Anti-Smoking Bans
Jun. 30th, 2004 01:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
judecorp![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
smithee asked me to write about the anti-smoking ban in Columbus. And of course I would do absolutely anything for smithee, because he's quite possibly one of the most attractive men I've ever met. He's exactly the sort of man/boy I get attracted to: adorable, baby-faced, quiet, intelligent, artistic, well-dressed, soft-spoken. *swoon* But anyway...Smoking bans are something I'm quite familiar with. I don't know exactly when Rhode Island and Massachusetts enacted a smoking ban in restaurants, but it was a good portion of my life. And when I lived in Maine, they enacted a smoking ban in restaurants there, too. In fact, I feel comfortable saying that when I moved to Ohio in 2000, I was more shocked by the /lack/ of smoking ban than anything else. I'd just become used to it, and when there were people smoking in restaurants, I was floored. And disgusted.
As a non-smoker, there's few things I like less than smelling cigarette smoke when I'm trying to eat. I'm pretty sensitive to smoke, and I don't like the way the smell coats my tongue and obstructs my food. If an establishment has a whole smoking room, that's fine, but the idea of a "smoking section" is so ridiculous - does smoke not dissipate into the air? And I always end up at that seat that's right at the border of smoking and non-smoking. Gross.
I'm very sensitive to cigarette smoke, probably from living with smokers my whole life, and prolonged exposure to cigarette smoke in a bar setting will often leave me with watery eyes, a stuffed nose, and a sore throat. Sometimes my tonsils will swell due to smoke, and if you know my Tonsil Drama History, this is not good. Yet I was leery of the concept of a non-smoking bar, thinking that patrons would stop coming and bars would be boring. Then I experienced non-smoking bars in Boston and New York City and saw that was, in fact, not true. It was so refreshing! I could go to a bar and NOT have to fumigate my clothes! I could go to a bar and stay for a long time WITHOUT feeling like I was swallowing a porcupine! Amazing!
So, in short, I think the smoking ban in Columbus is a FANTASTIC idea, even though I don't live there. Because if/when I go visit again, I can spend more time in bars and clubs. Which means, my dear
smithee, that you'll have to catch a drink with me somewhere.(N.B. This anti-smoking opinion puts me in serious disfavor with my father, who earns money from the tobacco industry through distribution of cigarette machines in bars. But there you have it. I think smoking is one of the most disgusting things ever, though if that's what a consenting adult wants, have at it. And even though I grew up with a grandfather who used to smoke, a mother who used to smoke, a father who chain-smoked until he had a heart attack in 2001, a step-mother who was a chimney, and a brother who was an on-again off-again smoker, I have never so much as tried a single puff of a cigarette. And never had the desire. Which I suppose in some ways makes me a total nerd.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-30 05:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-30 06:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-30 06:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-30 08:34 pm (UTC)I'm actually totally opposed to mandatory indoor smoking bans. I think it should be up to the owners/proprietors of an establishment whether or not to allow smoking in their establishment. If you come across a restaurant or bar or club or whatever that allows smoking and you don't like to eat or drink or dance in a place where there's smoking, then just don't go to that place. You could write them and let them know that you'd like to try their place but won't because you can't deal with the smoke and attempt to change their policies. And you could frequent establishments who have made the choice to not allow smoking - clearly enough people do not like to eat or go to places that allow smoking that such a place would not lack for customers - but I have a hard time getting behind legislation that takes choice away. I would not mind legislation that compelled businesses to clearly indicate at the door whether they allow smoking or not - that's legislation that aids informed choice.
For the record, I'm a non-smoker as well, and I don't like inhaling a big cloud everytime I go take a bite of something, but I recognize that no one's forcing me to go out to eat anyplace nor is it my inalienable right to go to Applebees or whatever :).
no subject
Date: 2004-06-30 08:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-30 09:29 pm (UTC)Chuck, you ignorant slut.
In the history of anti-smoking, no restaurateur has ever been convinced that a ban, voluntary or mandatory, wouldn't kill his business, even if it doesn't seem to have killed business in other places (like, say, NYC and Boston). Managers look at a letter, or a pile of letters, and say "I'd lose a bunch of actual customers in exchange for a bunch of potential customers. I'd rather keep the ones that already give me money." By and large, until there are large-scale boycotts of smoking-friendly establishments, there will be no voluntary change.
And despite the big-government tendencies of our major political parties, Americans are just libertarian enough to use exactly your line of reasoning; if people want to smoke, it's none of my business. There are a significant number of people who "don't smoke, but aren't bothered by it". If there is ever a large-scale boycott, it's a very very long way in the future; we have much bigger issues dividing the country right now.
