No, the compromise was to allow smoking, at no extra cost, as an alternative to a ban on smoking. Unless I totally mis-read the post.
There is no “bar down the street”, and anyway, their dogs aren’t as good as O’boogie’s. 
Why not step outside?
You must have… try reading it again. John’s proposal was for non-smoking bars to get a heavy discount on their liquor licenses, which translates into big savings for you as a non-smoking bar patron.
My favorite bar lets in all kinds of shady people: thugs, bikers, Orrin Hatch, you name it. There’s a bar down the street with a dress code that has a much nicer clientele, but, you know, it’s not my favorite bar. What do you think about forcing all bars to have a dress code, just so I won’t have to walk down the street?
Although, I’d feel much better about going to the other bar if it didn’t serve so many fruity mixed drinks with umbrellas. Looking at all those little straw umbrellas makes me insecure about my manhood, and that really causes my asthma and panic attacks to flare up. It’s a health risk. What do you think about forcing that bar to stop serving sissy drinks?
You too? You read it again. The fee remains the same for the smoky place, no increase, no extra.
Analogy time again, I guess. There is no analogy for smoking in a bar, as has already been shown on this thread. If you want to put an end to scruffy dressers and sissy drinks, get your own ban. Hatch you’re gonna have to live with…
I think you’ve went and embarassed Bob Cos.
You guys keep talking about walking “down the street”. There is no bar there. There is smoking allowed, outside, down there.
So I ask again, why not go outside to smoke?
You know your going to get the clothes don’t have a noxious odor and make my eyes water argument. To which I’d respond you’ve obviously never been in a NYC cab in July.
Soap: So what sort of pub is this?Guy Richie’s “Lock, Stock & 2 Smoking Barrels”
Bartender (smoking a cigarette, serving 3 tropical drinks): It’s a Somoan Pub.
Bacon (Looking at the drinks): What’s that?
Bartender: It’s a cocktail, you asked for a cocktail.
Bacon: No. I asked you to give me a refreshing drink. I wasn’t expecting a fucking rainforest. You could fall in love with an orangutan in that.
Bartender: You want a pint, go to the pub.
Bacon: I Thought this was a pub.
Bartender: It’s a Samoan pub.
Bacon: Get rid of these, bring ma a Diet Coke.
Truth is, you can’t compromise with the more militant segments of the anti-tobacco crowd.
Let’s step away from the dress codes and straw umbrellas for a second and focus on a real health issue, Noise pollution.
We all know loud noises cause Tinnitus and in some cases, hearing loss.
A fairly large portion of us have been to clubs where the decibel levels blaring from the sound system has actually done minor damage to our ears.
A few of us have even worked in loud clubs as a way to earn a living.
After the no-public-smoking crowd wins their holy war against smokers, I implore them to set their sights on the noise mills that masquarade as fun places people go to dance, meet up, etc. In the name of comfort and worker safety, they should immediately take up arms againsts the DJ’s, amplifiers and speaker systems of the world.
I’d be happy to go to nonsmoking music venues, if there were any. In Chicago, outside of the classical music scene, there are exactly TWO consistently nonsmoking indoor music venues: Jazz Showcase and the Old Town School of Folk Music. Obviously, the free market ain’t doing much of a job at providing alternatives. There are hundreds of music venues of all sorts in this town, and I find it diffiult to believe that, what, I would guess only 1% of the population really prefers a smoke-free environment to a smoky one.
I have very mixed feelings about outright government bans on pretty much anything, but again, I am frustrated that people who are unable to deal with smoke, or who choose not to deal with smoke (none of my friends smoke, and while none of them quite have the reaction to smoke that my asthmatic, lung-hacking self does, they do avoid going to live music shows in large part because of the smoke) have so few options. Now why the hell is that? I really don’t think market economics is the whole story.
Huh?
Which part(s) are you confused about?
A number of people have suggested that if some of us want nonsmoking evening hangouts, there must not be enough of us, because market economics has not seen fit, in its omniscience, to provide us with any. I’m just skeptical and/or don’t understand how that can be the whole story, since at the very least, a majority of Americans are nonsmokers and presumably would rather have their hangouts be nonsmoking than smoking. The proportions of smoking vs. nonsmoking venues available just don’t make sense to me, given the distribution of nonsmokers vs. smokers in the population.
Um, you did. To wit:
I already did.
You do understand that we live in a real world, not a hypothetical one, correct?
It was a rhetorical question; I already know the answer. I get the feeling that you are generalizing because you are generalizing. Your claim that you are a non-smoker does not change that fact.
Pot? I’d like you to meet Kettle. YOU are the one who took one person’s opinion and claimed it represented the opinion of the “whole movement”. THAT is a strawman, and your attempt to weasel out of what you said changes nothing.
**Oh, please. You didn’t disagree, you created a strawman. I did not assert that everyone sympathetic with this movement shared this opinion. Read my words, which you’ve referenced. I stated that this encapsulated the arrogance that exists behind this movement quite nicely. If you assert for a third time the same strawman, I’ll assume you are being deliberately ignorant.
**This is incredible. We were discussing a fucking hypothetical! You run in and point out the very aspect of this that makes it hypothetical, for some strange reason, and still are not big enough to admit you’re searching to win some point that isn’t there to be won when I point this out to you. Uh, whatever. I gotcha. This was hypothetical. Okee-dokee.
**It most certainly was not. What weaseling! You directed this specifically to me, assigning certain real motives and objectives to me that were patently ridiculous. They’re your words, not mine. Just admit it and move on. Stop the weaseling.
