Smoking Ordinance

chas smith R.I.P. · Post by **chas smith R.I.P.** » 21 Apr 2005 12:20 pm

"It's been said that nicotine is the strongest addiction there is."

I quit in '75 and it took years to get over it. I quit another illegal substance addiction in 2 months. I have another friend who was able to quit smack and still can't quit cigarettes.

Keith Cordell · Post by **Keith Cordell** » 21 Apr 2005 3:20 pm

The fact is that many of us become quite ill from smoke. I am not gonna use the "it'll kill you" argument, smokers are all pretty much satisfied to die quickly and leave their families with the fallout; but when I can't go see one of my musical heroes or just see a good show due to a bunch of weak addicts, it irritates me. Grow a backbone, quit wasting your families' money, and kick the habit.

------------------
'62? Fender 400 Pedal Steel, Sierra S8, Oahu Lap, bakelite bars

C. Brattain · Post by **C. Brattain** » 21 Apr 2005 4:20 pm

I had to stop smoking after 40 years to stay alive. In 1985 the doc said a needed a bypass, he said give me $150,000.00 or I will just give you pills for awhile untill you die.
Good thing I was in Korea, the VA gave me a triple bypass for free. Boy, that was close one. Have a nice day, Chuck Brattain

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 21 Apr 2005 4:25 pm

Nice doctor...

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 21 Apr 2005 4:27 pm

Half of the folks I know died from smokin. The other half just DIED!

... from sitting next to the first half, no doubt...

Marty Pollard · Post by **Marty Pollard** » 21 Apr 2005 4:43 pm

That or from whining about smoking!

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 21 Apr 2005 5:48 pm

It is true, too much whine can kill...

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 21 Apr 2005 7:31 pm

The smoking ban didn't hurt business in any of the clubs around here. People just go outside to smoke. No big deal. Seems that it's been ten years or so.

Even before then, there were bars in Marin that were non-smoking as a way to attract customers. I've heard recent statistics that say that only 20% of Californians smoke. It's not a very popular habit around here.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra SD-12 (Ext E9), Williams D-12 Crossover, Sierra S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop 8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster (E13, C6, A6)

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 21 Apr 2005 10:20 pm

<quote>Quote: "Sounds rather sissified to me…"</quote>

Marty, there's nothing 'sissified' about me. I suggest you be more careful with your language. There's also nothing 'sissified' about the polyps in my sinuses. I had a bunch of real large ones removed, and the smoke is what put 'em there. I was lucky they weren't cancerous. Smoke aggravates the blazes out of them, and causes them to grow back. Smoke also aggravates the devil out of a lot of peoples' asthma. I've seen some mighty big and tough guys go down to lung cancer - are they 'sissies'? Are people with asthma 'sissies'? What the devil is your point? Do you just enjoy being insulting? Honestly, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is very strong statistical evidence to show that smoking and even second-hand smoke causes cancer and chronic pulmonary problems. I didn't buy the second-hand smoke thing until the experimental evidence started really piling in the last 10-20 years, but now it's very clear. Ignore it at your own peril, but not mine.

On the subject of nobody being "forced" to deal with the smoke, Marty, I'll be happy to explain again. Remember that people working in a club: bartenders, wait-people, performers, and the like; are there as employees. Most people work so they can pay the rent/mortgage, eat, maybe buy a car, TV, DVD player, maybe even a guitar or two. Unless there are no-smoking regs, no-smoking clubs rarely exist. It's just a product of ancient precedent, not any well-thought-out analysis, IMO. So, if your profession involves being in a club in such an area, Marty, you are currently forced to deal with the smoke right now, or not work.

Another issue: there are things like environmental standards in workplaces. You generally can't smoke in other indoor workplaces, not around here anyway. Maybe we should just go back to smoking everywhere. Why not offices, stores, banks - what's so special about clubs? Why do non-smokers who work in clubs have to put up with smoke, but not those who work in a bank or grocery store? Are you going to tell everyone to "just tough up and stop being a sissy"? Or maybe you will just tell them, "You better just stay outta them banks and grocery stores". Those are the only logical extensions to your thinking.

Back to the original question, ultimately, this is going to be resolved by raw application of political power. I realize I'm probably wasting my breath on this hopeless debate, but this type of name-calling should not grace this great forum. If you have an argument to make, make it. The only real argument I've heard so far pro-smoking in indoor public places is: 1) that it's perhaps too draconian government intervention because 2) perhaps air quality standards could do the same thing without an outright ban. I hate government intrusion into private affairs as much as any of you, but a public place is not private by definition. I don't think most people give a hoot whether you smoke in your own confines or outside where it doesn't accumulate. I also think it's hopeless to administer air quality standards in clubs, but I think most non-smokers would be fine with that if it has real teeth, which means regular inspections with heavy fines or worse for chronic violators. I do shudder at the thought of the bureaucracy it would imply. Also expect drink/food prices to go up sharply from the cost of implementing such a system. David, I like your idea of using tobacco taxes to fund this kind of thing, but right now, they're being used for other things, and I think the people getting that money will fight hard to keep it.

