| |
|
First up, I'm a non-smoker. I'm also a non-drinker, non-drug user (could've just lumped the previous two "nons" into this one) and very pro-pedestrian. Cigarette smoke rarely bothers me, so I usually let my friends smoke in my presence when they ask me if it's ok. Not sure if that was necessary, but I wanted to show where I was coming from here.
So far as I know, there are at least a few cities that are non-smoking here in Ontario. I believe Toronto and Ottawa are included, though I might be wrong. If they aren't, than they have very few smokers as it is. Despite many initial worries, the bars are still doing quite well.
One of the main points here seems to be that bars are made for smoking. How? Bar owners make their money on booze and cover charges. Yes, some bars sell cigarettes, but there is no restriction on bringing your own smokes into the bar. There is no more reason to allow smoking in a bar than there was to allow it in hospitals, cinemas, etc. Smoking used to be allowed in these places. Many of you have agreed that it is a good thing that smoking has been banned from these public places. Why in these places but not in bars? The only reason I can think of is a sense of tradition. I've been thinking of replying to this thread for a couple of days, but I didn't because part of me keeps saying that the tradition of smoking in a bar should be kept. It's coooool. But, if there's one thing I've strived for here on Barbelith, it's to let go of my preconceptions and my valued truths and try to see the other side of things. Now, I'm not sure if a sense of nostalgia is the reason the pro-smokers are defending the practice. I'm not here to tell you what you think. But so far I have been unable to think of any reason, or seen any reason on this thread, that would allow a practice as dangerous as smoking to be allowed near people who don't wish it near them.
And it is dangerous. It's not like drinking. Yes, the drunk may get agitated and take a swing at people, or drive recklessly, but those are the actions of the individual, not a direct result of the drink itself. The very act of smoking, whether you are an asshole or the nicest person on the planet, is harmful to the people around you. Smoking is the act, not the reason for the act.
I agree that driving is about as close to smoking as you can get. Both unleash toxic fumes into the air. This isn't a driving thread. Start one. I will gladly join in. Though it's already been said, the idea that because an issue is considered to be of lesser importance it should be beneath concern is not valid. If this were true we would ignore wheelchair access, fire departments, detox centres, crosswalks, homeless shelters, and other "lesser" issues. They're important to someone.
Blaming the non-smoker for not exercising their willpower by going to a smoke-filled bar is like saying the victim of a mugging got what they deserved by walking the street alone at night. They should've known better.
Two minor points. First, while second hand smoke doesn't bother me that much (and sympathy to those who are allergic), being burnt while on the dancefloor does. Second, one thing that was brought up and dropped almost immediately was the issue of ventilation. What if the local government imposed very strict ventilation requirements on bars? Would this be an adequate compromise? I know it would be welcome even in most bars that don't allow smoking. Like the Elmo, bless it's heart. |
|
|
