BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


No Smoking NYC

 
  

Page: 123(4)5

 
 
Zen Zombie
22:22 / 21.08.02
>>Also sleaze, this sort of ban is not at all unprecedented in the U.S. and I think it's not such political suicide as you suggest. The last two places I lived, Madison WI and Los Angeles, both had such bans, and I had to get used to smoking being allowed in restaurants again.>>


Yeah, I remember reading about legislation being tossed around and considered to eliminate smoking in Los Angeles public parks. Aside from how dubious it is for some people to complain about cigarette smoke in an open area, L.A.'s not exactly known for its flowery atmosphere.

If I lived an L.A., I'd put a cigarette in my mouth just to keep the air out.

I guess you're right about the precedence for this kind of thing, Persephone, especially in California. Why would it be controversial, when it's part of a framework made up of all kinds of social engineering legislation trying to be passed by Republicans and Democrats alike, and it's been going on for a better part of a century, whether it's the war on drugs, or all kinds of "obscenity" cases.

We've gotten used to people from all walks of life trying to shoehorn everybody else, through government power, into their version of The Way Things Should Be.

If Senator Tankerbell doesn't protect us from our own stiffies, who will?

I'm kind of torn up about it, because on the one hand we did get things like the Civil Rights Movement out of it. Then I think, outside of dismantling the laws that forced racism on people(like segregation), were new laws and legislation that forced the opposite, like affirmative action quotas and anti-descriminatory civil suits, right or necessary?

I don't know. I've gone on cross country trips, and outside of major metropolitan areas like New York, and even in some major cities, white, black, and hispanic people each had their own respective neighborhoods, markets, salons, and the like, and don't mingle, even in the workplaces they're forced to integrate into. In Miami, where I live(I'm Cuban by the way), as the Spanish people came in, all the white people moved north, and as the Hispanic population grows and moves northward, Whitey moves further north still.

In spite of the drug laws, more than a third of all the people I know drop acid and smoke weed on a regular basis. These are normal people you see at work everyday. They don't even have piercings. Really.

I'm getting off topic, but what I'm trying to get at here is this: I'm not sure how effective or right the idea behind the smoking bans, and all the other laws and legislation like it, is. At best, it seems to have minimal to no effect; at worst, like with the Drug War, it creates needless violence.

The anti-smoking ordinances might have noble intentions, but are misguided. I tend to lean torward believing that people have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies and property, and I believe many of societies problems grow out of people and governments violating these freedoms.
 
 
Ganesh
23:06 / 21.08.02
Hmm, okay. Having braved 'passive rudeness' for the remainder of this distinctly acrid thread, I'm now feeling a little more engaged with the argument. Hooked, even. I must be in Flavour Country.

Like Loomis, I think it's important to dissect out the individual strands of debate:

1) Smoking is bad for the smoker's health
Undoubtedly, incontestably true but not, I feel, especially relevant to the 'workplace' discussion - unless Flux's aim was to spark debate around authoritarian-paternalistic Government attitudes to health, in which case discussion of driving, alcohol, fast food and environmental pollution would all be pertinent. If the aim, in seeking to eliminate smoking from all workplaces was to 'promote health' in the smoker then it's perfectly valid to compare and contrast with all the other 'health-hazards' already mentioned.

2) Smoking is bad for other people's health
This, really, is the nub of the matter. Mayor Bloomberg is, presumably, seeking to safeguard the health of people around smokers - on the grounds that regular passive inhalation of others' cigarette smoke is potentially injurious. This is IMHO the most relevant facet of the argument, and one on which I'm quite undecided. While accepting that clubs are generally 'unhealthy' (and being insufficiently concerned by the relatively minor cardiac/cancer risks of passive smoking to stay away altogether), I dislike my asthma being aggravated by others' smoke, and would prefer it if there were at least some smoke-free areas of clubs. I'm not sure where I stand on this, really.

