Strict no-smoking laws?

[Haltickling]

Dave2112 brought this up in a humor thread, but I think it's worth some serious discussion as well.

Up to which limit is a government allowed to forbid smoking by law?

Here in Germany, smoking is forbidden in all offices or other work rooms, in the subway stations, and of course in hospitals/schools/health oriented locations. Half a year ago, they introduced a non smoking law for all railway stations, too. Now they wish to forbid smoking in all restaurants and bars (most bigger restaurants are already divided into smoking/non smoking areas anyway).

While I understand that tobacco smell can be irritating in restaurants, I can't understand why smoking should be forbidden in all bars as well. Many people want a smoke with their drink, and a lot of bars will have to be closed if that business part is taken away by the law. The government would ruin their existence.

I know the strict no-smoking laws in New York and California, and that's enough reason for me to never visit those states again. During my last US trip in 2001, some hotel bars allowed cigarettes but not pipe smoking. As a pipe smoker I feel discriminated. And I will protest actively if I see my private limits are tamperend with!

How far is a government allowed to restrict personal quirks like smoking? Any opinions?

 

[pantsonfire]

Here in America, an increasing number of states and localities are passing anti-smoking laws prohibiting smoking in public places. Our government (at all levels: federal, state and local) doesn't have a good record of solving society's problems. They tried to ban alcohol in the 1920's, and alcoholism rates went way up. They declared war on drugs, and now we have a terrible drug abuse epidemic. Some states have banned or severely restricted firearms, and their violent crime rates have skyrocketed. I dread to think what will happen if they start passing anti-smoking laws. America was founded on small government, personal freedom, and individual responsibility; anti-smoking laws are a perfect example of how we are getting away from that. Thankfully, I live in Virginia; and our economy depended on tobacco for over a century, so I don't think we'll be banning smoking around here any time soon 🙂.

Pantsonfire

 

[Limeoutsider]

What I dont get is the non smokers saying that "what about our rights?" well, lets stop and think, oh my, somkers have rights to, I believe somewhere someone had the foresight to write "all humans are equal" so what makes the non smokers feel they have more rights than smokers?

 

[4Pawz]

Something to remember is many people are allergic to the tobacco smoke. It is one thing to want to enjoy a cigarette, but it obviously should not be at the expense of everyone else. Wanna smoke in your home? go right ahead. But I don't want to have to gasp and wheeze through my meal or trying to just walk into a building. It is one thing to have the "right" to enjoy something, but not at the expense of everyone else.

Pawz

 

[Dave2112]

As I've stated elsewhere, it's not the law itself I have the biggest problem with. I mean, I smoke...and there are times when a group of drivers are in my cafeteria area smoking away and it bugs me. I have a problem with the ban in bars, lounges, etc. I won't speak for the other states, but here's how it went down in NY. The prime driving force behind this is one Russell Sciandra. He heads one of those neo-radical bored-househusband groups called the Center for a Smoke Free New York. This guy is just an ass all the way around. When the New York Bar and Tavern Association went to court to challenge the law, Sciandra referred to them as "the Friends of Big Tobacco". These are concerned business owners. When the bar in my town decided to close this week after losing 70% of thier profit, Mr. Sciandra was quoted in the paper as saying he was "dubious" that it really happened. When New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Vermont reported spikes in thier business and a rash of New Yorkers coming to thier bars, ol' Russ claimed it was all a fabrication of Big Tobacco.

This is the guy who decided legislation in New York. Only here, where we have a governor who will go to bed with anyone who'll flip him some contribution cash, could this have been pulled off by one group. What pisses me off about it is that no one was asked, no one voted on it, and no mention was even made that there was a bill until after it had been enacted. This is all a bunch of PC bullshit.

