If your "group wnats to ban smoking, make sure you have your shit together. (local)

The BBQ Pit
1

I was pushed over the edge on this fucking debate a long time ago. I’m not sure where one goes after that, but I’ve arrived there.

Some North Dakota cities have joined in the self-serving masturbation that is known as “protecting us from ourselves.” Fargo passed a city-wide ban a few months ago, and now Grand Forks, suffering decades long “Fargo Envy” is trying to follow suit.

Well, no, not the city. Just about 70 or so of these fuckwits. Say what you want about ND laws and its Constitution, but at the very least it’s what the majority of citizens have decided to support. Not a noisy few that are working for their own interest. What follows is the biggest contradiction I’ve seen yet among the local supporters of this Big Brother initiative.

NOTE: There are way too many cites for some things that follow. If you haven’t already heard the argument, you’ll either have to trust me or hope someone will later be able to find a cite. Everything else is either personal observation or culled from the Grand Forks Herald.

It’s been widely reported that studies in California and New York City show no negative economic impact on restaurants nor bars since bans have been implemented. A few weeks back a senior high school student in Grafton, ND, supporting such a ban there, said he did his own independent research showing there would be no loss of business income if smoking were banned citywide. (whether this is a Wally, head-smack or roll-eyes moment I’ll leave to you.)

In the case of NYC and CA I can see how you may not suffer too great a loss. If you live in LA or the Bay area it’s unlikely you’ll travel to Vegas or Reno to enjoy a heater with your drink. Truckee is small enough to lose some patrons to the Silver State without great burden to the Sacramento’s revenues. But the overall argument of bars and eateries not losing money are the ones being touted here.

Then, hehe, Mayor Mike Brown of Grand Forks, a full-time gynecologist at Altru whom I campaigned and voted for (never again) garnered this line in the Sun 27 Feb 2005 edition of the Herald on page 9A:

“Some smoking ban proponents, such as Grand Forks Mayor Mike Brown, say the city needs to talk with it’s neighbor [East Grand Forks, MN] about adopting a ban, too, so businesses have a level playing field.”

Reread that line. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like a ban would hurt the businesses that are trying to survive in a weak local economy. It also sounds like the main guy in charge of the city knows it will hurt businesses, yet wants it pushed through anyway.

In Grand Forks we have just over 110 bars and restaurants/eateries. Of those, only about 40 allow smoking. Sounds like there might be choice for patrons already. But noooooooo. That’s not good enough for them. We all must submit to the will of the few.

Don’t want to risk entering a smoke zone by accident? No problem, they’ll take it one step further. In the next line of the linked article it says:

“The smoking ban ordinance up for discussion would forbid ‘any enclosed, indoor area used by the general public or serving as a place of work.’ Even the outdoor areas of restaurants would be no-smoke zones.”
:sorrowful downcast smilie slowly shaking head and weeping:
I’ve had it with these people.

2

Unfortunately, there are many real casualties (as opposed to the fake ones cited in 2nd hand smoke studies. But don’t fret, once they snuff out smoking across the nation, they’ll push to have the DWI limit lowered from .08 to .02 and erase the whole evil pub business off the map entirely.

3

Mike Brown’s comments are indeed very lame but I have to pick one nit with your rant. The city of Los Angeles enacted a restaurant ban before the whole State went smoke free. People could easily go to Culver City or El Segundo or Pasadena, etc. Although people were worried that L.A. restaurants would get hurt, it didn’t come to pass.

Haj

4

Duffer, it sounds like you’re really sick of feeling like your personal rights are being taken from you; that people are dictating from above what you should and should not do; that they are reducing you to a hysterical stereotype instead of an actual rational person, yeah?

Hey wow, me too! You should come to visit me sometime at Madison; that’s right, the Moscow of the Midwest. Since we are a city full of bleeding-heart liberals, we also have those absolutely pointless and ridiculous signs on campus - ‘NO Smoking Within 25’ Of Entrance.’ Can you imagine?! It’s just like the law in your city!! A smoker can’t even smoke in certain places outside! And EVERYONE knows how completey pointless such a law is; EVERYONE knows that the ONLY reason it was ever passed is because of the need to henpeck, nag and Big-Brother all the good citizens of Madison.

And get THIS! There are a couple biological freaks who’ve made up this illness called ‘asthma’ (isn’t that a strange word? That was the best they could do?) and they claim the cigarette smoke makes their ‘asthma’ bad, and that it makes their bronchial tubes constrict, and they cannot breathe, and they wheeze, and become light-headed and dizzy, and filled with a primal fear for they cannot get the oxygen they need. I mean, can you believe this bullshit?! And so they got these stupid signs put up all over campus because they CLAIM that the combination of cold (what, like it’s cold in Wisconsin? Shee-it!) and cigarette smoke is really hard on their ‘asthma’, and that the smokers HAVE to move 25’ from the doors, so they don’t damage their precious lungs. And this law is SOO strictly enforced, of course. If you dare to smoke 24’ feet from the door, you get hauled off to prison.