3) Smoking is unpleasant for other people
True, but not especially relevant, IMHO - certainly nowhere near as persuasive as the 'other people's health' issue. Lots of things in life are subjectively unpleasant; we generally weigh up the alternatives and choose to tolerate them or not.

4) Smokers are weak-willed addicts
This statement - whether or not one chooses to believe it - is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. The motives of the smoker have absolutely no bearing on whether or not smoking should be eliminated from public workplaces, and only serves to make any discussion more emotive and adversarial.

5) It's "lung-rape"
Not so much a non-argument as an anti-argument. Guaranteed to kill any emerging rational debate.

In summary, the potential risk to the health of others is perhaps the strongest argument for banning smoking in the workplace; as an expression of concern for the health of the smokers themselves, such a measure would stink overwhelmingly of patronising State 'nannying'. Aside from the health risks of passive inhalation, the other elements of discussion (unpleasantness or otherwise of others' smoke, whether or not smokers are "junkies") are neither here nor there, and don't advance the argument.

Disclaimer: I say this as a life-long (asthmatic) non-smoker who lives in relative harmony with a smoker of roll-ups. We get along like ebony and ivory on a keyboard - and even though I have my own occasional OCD moments, I don't think I've ever washed my hair more than twice in one day...
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
13:24 / 22.08.02
I'd just like to point out that I called Bio 'obnoxious', too. I would have added 'kiddo', or made some passing reference to hir 'swimming in the big boys' pool now', but I thought that might be needlessly inflammatory. Not to mention the fact that he'd set his dad on me.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
13:55 / 22.08.02
To address the nub in Ganesh's manner, so to speak, I think there's cause to speculate on what's really intended by "regulations" like this. If it's valid to bring other environmental factors into strand #1, it's valid here, too. Why do we think second hand smoke is a more immediate problem than petrochem. fumes and plummeting air conditioners? And what does the Mayor's office stand to gain by raising the issue?
 
 
Justin Brief
14:37 / 22.08.02
To return to the Eddie Izzard quote way up there somewhere, it looks like an attempt by the nice Mayor to ingratiate himself with all those nice fascists who like to control what happens to other people's bodies. No, not the Pro-Lifers, the other ones; the really annoying Californianesque Americans who try to force feed you carrots and wheatgrass, and think you're on meths or something if you open a second bottle of wine at breakfast. Squares...
 
 
Persephone
14:48 / 22.08.02
L.A.'s not exactly known for its flowery atmosphere.

Perhaps you have been there and experienced the air quality as being poor, but personally I have never found that the air in L.A. to be any different than any other place I've been.

I have the same questions as you do regarding the role of government in society, but in this thread I am not arguing over those grounds. For better or for worse, government *is* involved in workplace issues, public health, and so on. It's not a question of in or out, but where you draw the line. And I can't help seeing which people tend to end up on which side of the line, who gets taken care of and who doesn't.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
14:49 / 22.08.02
Are Californians the new Nazis?

Seriously, why would Bloomberg feel the need to ingratiate himself to these particular voters? A) the neo-Californians are not that big a group and B) it's not even an election year. I think it's a way to raise badly needed funds in an unethical manner that people will have a hard time protesting.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
16:46 / 22.08.02
it looks like an attempt by the nice Mayor to ingratiate himself with all those nice fascists who like to control what happens to other people's bodies.

That's some very questionable language, considering the entire problem with smoking is that when people do it, they are doing things to other people's bodies. It's not the same as with non-smoked drugs that don't have a direct immediate effect on people in promiximity. Do you see how you are standing on very thin ice? There's a lot of valid anti-government positions to take in this argument, but to say that this is about Big Brother telling you what not to put in yr body is silly and lacking in selfawareness when the act of smoking often leads to unwanted things being put in other people's body. Is it really more important that you are able to put something in your body that you want there, than people having the freedom to not have something put in their bodies that they don't want there? Limiting the places where one can smoke does not mean the privilege to smoke is being taken away, it's just that the people who do smoke are being asked to be considerate of the people who don't want to deal with their smoke.