Let's add the advertising. You can't advertise tobacco. Fair enough. But apparently you can advertise anti-tobacco. There's a commercial running with a bunch of drop-dead gorgeous models who come on and say they are your waitresses and such....and they go on to bat thier eyelashes and thank New York for enacting this law. Let's get real here. Who applies for a job at a bar and six months later says "I didn't know there was gonna be smoking in here!" This is the same tact used by the soulless "Truth" scam commercials. These slacker kids (who are hired actors, DO NOT be fooled) go around shouting on megaphones in front of office buildings and such. Think about this. For a bunch who are so anti-corporate...they have no qualms accepting large chunks of change from special interests to air these things. Yeah right, a real bunch of kids can afford to air successive commercials in prime-time network slots on a nightly basis.

This all boils down to politicians once again bowing to the PC movement of the moment. Just wait until Russell Sciandra uses his "Savior of the Health of New York" as a springboard to public office. Think I'm paranoid? I give it five years.

As I said in the other thread...I can see it in an office building where a non-smoker may be forced into exposure. You have to go to work. However, no one's holding a gun to your head to walk into a bar. I know the owner of the tavern that just closed, and he raised a good point. All of his employees smoke! The only thing this law succeeded in doing was shutting down his business. He has two kids in college and a mortgage...but hey! At least one innocent person who doesn't know that bars have smoke was saved by the government removing his responsibility to reason. Let's just legislate everyone's moral stand on everything, then everything will be fine, right?

This is nothing more than a precedent to further invade our privacy and see how far we can inject government into our personal lives. Let's also not forget that this whole thing was started years ago by people (and slimy lawyers) who decided that it wasn't thier fault that they chose to smoke, then got sick. That's the problem in this country. No matter what happens, it's someone else's fault...so let's get a group together and sue someone. This shit just sets precedent for draconian laws like this one. How long until the Partners of a Fat-Free New York get the Anti-Burger Law passed? Don't laugh...this was the first step. If crap like this continues, every one of you will eventually lose the right to something you like because the right group bitched about the right thing at the right time to the right crooked politician.

I doubt this law will stay as it is after the next legislative session. Bars, lounges, hotels and bowling alleys are starting to yank thier lottery machines. They did it for one week over the summer and cost the state half a million dollars, and folks in Albany started saying "Yeah...maybe we ought to tone it down." Of course, Pataki made sure the session ended without it being discussed further. When businesses fold en masse and people start pumping money into the three surrounding states, when it hits Albany where it counts (the wallet), I see many interesting days in the voting booths.

If I sound pissy about this, it's because I am. I don't usually get this riled up about a particular issue, but this seriously pisses me off. Not just because I smoke. Hell, I don't even go to bars that often. It's the principle. What's next?

Wait and see.

 

[Cosmo_ac]

hmmm...interesting arguments...

personally, i'm anti-smoking. Heres a question for smokers, why do you smoke? What's so enjoyable about smoking tobacco? I've seen what long term smoking can do to people. It isn't pretty.

 

[giggleygirl25]

even though i'm a non-smoker...i have to agree...the way this went down wasn't right at all...nobody got notice of it...or hardly any at all...there has to be a way to accommodate both those that smoke and those of us that don't..i mean yes in the larger places there were areas for smokers and everything but the small businessman was screwed over because of limited cash and limited space...

 

[maverick83]

This is one issue I have a hard time finding a position on.

First off, I echo cosmo’s sentiments. I honestly can’t understand what could be enjoyable about smoking. But I’m not about to criticize anyone for it. I’m sure there are plenty of things I do that many people would question the value of, as well. I don’t really understand excessive drinking, either. But I know a ton of people who consider it fun for some reason.

Moreover, I have trouble forming an opinion on anti-smoking laws. Here’s how it plays out in my mind:

One has the right to smoke. It’s their body, they can do what they want to it. But smoking around others exposes them to second-hand smoke, infringing on their right to breathe untainted air. But what is forcing those others to remain in the vicinity of the smoker(s)? Nothing. They can just as well get up and go somewhere else. But then there are situations where getting up and leaving would be an inconvenience. I suppose my suggestion is to leave it up to each individual establishment. Makes sense for the owner of a building to decide whether or not to allow smoking in that building.

 

[Haltickling]

personally, i'm anti-smoking. Heres a question for smokers, why do you smoke? What's so enjoyable about smoking tobacco? I've seen what long term smoking can do to people. It isn't pretty.