And of course, since these “asthma” sufferers are all a bunch of hysterical busybodies, here’s what they want you to hear: “I wish I were normal. I wish I could breathe like you do, and that I could run, go out in the cold or pet a dog without worrying about an attack. I make sacrifices, too: if it is unfair to a smoker to not be able to go to their favorite bar anymore because of a smoking ban, it is unfair in equal measure to me that I cannot go to my favorite bar because of the smoking. I’m not a Rob-Reiner caricature on South Park; I don’t yell at smokers, or give them dirty looks. I stay home when I would rather go out, and I carry my medicine with me at all times, just in case. I really don’t want to take your rights away; and that I prefer compromise to conflict. And when compromise can be reached easily, with minimal effort and sacrifice, why not?”
I mean, can you believe that hysterical over-protectionism?! Good on you, duffer, for rightly ignoring those outrageous claims about smoking being detrimental to the health of some people. Those who are even just a bit of restriction on smoking are all a bunch of whiny pussies trying to take away your rights! As if breathing were somehow a more fundamental right than being able to smoke!? It all just makes me ill.

5

More to the point, they’re a bunch of whiny pussies trying to take away the rights of restauranteurs and barkeepers to choose whether to allow customers to smoke in their privately-owned establishment.

6

Sad thing is that satire is actually true. Smoke sucks. Anti-smokers suck more.

7

Exactly, yBeafy! Universities are privately-owned establishents, too!

8

And did I mention anything about universities? There do exist, however, privately-owned universities, and on those campuses the government should have no say in whether smoking is allowed.

And it’s yBeayf.

9

Our city recently went smoke free in public places, and last year I drew up an similar ordinance for another town in the region. In the last couple of years, the communities through which I travel each month have enacted similar by-laws.

The goal is healthier communities and lower health care costs. I like it because I can breathe more freely. Freedom to breathe – that’s a good thing.

It’s unfortunate that the addicts are inconvenienced as a result, but they freely chose their path.

10

May I never again commit a typo in your presence again, good sir.

11

Yeah, because as it is, it’s fucking impossible to avoid smoke. I mean, you’d have to go into your workplace, your home, anywhere outside more than ten feet from other people, any place of business besides a bar or the smoking section of a restaurant - I mean, non-smokers have to practically hide in bomb-shelters to avoid cigarette smoke!

Look. It was good when workplaces went smoke free. Airplanes too, even if it does make long flights unpleasant for us smokers. But very few people suffer serious health problems from casual contact with smoke, and those who do, have to cut out maybe 5% of their life to avoid it. That’s what being in a society is: everyone makes sacrifices to accomodate others’ freedoms. The hysterical anti-smoking activists who act as though five years of their lives disappear every time they can smell cigarette smoke need to get the fuck over it and recognize that you don’t always get what you want all the time. It’s not hard to find smoke-free restaurants, and your school or workplace is already smoke free. Grocery stores are smoke free. Libraries are smoke free. Buses and trains are smoke free. It’s become a very tiny portion of the world that permits smoking at all nowadays (as it probably should be), so stop begrudging us the small areas we can smoke in. This moralistic attitude (that you exhibited so well in your line about “choosing our own path”), that seeks to punish others for having habits you don’t like, is disgusting.

12

:Takes a deep calming breath:

Oh, let’s start with this one. Just for shits and giggles.

They chose their path that led to a tavern. I assume you have no problem with someone drinking 7 or 8 double martinis before driving home, just as long as they don’t smoke? OK, got it.

When you enter a bar/tavern/pub, you know it’s not going to be the best place to meet fundamentalist Christians. You may, egads!, be exposed to a lingering whiff of tobacco smoke. Well, even here in Grand Forks you can drive your emission-spewing car to a smoke-free bar and restaurant and enjoy all that you hope for.

Muffin, I live in this city. I know from over a decade of experience first hand the restrictions already in place to relegate smokers to puffing off-premises.

The same people telling businesses what is best are the same that celebrated the tobacco settlement. All, of course, in the name of health care and education. Guess what 2 debates are on the forefront of state political discourse? They rhyme with uhmication and squeel-chair.

I wasn’t in charge of the $115 MILLION, so I’m not sure where it all went as we’re told there’s a budget deficit. But the taxes I pay per pack are said to go towards childrens health care, and dammit, I support the kids. Those whom quit smoking in this day and age are obviously against health care for poor children.

Shame on you quiters.

13

And now we get to the second post.

Well, aurelian, my own personal rights aren’t being infringed upon. And I don’t think I ever said they were with regards to smoking policies. My beef is business owners fighting the ban based on what they know of their clientele. And the local government knowing it will hurt local businesses based on attributed quotes.

But that probably won’t get through to you any more than the first time I said it.

But come to think of it, my personal rights may well be infringed upon. Notice in my OP (if you bothered to even skim it) I showed that the ban would also affect the outdoor dining “area”. We have more than a few eateries downtown where the outside area is the sidewalk. In addition, a few of those restaurants are the ground level tenents of apartment buildings.