Now, I want to say something about my behavior earlier in this thread - I was thinking about how radically different my expression of being against smoke in this thread is when compared to how I've always dealt with this in real life. In real life, I rarely talk about this. I can deal with smokers, I can be around them from time to time, I dislike it, but I keep my mouth shut. I almost never complain about it in front of smokers, the most I'll ever do is physically sort of avoid smoke and the smoker in question normally picks up on the hint and makes an effort to keep the smoke from going near me. I appreciate that, and most everyone I know who smokes does that. I've lived with smokers too, and that was okay, though under the circumstances it was a large loft with a lot of windows, so it was usually a non-issue. The only times when I really have to deal with taking in a lot of unwanted smoke is at concert venues, and it's usually worth the discomfort. I'm not an unreasonable person in real life about this.

I think that in this thread, I have really let out a lot of pent-up anger and frustration about this issue, and I do feel that some people in this thread certainly egged me on. There's some very recent posts in this thread that still aggravate me, but I don't feel quite as out-for-blood as I did a couple days ago, so I'm not going to pursue it. Do I think that smoking is linked to problems with will, a need for social belonging, and that a lot of the pro-smoking rhetoric in this thread stems from some degree of laziness and selfishness? Yeah, I do. But do I think smokers are bad people, specifically the people here on Barbelith? No, not at all. I shouldn't have been so hyperbolic, and I apologize for that.
 
 
Bad Horse
17:06 / 22.08.02
Flux you should try just saying something along the lines of 'gonna put that out coz I really don't like it...please' rather than the usuall hand waving, false cooughing people do, it has a better chance of success and won't get peoples backs up.

I believe smoking should be restricted to designated areas suitable for the purpose. Even I find it irritating when many people smoke in poorly ventilated areas. Unfortunatly this proposed law does not allow for sensible mesures, it's a blanket ban and as such is less likely to have the desired effect.

I wouldn't smoke in front of a non smoker who voiced any kind of objection, it's rude to do so. I don't smoke in my own house because it makes the place smell bad. I would be happy to go to non smoking venues once in a while and equally happy to only smoke in the smoking bit when available.

I would really love a smoking cinema though. Seeing films as a child I clearly remember the smoke drifting up through the projector light, nice and atmospheric. It would have to have adequate ventilation though, somewhere for the smoke to get out instead of lying like a deadly fog accross the theater by the end of the film.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
08:45 / 23.08.02
Little story to tell :

Back when I was with my Evil Ex-Boyfriend, we were just about to break up (though we didn't know that yet) and had moved to The Cycle of Abuse going in almost hyperspeed. He'd be real nice for,then he'd tell me something I was doing wrong, followed by an argument and some sort of abusive epithet, I'd tell him I was breaking up with him, he'd beg me to stay and he'd start being real nice and the whole cycle would repeat about every 30 minutes or so.

Well, during one of these charming days I pulled out a cigarette as we were walking west in the city. As I did, he said to me, "I'd like to see if you could go a month without smoking." I egged him on by saying, "Why? Why would you like me to do that? Why?" His answer was not, "I love you and I'm concerned about your health." Not "your smoking is aggravating my asthma" (hypocritically, he smoked too), but "BECAUSE I KNOW YOU CAN'T DO IT!"

Suffice to say that this line of reasoning only made me want to smoke more, actually. Get off my back, Jack! You're not my Dad! (Actually, my Dad's name IS Jack, but I digress).

I tell this story mainly to illustrate the point that trying to get smokers to quit by calling them "Weak-willed" addicts is insensitive, indicates that you clearly don't know what it's like to be a smoker, and simply won't work. So Flux, while I understand your anger at other smokers, and I don't fault you for wanting to be able to go to a club without breathing in a cloud of smoke, I don't think calling smokers weak-willed addicts and maintaining an air of superiority because you do not smoke is going to win you any converts from the smokers' side. Smoking is an addiction, yes, but there are many other addictions people have, such as alcohol and even carbohydrate addiction, and I personally don't see how you're going to rescue someone from an addiction by making them feel worse than they all ready probably do about an addiction. You should go over to a quit smoking message board and read about people who have quit or are trying to quit and you will see that there quite a lot of people who want to quit, are trying to quit and HAVE quit. This actually doesn't have to be an us versus them issue.