Why do people smoke? Well, I can't speak for others, especially not for cigarette smokers.

I smoke because that's an important part of relaxation for me. You can't smoke pipe when you're hectic or in a hurry. But after a long, stressful day, it takes some time to calm down and relax. The best way for me to achieve that is soft music and a pipe.

Of course, it becomes just a habit, a ritual after a while. It can't be the nicotine alone for me, as cigarettes bring no relief when I need a smoke. I have been a pipe smoker for about 30 years now, but I'm sure I smoked less than 20 cigarettes altogether in my life.

For clarity: I have never smoked during work either. Dealing with customers forbids that automatically, and there's no "quickie" 5 minutes break for pipe smokers. They need 5 minutes alone to clean and fill the pipe, and at least half an hour to smoke it. I have always respected non-smokers in restaurants,at public places, or at their homes. But I expect the same kind of respect for smokers in a bar, it's one of the last reservations for the last members of the slowly vanishing tobacco tribe.

 

[MrPartickler]

I'm pretty anti-smoking myself too. I empathize a little with the way the hammer came down regulation-wise, but I honestly can't say I'll shed any tears for it.

I think the logic behind the laws is that people come to bars <i>primarily</i> to drink and socialize. That's the establishments' core business. If someone wants to hear loud music with their drink, they go to a club or a place with a jukebox or some other place that will play it. If someone wants to eat good food while they drink, they go to a bar that serves the types of food they prefer. Similarly, if someone wants to smoke in a bar, they may have to go to a bar that accommodates that. In my area, that simply means going to a place with an outdoor patio. (There's actually no shortage of them around here either.) I'm not suggesting it's that simple everywhere for everyone, but I suspect that's the rationale behind the legislation.

As an aside, it's often so smoky outside the bars I go to that I just stay inside the place. I'm not protesting anyone's right to smoke, but if it were that bad inside the actual bars/clubs/etc., I wouldn't be in them at all. I just don't need to drink that bad.

I think this the form of respect for smokers' rights that a few have hinted at in this thread. However, it also implies that if every bar was filled--inside and outside--with smokers, there'd be no bars for non-smokers to go to. Well actually, they'd just have to decide between having a drink with friends or breathing clean air that night.

 

[Roseblossom]

Secondhand smoke...

Secondhand smoke comes from two places: smoke breathed out by the person who smokes, and smoke from the end of a burning cigarette.

The EPA estimates that secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 heart disease deaths in nonsmokers each year.

Secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals; 200 are poisons; 43 cause cancer.

Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).

Secondhand smoke causes or exacerbates a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.


[American Lung Association, June 2003]

 

[TklDuo-Ann]

I smoked for several years. (I just quit this past Dec. as a Christmas present to Drew...and myself if you think about it.) I enjoyed smoking. It was a matter of relaxation for me. I knew it wasn't good for me. I've spent years caring for people who didn't want to quit...many of whom smoked up til the day they died.

But, even while I was smoking, I was very much aware of those around me. I never smoked in the house. When out with non-smokers, I would never insist on sitting in the smoking section. It's a matter of simple courtesy. Yes. I have a right to smoke. No. I DON'T have a right to make others smoke second hand. I can wait or walk over to the smoking section for a quick smoke if I really "need" to. OTOH, they aren't able to avoid inhaling it if I make them sit in the smoking section.

The laws don't tell me I can't smoke in my own home...yet. (There are places that actually come close.) I understand the "no smoking in public places" law since many places that have smoking sections don't THINK when setting them up. About 80% of restaurants I've been to have the smoking section near the cashier, the front door or the bathrooms (or all 3)...meaning that non-smokers are forced to walk through it. That's just dumb. What's even dumber is to have one side of an open room be smoking and the other non. How much sense does that make? I truly believe that, had owners/managers of public places used some gray matter when planning their smoking sections, it wouldn't have come down to forcing the issue in the laws we're seeing now.