There is no limit on space from the establishment to the general public. Given the proposed rules, I could be prosecuted for smoking while walking past the area. Smoking, I may add, a legal, taxed product.

I breathlessly await your suggestions on what else I should do to make myself a model citizen in your “You-Know-Best-For-Me” little world.

:rolleyes:

14

Ha! Clever little pun there! You get a gold star.

Wait, I’m supposed to read the post? Damn. Behold! My point has entirely unraveled! Sheesh, if you’ve going to try and discredit me, at least put some effort into it…
But seriously, folks…

I meant ‘personal rights’ in a broader sense; you refer to the anti-smokers as “protecting us from ourselves”, “local supporters of this Big Brother initiative”. On a fundamental level (following your logic), they want to tell people what to do, and to limit personal freedom (whole 1984 reference…kudos on originality, btw)

In my post, I mentioned that there is an analagous situation in my town - on the UW campus one cannot (though it happens all the time) legally smoke within 25’ of the entranceway. I’ve been in Madison for 5 years now, and like most PhD students I spend far too much time than I should in the library, in my building, so this is a situation I’m quite familiar with.

I have asthma, and a pretty damn mild case of it, at that. I’m lucky; I’ve only been in the hospital a handful of times. In your post, anti-smokers are all hysterical busybodies who would like to dictate the personal choices of others (business owners included); that is, limiting where one can smoke. According to your post (and part of what I quoted of you, so you would know what I was referencing), you characterize the ‘cannot smoke outside’ part as the piece de resistance of this busybody nagging: they even want to control us outside.
That restaurant’s ban on smoking, in or outside, would allow me to go and eat there, to walk through their outdoor eating area without wheezing, or even allow me to live in those apartments you mentioned (since I would greatly prefer not to live in a place that had smokers right outside the window). You don’t mention that there are people like me (and more everyday, unfortunately) that are sensitive, to varying degree, to cigarette smoke. Therefore, my wish that smokers not congregate right around the entrance way of my building is not motivated in any Orwellian control fantasy, but of the desire to be able to enter my breathing without getting wheezy, light-headed or coughing. (Again, I have a pretty mild case.)

You claim that these business owners are not able to make their own decisions, and I say, where is your concern for my choice? How do I ‘choose’ not to walk down through a door, or down a street? (Not that my needs/ wants should be primary, by any stretch of the imagination, but it should be heard for what it is, not mutated into the exact stereotype of the anti-smoker as seen in the consequent posts.) You completely ignore that there are people like me; people that don’t like cigarette smoke but are NOT trying to dictate the behavior of others. I would love to find a compromise (yes, really; Madison’s graduated smoking ban starts this year, and at the same time I think it’s unfair for the cigar bar, I’m happy that I’ll be able to work without feeling ill), but your 1) ignoring that there are negative health effects and 2) ignoring that not all anti-smokers are hysterics makes it really difficult to even communicate with you.

Why is your right to smoke greater than my right to breathe? Why is it too much to ask that people move 25’ from a door? If I were a smoker, I would gladly do it; don’t you think the average person wants to avoid causing harm to another?

15

I agree with duffer in the specifics of the issue, although I don’t much respect his rhetoric of “poor principled me” and “bad old Nazi you,” and the predictable misuse of 1984 analogies (ironic, considering the machinations of an administration he supports). Public places should be and are smoke free. Private businesses should do whatever they want. I would even – gasp – allow the free and unrestriced smoking of pot at pubs if it were up to me, although I’ve not smoked anything myself for over 10 years. I don’t quite understand why bars need to be smoke free. The whole smoking section/non-smoking section has usually worked for me.

16

As I understand it in my own smoke-barred–erm smoke-free state the objective is to provide healthy environments for employees. As a former bartender and social smoker myself, I think the law is a terrible idea and agree completely with the OP. Restaurant/bar staff generally understand that exposure to smoke is an occupational hazard…much like exposure to sun is an occupational hazard for construction workers. I never met any co-workers who felt oppressed. Guess we didn’t realize we needed to be rescued.

17

aurelian and cricetus, this rant has nothing to do with people that don’t like smoke but don’t mind others enjoying a legal product. Hell, I’d support someone blazing up a joint just as well. (BTW, Godwin’s Law brought up in less then 15 posts. Kudos)

My beef is with the few zealots that want to tell everyone not only how to live their lives, but more importantly, how those who risk capital to run a business should operate. If any political analogy should be made, I’d lean more towards communism.

Anyway, it’s something that has me so pissed off that I’m trying to get all the anger out in these electrons instead of doing something that requires bail money. :wink:

18

Construction workers can take precautions for exposure to the sun, a bartender can’t do this for smokers. It’s not like they can stop breathing while they work. The solution to this hazard is pretty trivial and the biggest downside is a minor inconvenience to a small portion of the population.

19

I think that the principle of Godwin’s Law applies to invective including inapt allusions to the Orwell novel.

20

Fucking Chicago prevents privately-owned establishments from having cockroaches run around the kitchens. Talk about Nazis! I should be able to decide if I want cockraoch free food!