And I'm actually right there with you to some extent. The biggest problem that I can see as far as smoking in public places go is I personally, whether I want a fag or not, don't feel too good about aggravating someone's asthma or causing someone who's allergic to smoke to cough. I'm all for banning smoking in quite a lot of public places.

The only thing that I could see working is having restaurants and bars that are non-smoking and restaurants and bars that are smoking. I know they did this in Chapel Hill North Carolina, though the non-smoking place I went to seemed pretty dead, I could definitely see it working. Also I know some clubs do actually have "smoke free" shows. There's a blues club in Chicago that does a few non-smoking shows and they have been pretty successful.


Can't we all live and let die in peace and harmony?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:30 / 23.08.02
Never has so much of Barbelith's time been spent by so many revolutionaries to serve the interests of some of the largest and most disgusting multi-national corporations.

We shall fight on the barricades to retain our right to do what we have been manipulated, re-educated, indoctrinated, deliberately addicated to do.

Smoking is image. Smoking is profit. You do it because you have been sold to. You do it because you have the gene. You do it because they breed the plants for addictivity. Smoking is not freedom, smoking is Soma. Smoking is habit.

We demand that you market product to us! We are the people.

The issue is not that the growing of tobacco replaces food crops, thus requiring poorer countries to import food which is therefore more expensive and beyond the purse of poorer people in the country, and at the same time decreasing the quality of the soil, and forcing farmers to greater deforestation. The issue is not that we sell tobacco products to poor countries as the image of the successful capitalist, movie star, sex symbol, man's man, woman's woman (foisting our social categories and frequently our prejudices and mistakes on them), nor that these people will not have access to the medical facilities we take for granted to deal with any adverse consequences. The issue is not that these facts will combine to keep poor countries in debt, and obedient to the will of other global corporations.

The issue is our fix. Viva the revolution.

Proud to be corporate patsies since we first heard smoking got you laid.
 
 
Ganesh
15:26 / 23.08.02
Way to go, Nick. My bedrock belief in Barbelith as a dangerous, edgy hotbed of revolutionary activity is in danger of being cracked by the piercing Truth you lay before me.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
15:41 / 23.08.02
Meanie.

Or, more cogently - I just don't get it. Smoking makes you smell bad, taste worse, and die young. It's bad for the wee ones, and pollutes the air, props up corrupt regimes and perpetuates global economic relations which suck. But John Travolta breathes a thick cloud of carcinogen on the teevee, Humphrey Bogart plays Marlowe with a fag in his mouth, Castro pops a hand-rolled in his bearded cakehole...and badaboom badabing, it's the coolest, revolutionest thing ever, and we should all fight for our right to be lung-fucked by BAT and squicked by the Marlboro Man.

Whoopdeedo.
 
 
Ganesh
16:25 / 23.08.02
Yes, and the only reason I have sex is because it looks cool in the movies.

Generalising from an 'outsider' viewpoint on the evident illogicality of what pushes certain people's pleasure-buttons rarely forwards one's argument. This thread isn't about how bad or weird or stupid you find the act of smoking, Nick; it's about the ethics of banning smoking in the workplace.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
16:53 / 23.08.02
Smoking makes you smell bad, taste worse, and die young. It's bad for the wee ones, and pollutes the air, props up corrupt regimes and perpetuates global economic relations which suck.