Ann

 

[phfttklr]

This has always been burning subject.(no pun intended)I'm tired of hearing smokers cry about "their rights". Limeoutsider wrote about non-smokers feeling like we have more rights. It's not about having more rights, smokers have a right to smoke, just not the right to infringe on others fresh air. I have a lot of friends who smoke and I feel for them in some small way. Like Mr. Partickler said, I'm not gonna shed a tear. Smoke isn't the only problem. Drivers flicking their cigarette butts out the window, only to be bouncing off the hood of my car. Fires being started do to carless people, litter all over the streets and going home smelling like an ashtray. Also, since when did smoking have anything to do with a bar? Bars were created for serving alcohol. Yes, it scares me when the gov't starts imposing laws like this. Makes me wonder what's next?
Who knows, maybe some people will quit after this? My mother used hypno to quit and she was smoking up to 3 packs a day. If you are able
to fall under hypno, I suggest trying it. I wouldn't have expected her even trying it, let alone it working for her.

 

[JoBelle]

Touchy...touchy...touchy stuff.

Former smoker here and it is often said that we are the meanest people against smokers. Could be. I don't think so though.😉

Little story follows.
I smoked off and on for several years. Then one day, after trying to unsuccessfully quit for good many times, my doctor said to me, "Jo, you're already ill...facing some nasty recovery time. Do you want to add lung cancer on top of it all? Emphysema? Any other manner of sinus or breathing problems? Do you want to be a smoker who developes bronchitis while you're dealing with stitches in your body? Coughing really hurts a lot at times like that. Do you want to die just that much sooner?"

Wellllllllllll, let me tell you something. I glanced at my kid and handed my smokes to the doctor to deposit in the trash. Cold turkey. Yup. It worked. It was hard as all hell. I bought stock in the chewing gum companies...lolBUT...having stopped, I feel better. I breathe better. My pearly whites are pearly white and my kissing technique no longer includes that lovely scent that lingers on the floor after a New Year's Eve party.

That being said, I have an opinion about smokers being in the presense of non-smokers.

I don't have to worry about pissing off the non smoker in the room. Let's face it. It was my addiction. Not theirs. Why should they have to breathe it? Why should they have to get sick just because I want to light up while I'm out? Bottom line, they shouldn't. As a smoker I always went outside to smoke. Even in my own house because I had a small child. I was as considerate as I could be. However, my nasty smoke floated along and still hung in their clothes, the hair on their kid's heads. It followed them to their cars. It stayed on their sofa after I left from a visit. It's more than health. It's courtesy. It all the nasty things we tend to pretend don't happen.

Ever see what happens when a kid with asthma gets a whif of your smoke when she's just out having dinner with her mom and dad. It's not pretty stuff. That's what keeps me from picking up the old habit. God, I feel like shite when I know I'm hurting someone when I can avoid it. That's just my personal thought there. Has nothing to do with laws y'know?

One solution I can see with the bars as the social dynamic of smoking and drinking tend to go hand in hand. Have smokers-only bars. Why not? If the establishment labels themselves a "smoking friendly facility," then non-smokers can't complain. Let it be an active choice made by the owners. It's supposed to be that way now in theory, but it's not. Make it law...make it verifiable. If you want to come here, be warned it is a smoker friendly facility. No one can bitch about it that way. After all...my biggest gripe is smoke affecting people who want to avoid it. That makes it their own damn fault if it stinks 'em up. 😛 It might not seem fair to everyone, but life isn't fair...lol...but it would be smokefree.

I'd be tickled to death if I knew that the air we all share wasn't polluted with that acrid stuff some of us think is ok to spew. Doubt it will happen because people will always shout, "What about my rights?" as they filth up the air. Yeah, well, what about mine?

Joby, off her soapbox and chewing really hard on my gum. 😀

 

[phatteus]

great thread

I, like several before me on this thread am a former smoker. I quit New Years Eve 2001 after smoking approximately 5 packs of cigarettes and simply feeling disgusted with my pack-a-day expense account. So, I am clean. (in more than one sense of the word!)