Personally, I favor the half-baked separate-but-equal compromise (Brown be damned—this ain't education!) I just pulled out of my
assmental oven about 20 minutes ago. Give restaurants and bars licenses to have smoking sections. They should be reasonably inexpensive, issued at a level no larger than county, the number available determined as a percentage (let's say 50%) of all establishments in the jurisdiction, and assigned by lottery. The application must include a signed affidavit that the employees at the applying facility understand that they may be in a second-hand smoke environment (which is more dangerous than previously believed).I'm a fan of personal liberties, but I have to draw the line at infringing on the health of others. They have a right to smoke, and I have a right to breathe. I'm not forced to eat out, but neither are they (nor are they forced to smoke when they do). They have made a choice to inflict illness on the people around them, and that's not acceptable. We go to great lengths to quarantine other known carcinogens; I don't understand why tobacco should be so different. Well, I do technically understand, and it has to do with the amount of money Altria, RJR, et al. pump into congresspeople's pockets, but that's not what I mean.
Time to go have a smoke-free supper. In my own office, because Philly hasn't come out of the smog age yet. Feh.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-30 09:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-30 11:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-30 11:38 pm (UTC)We'd go to Waffle House a LOT more often if people didn't smoke inside. I bet a lot of other people would too. And there's a ton of other restaurants that seem to cater to smokers, that we don't go to for the sole reason of the smoking.
We can't be the only people like that, and I bet that when forced with a smoking ban that they'll get MORE business. Smokers are already used to being made to smoke outside while at work, they'll adapt to the 1-2 hours at a restaurant and not smoke while they're in there.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-01 12:19 am (UTC)And for all the Chicken Little prophecies of doom that the bar and restaurant owners advance, the actual statistics from California show that the bars and restaurants have come out AHEAD as a result of the smoking ban. More people who stayed away because of the smoke come out now. They spend more money because they don't leave after two hours of dealing with the smoke. The wait staff aren't sick as often, so there isn't the lost productivity. It seems to have worked out well in the end. The bar and restaurant owners in California say that they'd have never believed it at the time they were fighting the pending ban there, but that it really has been good for business.
And I think that the one thing that really matters most of all is that this a public health/public accomdations issue. If there were a way to keep 100% of the air from smoking areas from mixing in any way with the air in non-smoking areas, I might be able to understand fighting the ban. However, there is no way to guarantee that happens. There are seams, loose seals, etc. that will allow the air to mix, so even separate ventilation systems are imperfect. Heck, my neighbours don't share a ventilation system with our apartment, but I can tell when they're smoking, because the smoke seeps into my apartment.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-01 12:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-01 12:52 am (UTC)Well, presumably a lot of choices have been made here:
Clearly, a better choice for people who do not want to eat in a smoking environment is to not eat at a restaurant where smoking is allowed. Non-smoking restaurants, few though they were, were around long before smoking bans. I don't think the people who smoke in a restaurant where smoking is allowed are infringing on the health of others. I think that the people who knowingly eat at a smoking restaurant (smokers and non-smokers alike) are willingly putting their own health at risk by going there in the first place.
I do agree that people should be told up front that jobs they are applying for involve secondhand smoke though. That's akin to clearly indicating smoking/non-smoking at the door.
And despite the big-government tendencies of our major political parties, Americans are just libertarian enough to use exactly your line of reasoning; if people want to smoke, it's none of my business. There are a significant number of people who "don't smoke, but aren't bothered by it". If there is ever a large-scale boycott, it's a very very long way in the future; we have much bigger issues dividing the country right now.
True enough - though never has the phrase "give them an inch they'll take a mile" been more true of anyone than our government. If you don't make a big deal of the little things, soon enough the big things will be the little things not being made a big deal of.
By and large, until there are large-scale boycotts of smoking-friendly establishments, there will be no voluntary change.
I don't disagree with this either. So why don't people organize large-scale boycotts? Because they know that the government will cast the wide net for them so they don't have to. I'd rather live in a society where people make informed choices for themselves. I don't think that's so horrible - it clearly doesn't mean I want people dropping dead of lung cancer or anything.
Chuck, you ignorant slut.
I'd rather think of myself as an idealist slut or a stubborn slut ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-01 01:27 am (UTC)We can't be the only people like that, and I bet that when forced with a smoking ban that they'll get MORE business.