A voice from beyond the grave answers:

"...it was a beautiful piece of writing. The opening paragraph, however, in the light of later information, strikes me now as ominous. He began with the argument that we whites, from the point of development we had arrived at, ‘must necessarily appear to them [savages] in the nature of supernatural beings - we approach them with the might as of a deity,’ and so on, and so on. ‘By the simple exercise of our will we can exert a power for good practically unbounded,’ etc., etc. From that point he soared and took me with him. The peroration was magnificent, though difficult to remember, you know. It gave me the notion of an exotic Immensity ruled by an august Benevolence. It made me tingle with enthusiasm. This was the unbounded power of eloquence - of words - of burning noble words. There were no practical hints to interrupt the magic current of phrases, unless a kind of note at the foot of the last page, scrawled evidently much later, in an unsteady hand, may be regarded as the exposition of a method. It was very simple, and at the end of that moving appeal to every altruistic sentiment it blazed at you, luminous and terrifying, like a flash of lightning in a serene sky: ‘Exterminate all the brutes!’"

Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
06:41 / 24.08.02
And my response to the question of the 'ethics of (banning) smoking in the workplace' is to look at the ethics of smoking and tobacco. I'm not sure smoking is susceptible to issues of 'my right', because its own status is questionable. You can't divorce the two and have a neat little conversation about whether it's rotten to impinge on your civil smoking liberties in this overbearing, oppressive way, but ignore the rest of the situation.

Frankly, I think the whole debate is a total farce. Fight for your right to drink and drive at the same time, why don't you?
 
 
Ganesh
07:19 / 24.08.02
I think you're only taking that viewpoint because it looks cool in the movies.

When you say smoking's "own status is questionable", what do you mean by "status"? Status as what? In your analogy, drinking and driving is wrong because it puts the lives of others at risk; it's certainly valid to make the same argument about smoking around non-smokers - hence segregated areas, etc., etc.

I think "the rest of the situation" is less clear-cut, less open to easy analogy. Are you suggesting that smoking should also be banned on grounds that it's bad for the health of the smoker - which would be a separate issue, more akin to banning drinking period - or because tobacco production is linked to dodgy political regimes?

Please help us be less farcical, Nick...
 
 
w1rebaby
07:40 / 24.08.02
Every point there about smoking being economically harmful to other countries can be made about a variety of other products - coffee, certainly oil. I don't see how tobacco is different on this basis.
 
 
Ganesh
08:03 / 24.08.02
Mmm. Or bananas.

I'm finding it interesting to note how this particular subject affects posters' debating styles: there seems to be much more of a tendency to conflate the separate issues (smoking harmful to the smoker, smoking harmful to others, smoking unpleasant to others, smoking addictive) into one overall 'smoking = wrong' package - which quickly becomes fervently, emotively charged. Attempting to approach the subject in any sort of analytical way feels like an uphill task.

Nick, I'm genuinely bewildered by your "farce" comment; it's not like you to be so readily dismissive.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
09:35 / 24.08.02
But we're betraying the Revolution. Don't you get it, 'Nesh? Smoking is morally and ethically Wrong. It shouldn't even need to be discussed... it's really, really simple.

You don't get to wholly ignore the topic title and abstract just because you're Nick, Nick. Smoking in public places. Should it be banned? Stick to the subject or get your own damn thread.
 
 
bitchiekittie
10:46 / 24.08.02
ooh, this got really nasty. my opinion, totally separate from all the points (and jabs) made.

Im asthmatic, and sometimes react very badly to cigarette smoke. it makes my eyes itch and burn, my sinuses revolt, and the day after a packed show I always have horribly sore muscles (since I dont drink alcohol, always keep lots of water, dont dance, and have no trouble standing for hours any other time, I have assumed its the smoke)

I get pissed when people smoke around my child (needless to say, she doesnt visit bars and other show venues), no one smokes in my car or in my home, and Id be really happy if my friends, relatives, and my own sweet boy would quit smoking forever

that said, I think this is the government picking on a fairly unpopular group (you icky dirty stinky unhealthy smokers!...unless of course its a nice expensive cigar) and sets a precedent that I believe we dont really want to stand behind, regardless of our personal feelings for the habit (or whatever it is you crazy smokers call it). the government needs to learn that they cant regulate every aspect of human nature and habit, and our part is that we dont applaud them when they try

who knows what may be next?
 
