawed statistics or intelligence to have an outcome they wanted, would they?

By the way, my dear friend Crazy Eddie, old 'Nam vet and writer of such gems as "I Blew Lunch On Your Couch Last Night," and "You Got My Heart By the Balls," was admitted to the V.A. this morning. Eddie, who still smokes, has emphysema. The doctors have been going nuts trying to get him to quit. This morning he was brought in with chest pains.

"Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette!"

All the Best,
Mike

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

Here we go. These people will get it in time Justin, we are just a little ahead of the game. Our government now officially sickens me with their heavy hand.

The motive doesn't matter, the fact it may or may not help you doesn't matter. The choice should be yours to wear a seat belt or not, it's your safety, it's your car. Do you realize there is a bill coming up which would require every American to get a vaccine, those who refuse will be arrested and the president said he would sign it? Even though approx 1%+ of people could die from it, that's about twice the amount of people who die from smoking after thirty years. Do you want your government forcing you to ingest drugs in your body, whether they may kill you or not? Is your body not your own? Is this the Soviet Union?

Read Justine's posts and see what your government is up to, then research my post and read it for yourself, if these things don't worry you greatly then you deserve the oppression being forced on you. No disrespect intended.

The motive doesn't matter, the fact it may or may not help you doesn't matter. The choice should be yours to wear a seat belt or not, it's your safety, it's your car.

No it's not just my affair... it's everyone's concern. I'm on the public roads, and if an ambulance is busy with me, then that's another person who has to wait for help, and if I'm taking up a hospital bed, then there's a space in a hospital, nursing staff, and a doctor's time I'm taking up.

And meanwhile, everyone else is chipping in on my insurance costs because I just drove up the ante (no pun intended) by getting hurt much worse than I might have if I had been wearing a seat belt.

Guys, nobody likes the fact that Big Brother is growing and can become intrusive. But when he's right, he's right... and the days of Tombstone and Dodge City are from a by-gone era.

I'm curious as to how many of you 'rugged individualists' out there are going without a driver's license or auto insurance because "that's the government being intrusive".

How about all the smokers out there? Refusing to pay those unfair health premiums, are you?

How about you home owners? Protesting the high property taxes by not paying 'em?

[This message has been edited by RobertK (edited 04-01-2004).]

The problem is if Big Brother finds it to his benefit to pass a law, he might find ways to fudge the statistics, or to choose which research goes along with his way of thinking. Of course, our leaders would never present flawed statistics or intelligence to have an outcome they wanted, would they?

That's possible, obviously...

But the discussion at hand involves regulation of smoking in the public, and...

Since I don't believe that the ACS, AHA, ALA and the Surgeon General are 'fudging' those stats, I'm not going to worry about the mule going blind.

The argument that we should "stop Big Brother at all costs, regardless of the issue" (because he may or may not lie about any given issue in the future) has nothing to do with the correctness of controlling things that are harmful to the general public.

I dread 1984 as much as the next person. But I don't think that banning smoking in public places is going to lead to a two-way camera in my bedroom (and if it did, the watchers would get what they deserved!)

I protest those things by voting.

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

Hey Justin, I just checked cleveland.com and ohio.com, and I don't see anything about any law being passed. Got a link to that story?


Update: oops! It IS April Fool's Day, isn't it?


[This message has been edited by scottandrew (edited 04-01-2004).]

I think he was being facetious.

Come to think about it, an anti-BO law might not be a bad idea.

As do we all...

Of course, then we have to hear the big debate about "tyranny of the majority", and there just ain't no winnin'!

I was just scrolling around and came to the conclusion that you can pretty much guess the nature of a discussion around here by the number of posts listed by the subject line.

Excluding the "do you have a website" thread, it seems a pretty safe bet that any topic approaching or exceeding 50 replies involves some kind of heated debate, mudslinging, or controversy. Could make a person wonder why "music types" have a reputation for being laid back, easy going people.

Randy

No, we all don't vote, unfortunately. I believe strongly in our system as a democratic republic (if anyone thinks I'm talking about parties here, then that's part of the problem.) I believe right now we are caught up by special interest groups and are being manipulated by the government to keep these groups in power. More and more, though, it looks like some folks are catching on and things will change, but the special interests won't go without a serious political fight (notice how bitter politics is getting, and yet I think neither of the national parties have clean hands in this, it's the war of the special interests.)