At that time, smoking was already illegal in New York resteraunts, and had been for quite some time. Let me tell you this. When I was smoking, (and I smoked a lot, not one of those weekend smokers, I went through a pack daily, at least) but when I was smoking, unless I was in a bar, I NEVER smoked indoors, aside from my home. In fact, I never felt the desire to light up during a meal. I never smoked at Church, or while I filled my Gas Tank (Sorry Jersey and Oregon, although I did witness a gas station attendant at the Thomas Alva Edison rest area on the Jersey Turnpike smoking a Newport last month... very scary) Nor did I ever want a cigarette at Grandma's house or in any of my lectures. Why would dinner be any different?
As a former smoker, I know the cravings that are associated with niccotine addiction. I also know the cravings associated with niccotine withdrawl. Thirdly, I know that sitting at a table, if I ever got the urge to torch up, I never looked around the room, lit a butt, and said to the people at the next table "Go Fuck Yourselves, I NEED this!"
No, Instead, I would get up and go outside. I say shame on ANYONE who cannot have the common decency to show some courtesy in a public place. I suppose there are smokers out there who get cheesed off when they are seated next to a screaming baby, or some insecure little girl with seven gallons of perfume on. Smokers (and the rest of us)curse the ground these people walk on, but still smoke like chimmenys. If you don't like the way we do things around here, go away.
The bar scene is a little more of a ticklish subject. (Pun intended.) A bar is a very intimate setting; one in which people are encouraged to get comfortable. To this day, almost two years without smoking, I need a pen in my right hand if I have a beer in my left. The cigarette is an accessory to drinking. The mental habit is almost as hard to break as the physical one. With regards to bars, I cannot say I agree with the law. But, I DO agree with JoBelle's suggestion. Smoking bars and non-smoking bars. Leave the decision to the public.
Do I want to subject myself to a heavy cloud of toxins? Then I'll drink at Uncle Smokey's Waterin' Hole!
Do I want to abstain from smoking for one night? Then I'll go to No-Nails Drinkery!

I do think that smoking is a major issue in the world. While it is true that without tobacco, the USA would not be here today, and that Liar-Liar-Pantsonfire would have no argument to make had Sir Walter Raleigh not rolled himself a fat one with the Queen, remember this. Who picked that tobacco? Who dried it and processed it and prepared it for sale by the land-owners? That's right. African Slaves. The USA would not be here without tobacco, and we would not be here without slavery. Now, why aren't there more people complaining that slavery was abolished? I would LOVE to hear that. "Slaveowners have rights too!" and "There was a plenty of slaves here inna Virginia! They ain't gonna be bannin' no Slavery here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Times change, people. And times almost always change for the better. Get over yourselves, and let the rest of us live our own lives too.

 

[phatteus]

one more thing

What state banned firearms???

 

[Haltickling]

One solution I can see with the bars as the social dynamic of smoking and drinking tend to go hand in hand. Have smokers-only bars. Why not? If the establishment labels themselves a "smoking friendly facility," then non-smokers can't complain. Let it be an active choice made by the owners. It's supposed to be that way now in theory, but it's not. Make it law...make it verifiable. If you want to come here, be warned it is a smoker friendly facility. No one can bitch about it that way. After all...my biggest gripe is smoke affecting people who want to avoid it. That makes it their own damn fault if it stinks 'em up. 😛 It might not seem fair to everyone, but life isn't fair...lol...but it would be smokefree.

Yes Joby, I totally agree with that. There would be a market for smoker's AND non-smoking bars. But that doesn't work when the government dictates that ALL the bars have to be smoke-free by law.

 

[Dave2112]

Thanks Hal, I was gonna touch upon that. When you say you can go to a bar that serves food if you want that, or has loud music if you want that, etc...you're forgetting the point that you can't go to a bar that has smoking if you want that. The government has made that decision for you. Oh yes, except for one place, and that's the other issue I wanted to bring up.

If this law didn't reek of political back-room dealing already, listen to this. You wanna know what else besides private residences are exempt from the law (in NY anyway)? Cigar lounges. Wanna know what constitutes a "cigar lounge" so that every bar doesn't just declare themselves one? "An establishment with an exclusive paid membership clientele..." (paraphrase). Know what this means? Those places where only the mega-rich and politicians hang out. So, not only do those with enough money and influence get to decide state legislation, they also get to evade the very laws they enact. John Q. SixPack can't go to a bar and have a smoke anymore, but William J. Millions can still light up at the George Pataki Country Club.

