| Author | Message | ||
| terryc
Senior Member Username: terryc Post Number: 450 Registered: 11-2004 |
Well here in the UK we have enjoyed it(for non smokers) for 8 months and have you noticed that your bass and strap doesn't smell like an old ash tray when you open the case! Scotland and Eire have had the ban longer but what goes on over the pond. Do different states have different rules, are there any states or counties in the USA that has not got a smoking ban in public areas ie, clubs, bars etc?? I for one have thanked it(as a non smoker) but a lot of bars & clubs have re decorated because the stale smoke smell masked any other smells that were there. | ||
| cozmik_cowboy
Advanced Member Username: cozmik_cowboy Post Number: 266 Registered: 10-2006 |
It varies widely in the US - Illinois was a patchwork of local ordinances until January (DeKalb, where I live, you could only smoke in bars & bowling alleys until September, then nowhere - Sycamore, the next town over, allowed it in restaurants & places of business under a certain size). Now smoking is banned in all public buildings statewide (and I can go to bars again without destroying my throat!) A number of states have similar laws, some I expect never will. I'm kind of surprised to hear about Eire banning it - a few years back, a Chicago radio guy was doing some broadcasts from a pub there & asked if he could move his set-up into the no smoking section. His host said "This is Ireland, Steve - we have a smoking section and a chain-smoking section" Peter | ||
| olieoliver
Senior Member Username: olieoliver Post Number: 1761 Registered: 2-2006 |
I'm not sure about other states but in Texas it's up to the city goverments to ban or allow smoking in public places. Dallas has a smoking ban for resturants but Mesquite, (where I live), has none. On a side note, I'm playing a benefit next Friday night for an old friend that I played in bands with for years. He has throat cancer and needs chemo and radiation treatments. In my opinion they should outlaw smoking except in the confines of your own home. Yes a person has the right to smoke but I have the right not to inhale the offensive second hand smoke! Very touchy subject to me as you can see. Olie | ||
| glocke
Advanced Member Username: glocke Post Number: 336 Registered: 9-2002 |
In New Jersey I am pretty sure it is banned state wide in public places. In Pennsylvania, I believe there is a ban in the Philadelphia city limits, but not a state wide ban. Im pretty much all for it. Second hand smoke makes me pretty sick. In one band I play in, EVERYONE smokes, even the guys who come to hang out. Its so bad when we take a break from rehearsel I have to go outside. When I get home from these rehearsels it feels like I am covered in some foul toxin from the second hand smoke and have to shower, and more often than not the next day my allergies are acting up from the smoke. | ||
| hydrargyrum
Advanced Member Username: hydrargyrum Post Number: 321 Registered: 3-2004 |
Here in Columbia Missouri the city enacted a smoking ban. I have mixed feelings about it (and no, I do not smoke). It still seems to me like a person should be able to do what they want with their own business, and if people don't like it, then leave. I stopped going to clubs and bars a long time ago because I didn't want to smell like I was dipped in nicotine. It may be in the best interest of everyone's health, but where does it end? A ban on fast food, alcohol, and anything deemed to be subversive to the psyche? Frankly I don't believe that our Government exists to keep everyone from doing stupid things. And if so, just ban stupidity, not smoking.  | ||
| olieoliver
Senior Member Username: olieoliver Post Number: 1762 Registered: 2-2006 |
I don't see where me eating a taco can be hazardous to the guys next to me, but me inhaling their second hand smoke is indeed harmful to me. Same for someone having a drink. There is no way some cat having a beer is harmful to me, unless he gets behind the wheel of a car that is. I do agree that PRIVATE business' should mantain the right to run them as smokefree or smoke-full. It's the public places, (i.e. Post office, city hall, the mall, the park....)that should be mandatory smoke-free. | ||
| hydrargyrum
Advanced Member Username: hydrargyrum Post Number: 323 Registered: 3-2004 |
I think our public buildings have been smoke free for quite some time now, but the smoking ban I refer to has been applied to private establishments. I don't think that I have ever been in a situation as an adult where I was forced to endure cigarette smoke, and could not leave. As a non-smoker (and parent of an eight month old), I happily enjoy the smoke free environment. But I can think of at least three locally owned old fashioned diners which are seriously hurting now from the disappearance of their regulars. It's just the imposition of this ban without consideration for the venue that irks me. And as far as eating a taco, etc., yeah it only hurts you. But that still doesn't mean that the government won't necessarily take issue with it some day. I recall that trans-fat bans have been enacted in some cities. How about seatbelt laws, and motorcycle helmet requirements? The government all too often takes the role of nanny in my opinion, and this smoking ban is only one more example. | ||
| flaxattack
Senior Member Username: flaxattack Post Number: 1911 Registered: 4-2004 |