Thanks to the internet, the big communication revolutions is becoming a two way street. It's not just Big Brother (or Sister) telling us what to think on TV. We can now talk back. That's what I'm doing now, and, like I said, I vote.

All the Best,
Mike

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

That's where you are wrong, this is not about smoking in public, It's about smoking in a PRIVATE establishment where the public can "chose" to visit or not to visit.

Bob-
Like most of the JPF's members, you are a great person, and I value your comments-
Your point is well accepted.
I was relating to "personal" at home usage-

Sincerely

Cal

I'm all for fighting back, but your outlook is brighter than mine. Do you know the vice President of the USA is in the middle of a supreme court case regarding an energy task force he headed and that the presiding judge, Supreme Court Justice Scaliais is friends with Cheney and recently went golfing, horse back riding and fishing with him? Talk about a conflict, but Scaliais wont remove himself from the case. And that chief judge of Washington's federal appeals court and two other judges are serving on the board of an industry funded foundation that has opposed environmental regulations and are themselves hearing cases the organizations members are involved in?

This is our government folks!



[This message has been edited by Pattycakes (edited 04-01-2004).]

So you plan to vote this year, or give money to opposing parties, or protest?

Or are you just gonna keep preaching to us about Big Brother over and over and over on this message board?

Here is the crux. Yes, non smokers want to force their wishes on all. Yes, smokers want to do exactly the same thing. Either we allow smoking or we don't. You can't have it both ways. If you allow one person to smoke in a corner, you are allowing smoking.

I have no argument with smoking. None. If you could smoke without annoying me, I would be pleased as I could be that we both get our way. Unfortunately, in a bar or a restaurant, or a ball game, or a concert, or a grocery store, you cannot smoke without annoying me. I wish you could. You may think your right to be there supercedes my right not to breathe your smoke. That's fine. You had it your way for 200 years. But, I might think that my right supercedes yours. So how are we different? How is one of us the abuser and the other the abused?

Two groups, with clashing rights. Someone has to lose. For centuries, non-smokers just had to "deal with it." Now the pendulum has swung and it is the other group that has to deal with it. Do the best you can. I've done it my whole life.



[This message has been edited by TrumanCoyote (edited 04-01-2004).]

Considering smoking is legal it's neither the smokers right nor the nonsmokers right when we are talking private property. It's the "owners" right to decide, and our right as smokers and nonsmokers to choose whether or not we give them our business if we don't like what they decide.

That's where you are wrong, this is not about smoking in public, It's about smoking in a PRIVATE establishment where the public can "chose" to visit or not to visit.

When your argument is weak, reverting to semantic nit-picking doesn't help your cause. By your definition, a baseball stadium is a private establishment.

It would be absolutely wonderful if the public had a choice, in the same city, to frequent totally non-smoking establishments or those who advertise that smoking is allowed.

Unfortunately, until lawmakers twist the arms of restaurant and bar owners in given states or cities, those places don't ban smoking at all... they merely provide a 'smoke-free' section, which in most cases is like providing a 'no pissing' section in a pool.

So the only alternative is to ban it altogether indoors, whether it's a privately owned building or not.

Tough noughies, right? If one group has to get infringed upon, let it be the group who's killing themselves and possibly killing others.

It's more of a hindrance for a non-smoker to find a totally smoke-free establishment in a town that doesn't ban it than it is for the smoker to step outside and puff his nasty cylinder.

Not it isn't. Clearly. Positively. Absolutely. What part of that is perplexing you so?

I hope he didn't say that. Maybe he, or you, meant martial law.

Marshall Law would be if they made that guy who used to host Hollywood Squares into the new Attorney General. Phyllis Diller to block.

What has always gotten me about this subject is that the people that complain about it the loudest have absolutely no problem walking down a busy city street, or riding in their car with the windows down, sucking in high amounts of unburnt hydrocarbons without one complaint. You want to complain about smoke? Complain about city busses and garbage trucks.