And let's also address all of the little brochure-factoids. Yeah, so many hundred thousand die every year because of smoking, blah, blah, blah. Wanna hear some scary figures? 70% of all NY State Police responses to domestic abuse, vandalization, violent crime, robbery and peace disturbance are alcohol related. 3 in 5 highway deaths are alcohol related. It is estimated that 20 out of every 100 hours of lost work time is due to alcohol. I see people every single night that I know are on welfare that can barely feed thier kids, but they're in every night to buy beer. Shall I continue? There is (like smoking, I'll admit) no beneficial reason to drink, and plenty of more harmful ones than smoking. So why is no one even considering banning alcohol?

There's too much money in it. It hasn't become politically incorrect yet. There are a million and one reasons why this world would be a better place if not one more drop of alcohol were ever made. No one's bitching about that. The alcohol industry must have better lobbyists, I suppose. Now let's fast-forward 20 years. Let's assume for the sake of arguement that the right special-interest group got hold of the right ears with enough money at a delicate time (like what happened here). How many of you saying that smokers are upset over nothing are going to be on the other side of the fence when you can't get your evening six of Bud? And if you think it's hypothetical, read back to my real reason for being so utterly against this BS law. It has set precedent. Just like class-action lawsuits, this thing is going to snowball. Ever notice that something gets banned when enough money-sucking frivolous and class-action lawsuits are in place and enough potential state income is lost? Sooner or later, someone's going to form a group that successfully sues Anheiser-Busch. Or McDonald's. Yeah, it's been tried on lesser levels and been unsuccessful, but give it time. People forget that suits against tobacco companies were tried decades ago, to no avail. Then the political climate changed. Who's to say that it won't change where alcohol, fast-food or even violent video games or rap music are concerned? Then where will you stand?

Just a thought. The machine has been turned on, folks.

 

[JoBelle]

that doesn't work when the government dictates that ALL the bars have to be smoke-free by law

That's right Hal.
I totally agree. That's where I think the laws should be changed.

Oh, and a little difference between smoking and drinking though, Dave. When we're sitting at adjoining tables in a restaurant each having a drink, you have a smoke. While your smoke gets in my body, my alcohol doesn't get in yours.

No one is arguing the validity of your statistics. I think the bottom line is all other things being equal, your smoke affects me in ways that our alcohol affecting each other wouldn't.

Smoke it up. Just don't make me join you. That's all I'm sayin'.

Have I seen anyone respond with the reasons they feel a non-smoker should have to be subjected to smoke when the smoker is the the one with the need or desire?

Wow, this sounds confrontational...it's really not. I apologize. I'm just not grasping another accurate way to ask it.

Joby

Hehe, all this talk makes me want a cigarette. 😉

 

[MrPartickler]

When you say you can go to a bar that serves food if you want that, or has loud music if you want that, etc...you're forgetting the point that you can't go to a bar that has smoking if you want that. The government has made that decision for you.

Actually, in my area, people who must smoke go to the bars with an outdoor patio and/or some kind of outdoor seating area. There are at least three such bars within three or four blocks of each other here too. Non-smokers and smokers alike frequent these bars.

 

[phatteus]

Um... wait a second...

There is (like smoking, I'll admit) no beneficial reason to drink, and plenty of more harmful ones than smoking. So why is no one even considering banning alcohol?