the biggest joke is no smoking in outdoor arenas its funny though you cannot open a smokers only restaurant or bar in this country. i shouldnt have to put up with morons on cell phones in restaurants either everyone who spouts the bullshit about second hand smoke- why bother breathing in the first place the air is totally polluted with carcinogens anyway my best laugh- i was at a smoking table at a casino on a cruise and some old biddy started complaining- for once i got to tell someone to shut the f--- up or move. | ||
| pas
Intermediate Member Username: pas Post Number: 110 Registered: 3-2003 |
The government has no business legislating this. This is a complete infringement of a business owner's liberty to run his business as he sees fit. Totalitarianism incarnate. Orwell's dream came true, but no one realizes... | ||
| terryc
Senior Member Username: terryc Post Number: 451 Registered: 11-2004 |
Well here in the UK everyone has policed themselves, all the smokers go outside under the heat lamps that the pubs supply(more greenhouse effect!!!). I grew up with both parents smoking which is why I either stayed in my bedroom for most of the time or went out. It is a difficult freedom of rights subject but I have to agree with glocke..I welcome it with open arms(and clear lungs) Throat, lung, oesophageal cancer, chronic bronchitis, ephysema...a bad price to pay for the nicotine hit but the individual has the right to choose. | ||
| jacko
Senior Member Username: jacko Post Number: 1665 Registered: 10-2002 |
The only downside to the UK smoking ban occurs at the end of the night when you're trying to carry your gear out to the car. You have to barge through crowds of smokers who are too drunk to have the sense to move out of the way or get hit with a speaker cabinet. (this doesn't happen earlier in the evening when loading in as they're moderately sober). Flax.."the biggest joke is no smoking in outdoor arenas ". 52 people died in a fire at a football stadium in bradford which was most likely caused by a dropped cigarette. graeme | ||
| tbrannon
Senior Member Username: tbrannon Post Number: 657 Registered: 11-2004 |
The only point I can add to the discussion... For countries like the UK: Medical care is socialized- if the government is going to foot the bill for lung cancer, shouldn't it be able to push for a healthier nation? If the answer is no, then why should the government be responsible to provide medical care for those who abuse their bodies? | ||
| olieoliver
Senior Member Username: olieoliver Post Number: 1764 Registered: 2-2006 |
This is a very explosive topic and can get heated on either side. I believe the main problem is not the smoker or the non-smokers rights. The more important issue is consideration of others. I would be totally wrong to sit in the smoking section of a restaurant and complain about the smoke, while it would be equally wrong for a smoker to light up in a non-smoking area. Same with my job, I don’t complain about our drivers smoking in their lounge and they don’t smoke in my office. And about the “B-S” about second hand smoke, I’ve read that canned tuna has been found to contain small amounts of mercury. I still eat tuna but I don’t pop open a thermometer and pour it’s mercury over the tuna either. The air is polluted but not nearly as polluted as a smoke filled bar. And I agree 1 million percent that “Big Brother” has no business telling someone how to run their business. If I want to open a restaurant and have smoking allowed in all areas that’s my prerogative. But if I have to stand in line at the DMV to renew my driver’s license I shouldn’t have to be subjected to second hand smoke. The world is big enough for us all; we just need to treat each other as we would like to be treated. “I” and “me” are the two most selfish words in the English language. We should replace them with “you” or “her/him” more often! Instead of, “what do I get out of it or how does it affect me”, try inserting you and him/her. LOVE is a 4 lettered word but we shouldn’t treat it as such. Life here is too short, enjoy the planet and enjoy each other! Relationships are all that we keep forever. Olie (Message edited by olieoliver on February 27, 2008) | ||
| olieoliver
Senior Member Username: olieoliver Post Number: 1765 Registered: 2-2006 |
Very valid but often overlooked point Toby! | ||
| lbpesq
Senior Member Username: lbpesq Post Number: 2957 Registered: 7-2004 |
Olie: Do I turn to my wife and lovingly say: "You love you, honey"? I suspect it might not go over all that well. lol As for second hand smoke, I can understand that it can be annoying to some and any smoker should be considerate and act appropriately to the situation. Personally, I don't like the government involved. A lot of the brouhaha about second hand smoke is gov't-fueled propaganda that is not supported by good science (gee, sound familiar?). And I certainly agree with Flax about smoking in outdoor stadiums. I remember being a little kid and my dad taking me to the Polo Grounds or old Yankee Stadium. The cigar smell was part of the package, along with the vendor yelling "beah heah" - another loss of the modern age (no alcohol sales in the stands!). So a fire once happened at a stadium that may have been caused by smoking. Hey, I've seen all those European and/or South American soccer matches where violence breaks out amongst the spectators. We must therefore ban soccer, right? And a plane once crashed, so no more flying. Ever heard of an auto accident? No more cars. And what about botulism? Let's ban food. The bottom line is that life causes death. No one has ever died in the history of the world who wasn't alive just previous to death. We all take risks - a 747 could fall out of the sky and hit me on the head any moment. Big Brother is turning into Big Mother. I'm not happy about it. O.K., now my chest feels a little lighter. Bill, tgo (Message edited by lbpesq on February 27, 2008) | ||