This is probably true. I'd just rather see the business owner given the choice to ban smoking because it will get them more business. I mean, if someone opened something like Waffle House (which, by the way, YUM) near you that was non-smoking, you'd go there instead, right? And probably a lot of people with kids or concerns about what they're breathing would too. If Waffle House started losing business to Smoke Free Waffle Place, they'd probably want to know why and they'd probably realize that smoking had something to do with it.
Smokers are already used to being made to smoke outside while at work, they'll adapt to the 1-2 hours at a restaurant and not smoke while they're in there.
Again, probably true. Restaurant business WOULD have gone down because of the smoking ban if people stopped going to restaurants because they couldn't smoke there. Obviously smokers have not stopped eating out, so where's the harm? I guess to me it's in having the government toss out these blanket laws when action and outspokenness on the part of the people could also provide a solution.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-01 01:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-01 02:05 am (UTC)So if the entire staff and all of the patrons of a given bar want to smoke...
I'd like to see a solution that gives smokers places to smoke (including bars and restaurants) but ensures that some will be smoke-free. No point sending the smokers home to smoke around their kids, or out into the middle of the street like they do in NYC.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-01 02:36 am (UTC)i have mixed feelings on it. i still think its funny. probabaly because i get to hear my roommate complain about anti smoking stuff. i love it when Stand commercials come on. anyway, sure its a free country and people should have a choice weather they smoke or now and i guess if they want to allow smoking in their place. but that goes the other way too doesn't it? people should have the option to go somewhere that doesn't have smoke. i've become pretty sensitive to smoke since i quit
but the fact of the matter, there will still be smoking in bars. they'll just make them private bars. you'll just need to buy a membership to go in.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-01 05:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-01 05:12 am (UTC)I do actually like the idea of government staying out of people's way. I like the idea of government staying out of businesses' way, too. I really do.
But I don't trust them. Where "them" is any of {government, businesses, people}.
Certain powerful factions within the government over the last century or so have really made significant effort in staying out of businesses' way, and the businesses have proven time and time again that, when left to their own devices, they'll fuck us. Over and over. Repeatedly. Frequently. Often.
For example: if Altria really wanted people to stop smoking, because everyone—everyone—knows it's bad, instead of spending a pittance on TV commercials suggesting that putting stuff that's on fire into your mouth might be unhealthy, they'd stop fucking making them.
The market has had plenty of time, and it has not adjusted for this. At all. Smoking rates aren't even significantly decreasing. As long as we're making babies as fast as we're killing people off, it's not even bad business to kill your customers. Why? Because people, taken collectively, are stupid. If we weren't stupid, we would've elected a libertarian to some office higher than town dogcatcher a long time ago. It's not like the LP hasn't been trying for decades.
Libertarianism fails for the same reason Marxism fails: it requires people not to be stupid. If you can't get every single person to agree to the principles, then you end up with authoritarian controls to prevent the tragedy of the commons. No one wins.
When a person chooses to smoke, they choose to pollute the air around them with harmful chemicals. It doesn't matter whether the people around them imply consent by being in a place where smoking is allowed, it's still a health risk. If I tell you it's okay to stab me, if maybe I sign a legal contract saying it's okay to stab me, and you stab me, and I die, your ass is going to jail. That's reasonable. It's not okay to stab me even if I tell you it is. It's not okay for you to stab my children (if I had any) even if I tell you it is, and they're not of a legal age to consent on their own. That law impinges on some personal freedoms for the good of society. To me, that's a reasonable trade-off.
It's not okay to stab people. It doesn't matter if you use a knife or a shard of glass or a ball-point pen. And it doesn't matter if they don't die right away; if maybe they're only injured. Or if it takes a lot of repeated stabbing to kill them. Or if it's not the immediate blood loss that does it, but a subsequent infection. And it doesn't matter if you enjoy stabbing yourself, or if they enjoy stabbing themselves. It still doesn't fly.
To me, it doesn't matter if the stabbing instrument is made of cigarette smoke. If you choose to slash your "knife" around in a crowd, you're going to stab someone in the lungs. 35 million Americans have a chronic lung disease (I assume this is reasonably correlatable with the number who are sensitive to smoke), and the rate is rising alarmingly fast in children. I hate to keep trotting out the kids like this, but it's an important point. People are too stupid not to expose their kids. Pregnant people are too stupid not to expose themselves. "Natural selection" is an amusing rejoinder to this, but in our modern society, stupid people have more kids, too; statistically, this more than balances things out
I can't change businesses. I can't change people. But I do have the option to change government. So I distrust the government least of the three. I still don't trust 'em, and certainly don't like 'em, but I know that they are ultimately curtailed by being up for reëlection.