Well, yeah, Dave, someone did think about banning alcohol. I don't know if you remember something called prohibition. This gave rise to something called organized crime and was repealed after it was discovered that prohibition didn't work. Tobacco is the only legal substance in America (besides those silly clove things) that can be smoked. Everyone drinks something at least once a day; be it water, juice, cola, or alcohol. We drink liquids to sustain our body, while alcohol consumption is done as a recreation, offering no nutritional value.
Smoking has no healthy counterpart. Smoking tobacco, or marijuana, or heroin, or crack, or any other "drug" is done purely as a recreation, with no benefit to the human body, other than a feeling of relaxation. A sensation, mind you, caused not by the nicotine, but by the chemicals which poison the body. A nicotine-free cigarette would offer similar sensations, but would not be addictive; this is why the Marlboro Man doesn't smoke nicotine-free cigarettes.
Alcohol, however, is generally not addictive. It is believed that a certain percentage of the population are genetically inclined to develop alcoholism: a condition defined by genetics, not the amount of alcohol consumed. However, non-alcoholic drinks are still offered! Aside from the aforementioned water and soda and the like, there are virgin daquir... daquer... daker.......
Virgin pina coladas, and we all know that O'Doul's is what beer drinkers drink when they're not drinking beer! (Beware, O'Doul's contains "some" alcohol, to speed the brewing process)
Okay... My tangent seems to have taken a turn somewhere... The point I started off with was that Alcohol and Tobacco cannot be compared. One is considered very harmful if heavy machinery is used after drinking it, and the other will kill you and anyone within shouting distance. Where's the confusion?

But to add another analogy, let's assume we live in a crazy world where people actually give a rat's ass about anyone else. Now let's say you (not you in particular, the plural you, like vosotros for all of our spanish speaking amigos) you go to a resteraunt to eat a nice, fancy dinner with your family. Your kids are there, and your Grandma Sally, and Grandpa Jeff, and even Great-Aunt Rose is having a meal with you that you are about to drop a day's pay for.
Now let's say that I come in. I take off all my clothes and do a dance on the table, screaming Shakesperean soliloquoys at the top of my voice.
You may get a little disturbed by this, so you ask to see the manager of the establishment. There I am, bare-ass to the world, shouting "But Soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It is the East, and Juliet is the Sun! Arise fair Sun and kill the envious moon..." all the while doing a bizarre cross between the Macarena and the Funky Chicken.
The manager comes to your table, and you ask him to have me removed from the dining area. To which the manager informs you, in his fake French accent: "You never specified that you wanted to be seated in the non-asshole section. I'm sorry, but there is nothing that I can do." So you suffer through dinner, and eventually have to go vomit up your penne ala vodka after witnessing my naked rump-shaker.
So, there you have it. In a nut shell, this is what non-smokers experience when they try to eat next to a chimmeny. Some things are simply inappropriate in a dining area. Smoking is one of them... apparently I am another.

 

[Haltickling]

Re: Um... wait a second...

Smoking tobacco ... is done purely as a recreation, with no benefit to the human body, other than a feeling of relaxation.

You have no idea how much the people around me benefit from having me in a relaxed mood, phatteus! 😛

But please allow me to add two serious remarks about your post:

First, we're not talking about a total ban of smoking, so this situation is not directly comparable to the prohibition era.

However, I'd say that the tobacco industry is directly comparable to organized crime already. Like the alcohol industry, or the fast food chains, or the drug cartels, they use addictive and health-damaging substances in their products to open up markets and support their own profit. I'm not so sure about your view concerning alcohol not being addictive. I have my doubts there, but not enough information to comment objectively. There is strong evidence that the big tobacco companies are also involved in heavy cigarette smuggling to circumvent state taxes. But as they are multinational firms, it's very hard to bring them to trial anywhere, they are too cunning and have too much power.

And second, we weren't talking of smoking in restaurants either. Actually, our conversation revolved around banning smoking in bars. So your analogy with the no-asshole area doesn't hold, so sorry. I wish there really were asshole-free zones (e.g. in working places or administrations) somewhere in this world... 😉

 

[phatteus]

.

You have no idea how much the people around me benefit from having me in a relaxed mood, phatteus!

Easy, boy, don't want no trouble!!! 😀

At the risk of sounding unintentionally snotty: In my last post, I mentioned that I cannot agree with the no smoking laws in bars, but that I do agree that eating establishments are no place for tobacco.

Forgive my strange analogy, I was on a roll...

 

[desdemona]

Legislating freedoms always gets a bit sticky, Hal. You do like taking on those more heated subjects!