| matthew90046
Junior Username: matthew90046 Post Number: 39 Registered: 1-2005 |
On the subject of 'businesses should be allowed to maintain a smoke free or smoking environment of their choice...' When California passed a smoking ban it was not so much about smoker vs. non-smoker. Although that is how it played out at bars and around the water cooler. It came down to a "hazardous work environment" and that employees should not have to subject themselves to second hand smoke for extended hours. In New York City it has opened up another problem. Now that all the smokers go outside for a puff it gets very noisy for all the residents living above the bar. Nothing like a bunch drunk people yelling and laughing it up outside your window until 4-am. Smoke-em if you got-em in Nevada. The casinos don't want people taking a break from those slot machines to grab a smoke. After a night in Vegas it always felt like I had my respiratory system scrubbed with a dry toothbrush. | ||
| olieoliver
Senior Member Username: olieoliver Post Number: 1766 Registered: 2-2006 |
Bill. I've met some wifes where that was TRUE though. ROTFL Olie | ||
| pas
Intermediate Member Username: pas Post Number: 111 Registered: 3-2003 |
First the nico-nazis come for the smokers...next it'll be the obese...just watch. I won't even gig in the People's Republic of Maryland anymore, due to the smoking ban. People go to bars to drink & smoke...that's why they exist. The 2nd hand smoke issue, with regard to legitimate research, is dubious at best. If people don't want to work in a smoking environment, perhaps trying to land a job in a bar isn't the wisest way to go. This PC victim mentality is truly the tail wagging the dog. | ||
| wideload
Intermediate Member Username: wideload Post Number: 122 Registered: 6-2003 |
All I know is, I would welcome some of Bill, tgo's second hand smoke! Larry | ||
| olieoliver
Senior Member Username: olieoliver Post Number: 1769 Registered: 2-2006 |
LOL Larry! I used to smoke,"it all", I quit "roll my owns" in 1979 and the Marlboro's 4 years later. And you know what, I hate the smell of cigarettes but still love the aroma of the other! Olie | ||
| matthew90046
Junior Username: matthew90046 Post Number: 40 Registered: 1-2005 |
pas wrote: "If people don't want to work in a smoking environment, perhaps trying to land a job in a bar isn't the wisest way to go." Many posed that argument, but job health and safety came first in the eyes of California. http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9812/20/bartender.smoke/ (Message edited by matthew90046 on February 27, 2008) | ||
| lbpesq
Senior Member Username: lbpesq Post Number: 2958 Registered: 7-2004 |
Larry: Come on up to the Northern California Alembic gathering next month and you may just get your wish! Bill, tgo | ||
| pas
Intermediate Member Username: pas Post Number: 112 Registered: 3-2003 |
"job health and safety came first in the eyes of California." Both specious arguments. The sheep continue to roll over for Big Brother. Next they'll ban Girl Scout cookies, under the guise of fighting a "national obesity epidemic." | ||
| matthew90046
Junior Username: matthew90046 Post Number: 41 Registered: 1-2005 |
pas, I was just trying to give a little insight into the smoking ban in California, how and why it was passed. In fact I was a smoker at the time and was all for the ban. I didn't think myself too lazy to step outside if my smoking bothered other people. Sorry if my comment got you rattled. but... 1) Your argument of "trying to land a job" that is not in a smoking environment is simply poor because no one should have to choose between their job and their health. 2) To compare the the voluntary eating of Girl Scout cookies to the involuntary inhaling of second hand smoke is just silly and I know that was a joke. 3) As Americans we are the government and therefore we are "Big Brother", a manifestation of our own poor judgment at selecting our leaders. (Look close at who is nominating supreme court justices.) 4) Please don't compare me to a sheep. On a side note... I could smell my neighbor's smoke through the wall of our house. It didn't bother me as she usually smoked outside when the weather was nice. About 6 months ago the smell stopped. She unfortunately suffered a heart attack that then triggered a stroke. She is only 53 and still alive as long as she stays in the hospital. No hard feelings and I wish you good health, matt | ||
| pas
Intermediate Member Username: pas Post Number: 113 Registered: 3-2003 |
Matthew, In all sincerity, I could not more ardently disagree with all that you have posited. Suffice to say, overly verbose rounds of continued recitation shall not convince either of us. | ||
| daved
Junior Username: daved Post Number: 12 Registered: 12-2002 |