We call it government for a reason. Its purpose is to govern. To lead. To organize us for the common good, and certainly for the defense against external threats. To tell us what to do when we're too fucking stupid to figure it out on our own. Is it bloated? Yup. Is it stupid? Yup. Do people abuse the system? Yup. But eliminating the system doesn't stop the bloat or the stupidity or the abuse. It just redirects it to other places, where it's not so easily watched.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-01 07:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-01 12:12 pm (UTC)My opinion on this is completely separate from my opinion on stop smoking campaigns and government big tobacco settlements, by the way. Because you're right - cigarette company ads telling you to stop smoking are just wholly ludicrous. Have you seen the one "Tobacco Is Whacko If You're A Teen?" Kids are really going to be hip to that message, daddy-o! And I'd be curious to see how much of the tobacco company settlement money in each state is going to meaningful smoking prevention programs, because I'd guess it's not as much as they'd have us believe.
I disagree that you can't change businesses and people. In fact, I'd argue that it should be easier to change a business than to change government because the focus of the change is much more narrow.
I will side with you on this though - one thing that drives me batty about the LP candidates that end up running is that they come in with both barrels blazing ready to overturn life as we know it overnight. Even I will admit that people don't work that way. It's like moving houses. Nobody (well, maybe a very few people) can be packed, out of one house and into a new house overnight. There's a sort of weaning off of things we've accumulated, memories of places, a weighing of what needs to move on with us and what needs to be thrown away that has to happen before a move is possible. I find that part of the unelectability of the LP is wanting to switch houses overnight without giving people time to pack.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-01 01:53 pm (UTC)My parents HATE smokers/smoking. They, like many of the other responders here, get outraged by the idea of an imaginary line separating smoking and non-smoking. I know that they'd be wholly in support of the ban.
I'm not. Maybe I'm a little to brainwashed with ACLU "Dear Gods don't touch my rights!" propaganda, but as a former smoker, I feel like this still affects me. Yes, it was even harder for me to quit smoking when, every time I went out, my lungs were flooded with the tempting smoke. But I felt like a better person for my resistance, and think it's a little silly that people are needing the government to step in where self-control (either through holding up their "quitting smoking" or not going to some place that will make you sick) could serve just fine.
People have a good point when they say that even when non-smokers do refuse to patronize places that allow smoking, it doesn't really change much. But I honestly do think that the best way to remove smoking from some place you really feel like you're missing out if you don't get to go there, is to talk to the owner/manager. Get involved. Have others do the same. I don't want the government to do that for me. At the same time, I realize how completely pie in the sky that sounds.
I honestly can't imagine going to a bar without smoke. And I think that forcing people to stand out in the streets and parking lots to have a cigarette when they're drunk is just asking for trouble. Personally, I think walking down High Street on a Friday night is bad enough without large gaggles of people outside to have a cigarette break.
I can understand the no smoking rules in stadiums -- you don't get to pick who you sit next to. I can understand it at someplace like Kings Island -- you're trapped in a line next to someone for hours, whether you like it or not. But I think banning it outright in every public place is just going too far. I know it's stupid to talk of smoker's rights, but if this is all happening because of non-smokers right, then maybe it's worth bringing up. Do smokers really have to give up any sort of pleasurable activity and banish themselves to their homes?
A homophobe could argue that gays are a direct threat to people's health by spreading AIDs everywhere. You may not get it right away, but it seeps in and you could be next! Gasp! Should we banish gays too then?
I thought an interesting part about Super Size Me was the discussion about how it's socially acceptable now to admonish smokers, but not the obese. While, granted, the obese are not hurting anyone else with their health problem, I find it amazing the different levels of stigma for each condition. My aunt is terribly overweight, and complains about how much the smokers are damaging her health while she scarfs down double quarter pounders and large cheese pizzas. Which one of these is going to kill you faster?
no subject
Date: 2004-07-01 02:30 pm (UTC)I don't see it, brother. If it were possible to change businesses, they would've changed already. I realize that's not a perfect argument—absence of evidence is not really evidence of absence—but I don't do the kind of social science necessary to make better assessments.
Putting a sign on the door that says smoking is allowed has the same deterrent effect as the lame-assed TV commercials; it's Mr Mackey from South Park saying "Smoking is bad, mmmkay?". It's good advice. Why aren't people listening? Because they're fucking stupid.