IMO, whether anybody likes it or not, if you think the large non-smoker majority is going to let you shove smoke down their lungs, I argue "probably not for much longer". It is precisely this kind of attitude that is forcing their hand. If you want consideration, show it. I think you'll find that, where it counts, the non-smoking majority is tougher than you think, and will fight hammer and tong on this. They have the numbers, both in population and statistical evidence. You've got your supposed 'right' to blow smoke in their face with impunity. But the sky is not falling - I agree with b0b, going outside for a smoke is not a big deal - cooler heads will prevail and people will adapt. I'll bet that a club that handles this intelligently will get a lot of new patrons also, as I said above.

Mike Perlowin RIP · Post by **Mike Perlowin RIP** » 21 Apr 2005 11:20 pm

Well said Dave Mudgett. Bravo.

I repeat that my mother, whose physiology I've inherited, died from complications from asthma, and I've got the disease myself. I KNOW FROM FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE what it's like to have resperatory problems, and I know from firsthand experience how exposure to cigarette smoke excerbated those problems.

A single night in a really smokey room can send me to the hospital and lay me up for as much as 6 weeks. And since my mother died from this, I take it very seriously, and I think anybody who doesn't, is at best an ignorant fool, if not an insensitive--- well this being a family oriented forum, I can't use the word I have in mind.

The comment that "non smokers have the same rights as smokers, no more no less," does not hold water. The rights of innocent people to go about their lives unmolested supercedes the rights of those who would do them harm, whether or not it is deliberate. My right to drive safely supercedes the right of a person to drive recklessly or drunk. My right to go to a restaurant or theater without fear of neing murdered there supercedes the right of a terrorist suicide bomber to set off a bomb. My right to safely gather on new years eve with others to celebrate the holiday supercedes the right of some moron to fire a gun off in the air, not knowing who the bullet might hit, AND MY RIGHT TO BREATH CLEAN AIR SUPERCEDES YOUR RIGHT TO POLLUTE IT WITH TOXIC FUMES!!!

Furthermore, as I already pointed out, what is the purpose of government, if not to protect it's citizens? That's why we have laws against driving while intoxicated, as well as laws against robbing and shooting people.

That's also why there should be laws in every state against assaulting people with cigarette smoke.

------------------
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." -Albert Einstein

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 22 Apr 2005 1:35 am

I just quit smoking in August,
I was 2 packs a day and hating it the whole time.
I have hated smoking since 1973...

I had quit when I was 17 at 3 packs a day and hadn't smoked for 27 years.

But a smoking wife, gone off the deep end, somehow made it for a SHORT time seem logical to start smoking again....
IDIOCY..

Yet better than DWI, beating herself, and many other even more senseless things...

It took me three YEARS to finally quit...
A full 6 months after she was FINALLY out of the house for good,
and therefor not smokinng in front of me.

BUT... even as I smoked I was glad for NYC anti-smoking laws when I visited,
and HATED being in smoke filled rooms...

My father died at 54 from smoking,
that's why I quit originally in 1976.
My mother was next to a heavy smoker for 40 years, she developed lung problems.

I do know personally of women who died of lung cancer,
but never smoked,
yet lived with a heavy smoker till it killed them..

Anecdotal evidence, maybe if you're a statistician,
but for me pretty clear none the less.
I don't ingore things like that in my face,
do so youself at your own peril....

If I hadn't stopped in 1976, I doubt I would be here now...

Marty, stop YOUR whining about anit-smoking people,
it's churlish and clutching at straws because you can't quit...
I was smoking not so long ago, and STILL wouldn't have agreed with you one bit...

Howard has it quite right.. you can smoke if you must,
but not near non smokers in enclosed spaces like small clubs that support non mainstrean music.. like country.

If Big John wants to start a cigar club, fine with me..
but I do remember him wheezing a bit when we met,
but maybe he has smoked too long to quit,
I hope he can, if he wishes to hard enough.

Smokers are the minority, and even if they were the majority,
still do not have the right to impose their toxic gasses on others who don't smoke.. it is very simple.

There are alternatives, i.e. go outside etc, t
his is an extra effort for the smoker...
but THEY choose to smoke..
those that don't should NOT be demanded the same extra effort also, just to protect themselves.

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 22 April 2005 at 02:42 AM.]

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 22 Apr 2005 3:43 am

David, not to be the one to defend Marty, but he did say he quit 2 years ago.

I also have lots of anecdotal evidence, but there's lots of solid statistical evidence now. Tobacco companies are even arguing this same line now. I know they have a gun to their head, but they put it there by trying to dummy up research, by their own admission.

Folks, this isn't about your right to smoke. I haven't heard anyone here dispute that. My post was about the 'right' to go into a public place and blow smoke into the face of somebody that has a real problem with it, and that people who really can't deal with smoke are 'sissies' who should just stay out of clubs or other public places, even as employees. When push comes to shove, that's the only rational basis to continue to allow this type of air quality inside a public place. But that dog will not hunt, and that trumps even the legitimate economic concern that started this unfortunate thread. [This message was edited by Dave Mudgett on 22 April 2005 at 04:45 AM.]