 
Saint Keggers
13:26 / 24.08.02
I say they should have special walled areas where you can go and smoke all you want. NO VENTILATION! Maybe after you get stuck in the second hand smoke from all those other people you'll realise what its like for us. Some of you may even 'gasp' Quit.
 
 
Ganesh
15:21 / 24.08.02
Yes, because that's what it's like for us non-smokers, y'know. You wall us up for hours against our will in NO VENTILATION! areas we have no power to exit or alter. Feel our pain, selfish junkie fag-whores.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
18:32 / 24.08.02
IMHO - This should not be a matter for govermental determination. Not just because it impinges on what should be considered rights and freedoms but also because it seems that there isn't a single goverment that has enacted such laws without chronic demonisation of smokers which amounts to the kind of marginalisation that if shown towards any other group would be suffixed with -ism and considered inhumane.

Before any anti-smokers rant about my use of the words "right" and "freedoms", please read this slowly and carefully. I understand that you too have rights and freedoms and despite being an evil smoker will often make large personal efforts to afford non-smokers a far greater comfort than that which is provided by your rights and freedoms.

However, where a venue, location, establishment or suchlike is privately owned and operated, shouldn't it be at the discretion of the proprietor, owner, manager or operator to determine if their place should allow smoking or not? After all, these people have the responsibility to ensure that success of the business which, to a certain degree, relies on the amount of comfort and accessibility that is provided to the patrons. If these people find that their business is more successful (notes on this below) by allowing smoking, then isn't such a law unjust?

On other matters, what truly pisses me off about this situation is that there is no indication or evidence (as far as I have found and am willing to accept that I may be wrong on this) that anti-smoking lobbyists have made any real attempts to air their concerns or grievances with the affected businesses. Instead, for the most part, they have gone whining and crying to their goverment and it's representatives. Instead of trying to approach the matter in a manner that might be considered standing up for themselves and attempting to sway public opinion, they've looked for someone else to do it for them. This leaves them in cushy position of passing rhetorical opinion on whatever happens afterwards without the attachment of responsibility.

On the matter of the affect on business. In Toronto and the GTA a law was passed that banned smoking in areas that permitted minors in enclosed areas and enforced provisions of non-smoking areas for those that didn't. This law was developed to be directed primarily at restaurants and other food serving areas.
Since the passing of this law, there have been a number of documented cases where businesses, particularly outside of the downtown core, have reported a significant downturn in income which in some cases has resulted in business failure. Consideration for suits pursueing compensation have been rejected.

If you support such a law, what is you opinion on compansation for loss of revenue?

I wonder how far compensation suits will go in the far more litigious society of America?
 
 
Ganesh
21:24 / 24.08.02
Umm... I was under the impression that complaining formally to local Government representatives was an appropriate course of action in those circumstances...

Again, we're there with the antagonistic "whining and crying" playground lingo. Is it possible to discuss the relevant issues without mutual name-calling, or are both sides of the smoking/anti-smoking debate destined always to catfight?
 
 
Francine I
22:44 / 24.08.02
It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that this whole smoking debate ought to be divorced from the personal ethics issue. Meaning, if it's correct or not for a smoker to harm their own body in such a way is the business of none but the aforementioned smoker.

As Ganesh has already mentioned, there is a reasonable line of debate in the question of potential harm to others, but just hiking the unethical flag on up the pole on all counts is irresponsible debate form. Because no one has posted statistics or scientific studies relating to the damage done by second-hand smoke, we're going to have to assume the worst here, and say it's potentially fatal for non-smokers to be exposed to smoking in a closed atmosphere on a regular basis. That being said, some of the health issues discussed here could be alleviated by regulating ventilation standards, as opposed to smokers themselves -- and such solutions should probably be at least discussed prior to illegalizing smoking in public places.

Passion is fine and great, when it inspires good form and good points. When it leads you to decry all smokers as weak-willed, unethical piles of mush, it's relatively useless.