Dude, I was beginning to gain some respect for your opinion, but perhaps I was hasty. The fact that you keep asserting something iditotic over and over doesn’t somehow give it an aura of truth, so why don’t you stop trying.
Sorry, I was sort of replying to John’s post about hearing loss.
I remember from pre-ban days that most patrons just put up with the smoke from the relatively few non-smokers.
Does it make sense to you given the distribution of nonsmokers who avoid smoking venues vs. nonsmokers who patronize smoking venues + smokers?
Meaning, zwaldd, that if non-smokers (the majority) will put up with smokers (the minority), the establishment will go ahead and allow smoking?
I’d like to see an in situ poll taken in bars of smokers and non-smokers.
Would the presence of cigarette smoke in this club make your experience:
( ) More pleasant.
( ) Less pleasant.
Return this poll to your server for a free pickled egg.
Of course it makes sense when put that way, but I think you’re missing my main point. A nonsmoker at this point generally has no other option but to patronize a smoking concert venue/club, because that’s just about all there is in most places. In the vast majority of cases, nonsmokers have no other option but not to patronize any establishment at all. I’d bet if they had a choice between a smoking venue and a comparable nonsmoking venue, the nonsmokers would choose the nonsmoking venue.
Since market economics has thus far not provided nonsmokers with many realistic alternatives, the majority of nonsmokers just deal with the smoke in existing venues. The free market, as it stands now, has given them no viable way to vote with their feet. I am forced to vote with my feet in most cases, because it might quite literally be the death of me to stay because of my medical situation. On numerous occasions, this has meant abandoning an evening’s plans and throwing ticket money down the toilet. Luckily, I haven’t ended up in the emergency room yet, but it could happen; the more an asthmatic allows his/her lungs to be damaged by attacks and exposure to triggers, the more likely that his/her condition will worsen over time.
Has anyone ever seen a reliable opinion survey on what the general public would really prefer, if given freedom to choose?
No, meaning that the proportion of smoking vs. nonsmoking venues available makes sense to me, given the distribution of nonsmokers who avoid smoking venues vs. nonsmokers who patronize smoking venues + smokers.
Non-smokers do, in a different sense of the word, patronize smokers.
Which is why both of our statements mean pretty much the same thing. Endure or get out.
I would like to know if you (and other anti-tobacco crusaders) see any difference between the smoke in bars and the loud noise levels in clubs.
The way I see it, the main arguments against smoke-filled public bars are[ol][li]It’s a personal nuisance to non-smokers (both patrons & employees)[]It’s a health risk to non-smokers (both patrons & employees)[/ol][/li]
You have to admit noise levels in clubs [ol][li]Are a personal nuisance. Noise sensitive persons would probably consider a club a very unpleasant atmosphere in which you can’t even carry on a decent conversation.[]Are a health risk to patrons (in the form of tinnitus the following day) & employees (whose prolonged exposure leads aural damage eventual hearing loss & ear damage[/ol][/li]
So please, once again, I ask now that you’ve just about won your war against the evil chimney people, in the name of consistency you must now rearm and attack the new enemy, the excessive noise makers.
Semantic squirming aside, the fact remains that one person’s post is not in any way indicative of the “anti-smoking movement” (as you call it) as a whole. I assume you agree, then?
Well then congratulations on winning the hypothetical debate. Now, anyone care to discuss the real world?
:rolleyes: You don’t even know what “rhetorical” means, do you? It means a question for which no answer is expected. OF COURSE it was directed at you. I was saying that in my opinion you have a pre-existing notion that those who favor smoke-free bars and restaurants are selfish and petty, and that you were waiting for someone to say anything that would confirm the generalization that you had already made. I made the point via a rhetorical question. You weren’t supposed to answer the rhetorical question. In a subsequent post, I confirmed that it was indeed my point, which is NOT “weaseling”. (Please don’t make me define “weaseling” as well). This shouldn’t be that difficult.
Why don’t you stop trying to play semantic games? You aren’t even very good at it.
Well, I never had any respect for yours.
Exactly. We can talk about hypothetical situations until we’re blue in the face, but what you have said is the reality of the situation.
Wow. That’s about the first really decent argument I’ve heard. Here’s my opinion:
If loud music were a problem on the level of smoking, I don’t think it would be inconceivable to pass laws regulating it. In fact, noise laws certainly do exist, so it’s not a completely unreasonable concept. But the reason I don’t think it’s warranted in the case of dance clubs is that, in this case, reasonable alternatives DO exist. Where I live, at least, “fern bars”, pubs, jazz clubs, and micro-breweries are more numerous than the dance clubs that play the extremely loud music. So I am quite content to simply avoid those clubs. I certainly wouldn’t mind if it were illegal, because I personally have no use for ungodly loud music, but I don’t know that it’s necessary.
As for the employees, that’s an interesting question. I don’t know that noise is a health risk on a par with cigarettes, and it’s one that is easily mitigated with earplugs. Of course, a server needs to be able to hear food and drink orders, but since patrons are going to have to shout over the music anyway, it probably wouldn’t make much difference as far as ability to do their job. Of course you could make the counter-argument that employees could wear respirators to mitigate smoke, but that’s getting into the realm of the ridiculous.
So I guess there is a case to be made there, but in my opinion it is a much less compelling case than that against smoking. Which leaves the question: If ONE possibly unjust thing exists, does that mean ALL unjust things must be allowed to exist? If some employees are allowed to suffer hearing damage, does that mean others must be allowed to get emphysema or lung cancer? I say no, 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
Also, the noise argument is different because there’s a relatively simple and cheap alternative for patrons, if not as much for employees: earplugs are less than a buck and fit into a pocket.