For me, legislation in this area has been lax. Ten years ago smoking became prohibited in the downtown area unless you had a cubicle or went to a break room. This was incentive enough for my father to finally quit (he smoked from age 8 to age 53...growing up in North Carolina, I can see why). He used just couldn't justify so many breaks during the day. Hypnotism worked for him. Likewise, my mother smoked. She quit cold turkey after a nasty case of bronchitis. She smoked for 20+ years. I grew up riding in smoke filled cars getting nauseous from the smell and allergies that later bloomed into asthma. At work (a hospital with oxygen tanks no less), one of my bosses smokes. I never deny a person who asks first if I mind if they light up. She usually feels guilty if I start wheezing or coughing while she's blowing off steam. I know it helps her relieve the stress of work. I don't blame her for her nicotine habit - I survive on coffee and sugar myself. But with my parents, I learned to tolerate a lot. My feeling, though, is that without the legislation here, my father never would have quit. And I don't think he suffered by making the choice he made. He may have resented it, but it certainly became easier to bear riding in a car with the man. No matter what legislation is passed, there is still nothing that will protect the children of smokers who live with it everyday. Maybe legislation is there to "nudge" those who aren't considerate enough to ask or take actions which might not be as harmful.

BTW, Hal, I have pleasant memories of pipe smoke. My grandfather smoked one for a long time. He succumbed to heart disease after he had given up smoking. Truthfully, I can tolerate pipes much more than I can tolerate cigars (ewwwwwww........)

 

[Dave2112]

Joby, I'd like to re-reiterate that I am not talking about restaurants here, or the workplace or hospitals or airplanes. I'm talking about bars and lounges, places where people are not forced to go. For once and for all, I DO smoke, and I don't like it at restaurants while I'm eating either. No one's arguing that point. But since you brought it up..."My drinking doesn't affect you the way your smoking affects me"...there IS a clarification to be made. My smoking does drift over to you while you're eating and affects your health, no question there. But your alcohol consumption DOES affect me. When you're all done and have those drinks in you, I have to share the road with you when we drive home. Yes, yes...someone else wil drive, etc. But does everyone do that? And how am I supposed to know which drivers out there didn't just come from a four-beer dinner?

The point is, alcohol causes just as much damage to self and society, but it's not politically incorrect yet. And yes, Phatteus, I know all about Prohibition. That was in a different time, different political climate, and took an act of Congress and a Constitutional Ammendment to enact. This took a lobbying group and some contribution cash.

When they forced seat-belts on us (which is not a bad thing, just making a point), it started those "seat-belt checkpoints". A way for the State to line the coffers when they needed a few bucks. Wait and see how long it is before the watchdogs start sweeping bars (conveniently at the end of the month, I will predict) to hand out some well-needed tickets and collect some desperatly needed cash.

If you think prohibition was the final say in alcohol limitations, you're kidding yourself. This is a completely different world than it was in the '20's. We've now circumvented the need for an act of Congress (or even voter knowledge) and put decisions in the hands of lobbyists. For the last time, THIS IS WHAT BOTHERS ME! So let's drop the restaurant and office building arguements, they're not the point.

Some have said "You can just step outside." Brilliant idea. Let's take a large group of people, pour some drinks into them, and instead of having them comfortable and keeping to themselves (more or less), let's throw them all together out on the sidewalk. Get two or more bars on the same street and do that. Then add pedestrians trying to get past the throng. Check with the police in New York City (whose anti-smoking laws started in March), and ask how wonderfully that plan is working. The police have nothing to do with even enforcing the law (that's up to the Health Department), but now are tied up breaking up street fights. Now, that's not an excuse for letting people smoke, and folks shouldn't act that way when they drink, I'm not saying that. BUT, no one foresaw this? It's human nature.

This is the bottom line. Say what you will about smoking. This whole charade has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the misappropriation of power. It has to do with the precedent set for more laws that determine your morality. And money's behind all of it. You have no say in it. I'm glad you can't smoke in restaurants anymore, I hate the way it went down. And I'm REALLY pissed about the "Cigar Lounge" exemption. Another way for the rich and powerful to avoid the laws they force upon us.