Does anyone think it might be reasonable to discuss alternate ways of getting smoke out of the lungs of non-smokers?
 
 
The Apple-Picker
23:05 / 24.08.02
Here's an article you all might want to read. Interesting information on ventilation, smoke and carcinogen buildup. --This article is probably more relevant than the others in this post to the topic of this thread, which should be the the whole workplace angle, but we're all over the place now.

Here's an article that says, among other things, this:

The Ontario Restaurant Association commissioned a study in 1992 to estimate the risk of lung cancer in adults who ate out in restaurants three times a week. The results of this study, which were not widely publicized by the Ontario Restaurant Association, suggested that the lifetime lung cancer risk in a generic restaurant which is 50 per cent non-smoking, lay between one in 2,500 to one in 250 for an average diner.

I would ask you to compare this to a generally acceptable and regulatable risk of between one in a million and one in 100,000. Even worse, apply these calculated rates to children who make up 19 per cent of the clientele of fast food restaurants, and surely, we have a totally unacceptable exposure, made more so by its avoidability.


Then as far as what Potus mentioned about businesses failing and whatnot. First of all, this being a public health issue, I doubt that the businesses would ever make it into a court against the state. Then, on top of that, I believe the burden of proof would be on businesses to show that it was the smoking ban that caused their businesses to fail and not that they sucked at their business or that a poor economy in general was to blame. And I think that would be mighty tough, considering that documents like this Summary of Research on Economic Impact of Smoking Restrictions [it's a PDF file, so you'll need a reader], show that in only one out of sixteen studies, smoking regulation had a negative impact on business revenue. In the other cases, smoking regulation had no effect, or business was better. Check out that file; it's kinda cool. The studies were done in various places across the U.S.

I liked this particular conclusion: Smoke-free ordinances do not affect restaurant sales even in the number one tobacco producing state in the U.S.

Cool stuff.
 
 
Rev. Orr
23:55 / 24.08.02
So, if non-smoking businesses do no worse or usually better financially, why does this need to be imposed by government statute? If it is in the business interests of club-owners, resteraunteurs and so on to ban smoking from their establishments why does a city need to legislate to make them do so?

If all these places chose to ban smokers off their own bat then we wouldn't have a leg to stand on if we complained. We can hardly picket the premises demanding the right to smoke. Okay, small ghettos would develop to respond to the smoker market but that way no-body's forcing a non-smoker to go anywhere near them. The point is, if the argument is so persuasive, why does the non-smoking lobby need the mayor to enforce it?
 
 
The Apple-Picker
04:48 / 25.08.02
I don't know the answer to that. Maybe they're afraid of the initial loss.

But I like to imagine corporate conspiracies and clandestine liaisons. Far more interesting to me that way.
 
 
bio k9
05:16 / 25.08.02
So, if non-smoking businesses do no worse or usually better financially, why does this need to be imposed by government statute? If it is in the business interests of club-owners, resteraunteurs and so on to ban smoking from their establishments why does a city need to legislate to make them do so?

Because not all businesses would ban smoking. If you're the only business that bans smoking, you're risking a good portion of your customer base. If all business have a ban on smoking your customers woln't start frequenting the competition, they'll smoke outside or stay home altogether.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:18 / 26.08.02
Jack: You don't get to wholly ignore the topic title and abstract just because you're Nick, Nick. Smoking in public places. Should it be banned? Stick to the subject or get your own damn thread.

You don't get to ignore the issues just because you need a fix, either. This is an appropriate venue for this discussion. I will, however, shut up about it, because - as always when this issue is raised - I run the risk of alienating my smoker mates.
 
 
Ganesh
10:18 / 26.08.02
"Because you need a fix"? That's way beneath you, Nick...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:58 / 26.08.02
Feel free to delete this as an irreverant one-liner, but....are you sure you've spoken to Nick before, Ganesh?

Now, smoking in public places, or more precisely smoking in workplaces.