I've enjoyed reading everyone's opinions on this topic. Regarding gigging in Maryland, I was glad to see the ban enacted statewide last month and now I'm trying to avoid gigging in Virginia as they have yet to enact their ban (and good luck w/all the tobacco companies there). I partially disagree with the person who said people go to bars to drink and smoke. Let's think about that. Both are activities which can be enjoyed without restriction, in the home. What you can't do at home is: - choose from 100 different beers and countless more types of liquor - hear a live band - eat someone else's cooking - meet a stranger and score a phone number (or more) - get out of the house for a few hours As for smoking, you can enjoy your smoke at home, in a park, at the beach, in the mountains, etc. I believe it's more accurate to say that people go to bars for the social interaction, live entertainment and (depending upon the bar) the food. (And yes, there are plenty of people who go to bars to get blotto, but trust me - this can be done at home!) The fact that you can drink and (until recently) smoke there is just an added benefit. It's only logical that there would have to be some other motivation for going to a bar; you're probably not going to score at home and let's face it - most people are social creatures and like going somewhere where there's something going on (e.g. not home). So if we can accept that smoking is not a primary motivator for going to a bar, then it becomes less far-fetched to allow consumers to enjoy 4 of the 5 things most people do at bars: - drink - hang with friends/score a date - eat - watch a band Provided that one has good manners, knows how to conduct oneself in public and has respect for others, one can do all of these things without adversely impacting someone else. This cannot be said of smoking. In conclusion, let's all eat, drink, be merry, unwind, watch a ball game, check out a band, meet someone exciting and score some digits, try a new beer, etc. These are all things we can do together without subjecting anyone else to someone's offensive and potentially unhealthy, personal habit. If you must smoke, is it really too much to ask to step outside and enjoy it with other like-minded smokers? When you're finished, come back in. I promise not to let anyone steal your bar stool ;-) | ||
| pas
Intermediate Member Username: pas Post Number: 116 Registered: 3-2003 |
I was REALLY hoping this politically correct thread would die, never to be resurrected again. If the owner of the establishment chooses to allow or disallow smoking in his or her venue, fine. That's the right of the entreprenuer. But to have it dictated by the state on the supposed basis of specious science is entirely another. Enjoy the People's Republic...in Virginia we still love liberty. As long as we're playing political hardball, here's a trade for you - Maryland can send all it's cigarettes to Virginia & Virginia will send all it's illegal aliens to Maryland, sound like a deal...? | ||
| byoung
Senior Member Username: byoung Post Number: 999 Registered: 12-2004 |
Paul, The only line of argument that you have that seems reasonable to me is that the owner should have the right to run an establishment the way that they choose. However, using ad-hominem arguments like "political correctness", "specious science", and the very divisive illegal immigrant issue isn't considered good debating; you've committed a logical fallacy. Not to mention that being hostile (my opinion on the tone of your post) isn't a way to win the argument, and isn't the tone that I would use as a guest in someone's house. Bradley | ||
| lbpesq
Senior Member Username: lbpesq Post Number: 3012 Registered: 7-2004 |
Gee, and I thought "illegal aliens" were Klingons, Romulans, and the Borg! Do they have a lot of them in Virginia? Should we put in a call to Bill Shatner, tsto? Bill, tgo (Message edited by lbpesq on March 27, 2008) | ||
| pas
Intermediate Member Username: pas Post Number: 117 Registered: 3-2003 |
Bradley, "Hostile"...? No, more like contemptuous. A fair reply to condescencion, in my estimation. I wasn't debating, I was commenting. This is an issue whose opponents will never persuade one another...it's one where they'll have to agree to disagree. This thread has been dormant for a month and I'm inclined to think it best if it becomes dormant in perpetuity. | ||
| adriaan
Senior Member Username: adriaan Post Number: 1848 Registered: 6-2002 |
What are some of the bigger industries in Virginia? Maryland selling all its cigarettes to Virginia - economical fallacy. Duh. | ||
| pas
Intermediate Member Username: pas Post Number: 118 Registered: 3-2003 |
Adriaan, I was being facetious... | ||
| adriaan
Senior Member Username: adriaan Post Number: 1849 Registered: 6-2002 |
Paul, You've got to be joking here. | ||
| pas
Intermediate Member Username: pas Post Number: 120 Registered: 3-2003 |
Adriaan, That's pretty much what facetious means... | ||
| adriaan
Senior Member Username: adriaan Post Number: 1850 Registered: 6-2002 |
Hm, where's that irony smiley when you need it the most? | ||
| pas
Intermediate Member Username: pas Post Number: 121 Registered: 3-2003 |
Right you are! Being a smart a$$ is not always the most readily apparent thing in cyber space. | ||
| 811952
Senior Member Username: 811952 Post Number: 1370 Registered: 10-2003 |
Unfortunately, being a dumb a$$ often IS most readily apparent. Don't ask me how I know this. ;) John |