Some (most?) of that stupid is simply the principle of least effort. Higher-level cognitive processes don't kick in unless we're in an unfamiliar situation; most of the time, most of our days, we get along in the world without thinking about it. A "smoking allowed" sign quickly becomes another piece of door-detritus like the stickers that tell you which credit cards they accept, and that they're members of the chamber of commerce, who the security company is, &c. You don't look at them, because they're not different; there's one on every door.
Some of that stupid is our tendency to try to be tolerant. For most people, smoking doesn't cause immediate pain or illness, so they're willing to put up with it for an hour. Least effort. This is the problem with my stabbing analogy. Stabbing hurts instantly. Second-hand smoke still hurts, but it's very subtle and takes a long time. Exposure to UV hurts in the long term, too, but not only do most people not take precautions to protect their skin, they don't even wear sunglasses.
I, like you, am in the category of not-immediately-injured. Annoyed, yeah, but I can tolerate it for a little while if I'm motivated to be there for other reasons (band, friends, usually not so bad that I don't enjoy the food). But I spend a lot of time around people who don't have that tolerance. My wife can't breathe (very scary to watch). My boss gets physically ill. I like the idea of Smoke Free World, and I eat at the restaurants that list themselves there. This violates "least effort", because it means I have to go out of my way to not be poisoned.
There is no inherent right to poison anyone but yourself. What you do in the privacy of your own home is not my concern. But, as antismokers argue, your right to continue in public ends where my right to breathe begins. There is a hierarchy here. Breathing is more important than tobacco. If you're so addicted to nicotine that you can't cut back for a couple hours while you're around others, either buy some Skoal (it won't make your supper taste any worse) or get a fucking patch.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-01 03:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-01 11:40 pm (UTC)You just convinced me.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-02 04:21 am (UTC)Look at it this way - when you are a smoker and you light up you are choosing to smoke. When others light up around you, a smoker, you understand it to be a necessary thing - people smoke.
But in places where you are eating/drinking/partying - people there do not all choose to smoke but are exposed to second hand smoke inhalation. Second hand smoke (as well as first hand) can cause a lot of problems. Not the least of which are cancer and emphysema(sp). For me - I can no longer stay in really smoky places because nicotine even second hand makes my hypertention act up and causes my heart to race uncomfortably. So in places, like Columbus without bans, I can't go to bars with my friends to have a drink. I can't enjoy live music or hanging out. I don't really have a choice but I am the minority. My not smoking doesn't harm anyone else whereas someone else's smoking harms me. I hope my point is clear here...I understand what you are saying - but if one option causes harm to those not even partaking it and the other causes no harm then I would choose no harm - even when I smoked I chose this way.
People who smoke tend to buy more drinks - smoking is a social event a lot of times and in bars it increases social drinking....more drinking equals more money. Owners are not going to give up money in any way. If there is no ban why choose to alienate a proven customer base for the *possibility* of more non smoking people?
And then, beyond all that - what about the people who work there? THis is why it was passed in NY...primarily for the people who had to work in smoking environments - not the owners/managers, but the waitresses and waiters and bartenders....constantly exposed to second hand smoke and really having no choice - especially in this economy and in conjunction wit the fact that most if not all food and beverage establishments in Ohio offer at least a smoking section....as stated in other comments smoke isn't stopped by the invisible non-smoking line.
So yeah...my $.02. :)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-05 04:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-05 04:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-05 04:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-05 04:06 pm (UTC)But I think that the people who have less choice about the situation are the staff of the establishments, who end up being subjected to mass quantities of smoke (in smoking sections) whether they want to or not.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-05 04:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-05 04:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-05 04:09 pm (UTC)As far as restaurants, I'm still sketchy. Smoking around food is SO GROSS.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-05 04:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-05 04:14 pm (UTC)And really, people go out on the sidewalk to smoke and it's not a big deal as far as I've seen. I've actually also talked to smokers (outside smoking) who have actually said they supported the ban because they don't reek when they come home, and because it helps them smoke less (and save money).
A homophobe could argue that gays are a direct threat to people's health by spreading AIDs everywhere. You may not get it right away, but it seeps in and you could be next! Gasp! Should we banish gays too then?
Except that this is biased thinking. There is absolutely NO DOUBT that cigaretts cause cancer. All cigarettes. Not certain ones or a percentage of them or whatever - all of them have carcinogens in them. Not all gay people have HIV, in fact, many more straight people have HIV than gay people. I'm surprised you would even use an example like this.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-07 01:45 am (UTC)Hurray for you and this post and for PANTS.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-07 04:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-07 04:44 am (UTC)