I think the statement "smoking is bad for you" is pretty uncontestable. "Smoking is bad for other people" is slightly more contentious, but probably not that much more - passive smoking as bad thing is generally accepted, yes? In those terms, a ban on smoking completely seems to make perfect sense, and I'm curious as to why governments which purport to represent the interests of their nation's people have not so far made the growth, sale or importation of tobacco illegal.

But, imagining our hypothetical workplace is so well-ventilated that the effects of passive smokign become negligible, is it the state's duty of care to prevent us from damaging ourselves by smoking, or is it the state's obligation to keep its nose out of our business?

More generally, smnoking is a Bad Thing (tm) - it takes up room that could otherwise be used to grow crops. THis is a very bad thing indeed, and the prevention of smoking would presumably retard it. But that has very little indeed to do with New York City, or, ultimately, America. As Apple-Picker (I believe) mentioned, smoking is on the decline in the west. So, if Mayor Bloomberg, or anyone else, wanted to do something logical and useful to attack the tobacco lobby, it might be best to campaign against tobacco advertising in South-East Asia. In a sense, attacking the smokers in London or New York is not really a productive use of energy - numbers are dropping, existing smokers are dying, the pressure on businesses to allow smoking is therefore presumably dropping, higher taxation is penalising smoking to the point where many will simply abandon it. Much like smokers themselves, smoking in the west is dying. It is possible that the duty of those who oppose smoking on political and economic grounds extends beyond
ensuring that indie rock may be enjoyed without smoke.

(Incidentally, what I find very meta about this discussion is that both sides generally appear utterly convinced that the other side is being unreasonable.)
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
12:00 / 26.08.02
So was 'you don't get to avoid the issues' etc.

But look, I hate this argument. I hate it passionately. I'm not convinced this is a civil rights issue - or rather, it is, but not as stated. I should be able to say that without being told I'm avoiding the point. I don't have to put up with crap like that.

I hate this because it is the intrusion of political theory into the social sphere, and political and social consequence into the casual social arena in the lifeworld. I hate it because I feel utterly stupid arguing smoking with my smoker friends, and utterly square saying 'actually, yes, I do mind if you smoke'. I hate it that smokers can use social pressure to lighten up to force me to shut up about them smoking in my house. I hate it that I have to sit back and watch mothers blow smoke in the faces of their babies in restaurants because it isn't my business. I hate it that I have to watch my pregnant friends have just one fag. It's nonsense. And why is all this acceptable? Not for any useful reason. Just because smoking is an inherited sin. It's a well-spun sin. This argument is a nonsense, and the irony is that the anti-capitalists and revolutionaries of this world are coopted into preaching the line of Big Tobacco and invoking civil rights to protect profit margins for some of the worst companies on earth. And yes, the same thing applies elsewhere, but we're not talking about them right now and in any case I feel pretty much the same about them.

So to hell with it. I don't give a monkey's about workplace smoking. I do care about smoking in general and I think this: you have all been had. Deliberately and cleverly, over many years. Society has been sold a pup. And it makes me angry and sad. But what makes me very angry is being told to shut up and address some tiny side issue.

Yes, sure, there's a question about whether the state should interfere in personal choice, though it's marginal for smoking because there are consequences for others who have no way of protecting themselves. And no, basically, the state should keep its fucking nose out. If people would act responsibly themselves. But they don't. They blow smoke at my kid niece and they don't put their fags out when asked because it's their goddam social right to smoke, even if there is a four month old baby in the room.

It's a piece of sleight of hand. Addict people first, then say 'but it's your right to have your fix'. Whether the addiction is social or physical doesn't matter. So you get everyone onside.

To hell with it.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
12:02 / 26.08.02
Feel free to delete this as an irreverant one-liner, but....are you sure you've spoken to Nick before, Ganesh?

He knows me far, far better than you do, sweetheart. Because he has a little faith, and you don't. He's right. I was out of line. Jack, I'm sorry, it was low, but as you'll see above, I'm trying to get this on tack.

***, on the other hand, you can so entirely fuck off.
 
  

Page: 123(4)5

 
  
Add Your Reply