Aha! I get it.. it's April Fools Day and that's why Patty is acting like she doesn't "get it." I knew it had to be something like that.. she couldn't be that thick headed.

Either the government can regulate safety concerns in businesses or it can't. Pick one or the other and make your argument. If you allow them to regulate fire saftey, food safety, blood alchohol levels, cleanliness, noise ordinances, liquor licenses, and all the rest on publicly accessible property, then smoking is no different. You won't address that obvious point directly because it kills your entire argument. There IS a difference between public establishments for business and PRIVATE property. If anyone can walk in off the street, it is a PUBLIC PLACE. Your home is not a public place. A Bar IS a public place unless they follow a set of rules and have a private membership. I am sure in towns where there are smoking bans, there are already PRIVATE bars for smokers. Chi Chi's and Bennigans don't qualify. How people are confusing public businesses with private clubs/property is laughable. It's arguing (incorrectly) semantics to try and make a weak argument.

What is even sillier about Patty's entire conspiracy theory paranoia is that the party in power right now is PRO SMOKING and PRO TOBACCO. It's the Democrats who have been fighting smoking but they aren't in power. The Republicans have a long history of supporting cigarette companies. They take HUGE payoffs from them every election cycle. And trying to make some bizarre connection to early presidents who were Tobacco farmers and attempt to make that justify smoking is absurd. Did you forget that many of those "tobacco" farmers were ALSO slave owners? Where's your relevance now?

You also keep saying "smoking is legal." It seems you have an amazing grasp of the obvious. But that has no relevance to this topic. Many legal things are restricted or put under guidelines in life every day. Drive a car is legal in designated places, but not in places where it's determined to be dangerous to people. Smoking is the same. It's legal. Soon, if the trends continue, it will be restricted to certain places where it won't be dangerous to people.

Also, once and for all, people ARE Forced to be in businesses where there is currently smoking.. they are called EMPLOYEES. That is who the law is meant to protect in the first place, NOT the general public. (I've said that previously, but obviously someone wasn't reading). The fact that the general public gets to avoid the smoke is simply a fringe benefit.

Brian

If government

The biggest difference I have noticed since the NY state law took effect is it is hard to judge how many people have come to your gig. At any given moment there is a large huddle of smokers outside the door. Also it is harder to connect with an audience which is constantly changing places. With half the people in a club having to go outside once or twice an hour there is less of a static audience sitting in one place concentrating on the music. People move around more weather they smoke or not. While this seems to make things a bit more difficult for the artist to listener conduit, I think we are still better off. Smokers are becoming more used to having to retreat to fresh air in just about every other public place. It's not that they can't smoke - they just have to step out. I think the people who will benefit most are those that spend 40 hrs+ in there working environment. Bartenders, waitresses, owners & musicians will be healthier. As to the people who say second-hand smoke has yet to be proven as harmful, I remember it was only a few years ago that 10 CEO's of tobacco companies stood before a congressional hearing and proclaimed "I do not believe nicotine is addicitive" You don't need to be a scientist to know that a small smoke filled club is bad for you.

[This message has been edited by Michael Meal (edited 04-01-2004).]

Nope. Not if he has employees or operates as a public place of business.

Nit picking? Most ball fields as far as I know are in part publicly funded. If some are privately owned in whole than absolutely it should be the owners right.

Ok, allow me to rephrase. It SHOULD BE THEIR RIGHT! as it was for of years and years under the constitution. Those rights have been trampled on by the government and people like you supporting them and needing them to tell you how to live your life.

Nope. If you're running a business, public OR private space, you're to an extent liable for the safety of your employees and customers, and thus subject to government regulation.

Nice to know you resort to insults, I can do it too ya know. You're a fat ugly aging man who likes to pretend he is someone in this business with big a chip on his shoulder who sucks up to the man because he's too weak willed to run his own life. It's people like you who will never get it, let the man dictate to you where and when and how you can take a leak and then turn around and kiss the ass that allows you to pee. You're a very small man in a very plump body.

See, told ya I can do it too

By the way Brian, do you perform fellatio on Michael before or after the Taxi Rallies?

Jes' a sorta related question I couldn't resist asking.

So, in Ireland, if you want a smoke, you have to step outside the country?

Joe