Marty Pollard · Post by **Marty Pollard** » 22 Apr 2005 5:16 am

No, no, no; I don't think you Dave, are pursuing YOUR logic to its necessary consequences.

There are many clubs in the People's Republic of Boulder doing fine and yes I went outside to smoke for many years and yes it was a bitch quitting (but ultimately revolved solely around WILL).

I DO find the habit offensive, addictive and frequently inconsiderate to others. Now, can we extend those adjectives to other behaviors?

Barbeque pits emit smoke PROVEN to contain myriad carcinogens.
Outdoor smoke from cigarettes can enter the lungs of those in close or moderate proximity to the smoker.
There is a WARNING on my pop bottles that says CAUTION REMOVING TOP- CONTENTS UNDER PRESSURE; well heck, you could put my eye out with that thing!

I enjoy playing at the Outlaw and not smelling like smoke! I have NO PROBLEM with clubs that don't allow smoking. I HAVE A MAJOR PROBLEM with those who demand everyone else accomodate them.

Some of you scoff at the notion of excessive demands for control and social manipulation and yet it's NOT just about tobacco smoke. Some of you would go so far as to control the very WORDS that another uses!?!

Oh and Mike, do you feel the same about marijuana smoke?

P.S. My real point (which I forgot to make

) is:
1. No, nobody is FORCED to work in a smoking environment; EVERYONE working there chooses to remain there, EVERYSTINKINSINGLEBLOODYONE!!!
B. Let the market decide, let us vote with our dollars, let the proprietors suffer the consequences.

Again, smoking is a bad habit and I don't think ANYONE should take it up.[This message was edited by Marty Pollard on 22 April 2005 at 06:24 AM.]

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 22 Apr 2005 5:45 am

David, Thanks for noting what I dyslexically missed.

Marty good for you on quiting, It is a bitch for sure.

If I want to go out and hear music (or play), I don't want to have to be next to some one blowing smoke.
a) because I quit again relatively recently
b) because II want no more smoke in my lungs PERIOD if I can avoid it.

c) there is some evidence that eating too much charred food is also carinogenic.
Barbique is ok up to a point,
and I love barbique, but charcoal on it is no good.

There are certain controls on even our American rights to free speach
i.e. the Sedition acts
and Lenny Bruce, Ed Murphy, George Carlin and even Robin Williams all ran up to the line of things you can't say on TV and many public forums.

We even have certain limits on speach in this mostly free steel forum too.
for the general welfare of ALL, not the absoutist rights of a few...

We can go so far, but there are some limits to what we can do.
I put smoking in the same catagory.

Alcohol has needed it's limits
Prohibition was too much,
but there are still some controls, and rightly so.

The numbers of people killed by some entity or product is not reall the question,

A can of paint can kill... but rarely does.

Cars can kill if missued, and do in high numbers. They are controled.

Alcohol can kill either very quickly : overdose, accidents, or slowly cirrosis etc.

Certain writtings have been deem not inthe best intersts of the general public, so certain limits are placed on who can see them. (age limits)

Smoking was more incideous, for a long time not a clear connection
with horrible, expensive deaths,
and such a STRIONG addiction...

But still 10 times more incideous are smokings purveors...[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 22 April 2005 at 06:47 AM.]

Marty Pollard · Post by **Marty Pollard** » 22 Apr 2005 6:00 am

We even have certain limits on speach in this mostly free steel forum too.

Oh believe me, this has been made abundantly clear to me by the most gracious b0b and I do not desire to test those limits.

HOWEVER, I fail to see the use of the term sissified (meaning soft, weak, delicate) in reference to a behavior or preference as rising to the level of Lenny Bruce or Carlin's 7 words.

Marty Pollard · Post by **Marty Pollard** » 22 Apr 2005 6:04 am

I suggest you be more careful with your language.

In fact, after re-reading this post I'm displeased with the way this quote reads.

I suggest that you not make any more suggestions as to my verbiage and/or syntax.

How about this one?[This message was edited by Marty Pollard on 22 April 2005 at 07:16 AM.]

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 22 Apr 2005 6:34 am

<quote>Quote: "No, no, no; I don't think you Dave, are pursuing YOUR logic to its necessary consequences."</quote>

No, I am specifically stopping my argument for clean air when it gets to the threshold of the ambient air quality outside. We all know that cars, barbecue grills, whatever, add stuff to the air. That's beside the point. You go ahead and put words in my mouth if you like, but I am applying common sense here - this is not an argument about the overall air quality in the world, but the extremely poor air quality inside many, if not most, clubs as a result of smoking without proper ventilation.

Quote: "Some of you would go so far as to control the very WORDS that another uses!?!"

Marty, I'm telling you that I do not appreciate your calling me a 'sissy'. If that's the way you want to parse your words, go ahead - you are free to insult me - this is a free country. But I seriously question your judgement and also whether this fits within the guidelines of acceptable speech on this forum to refer to other forumites as 'sissies'. If not checked, one insult will just lead to another, and then to another ... I know perfectly well that I can't control your words, I think you should. This discussion is so ridiculous, I'm having a hard time believing it's happening.

I just saw your last post. Here is www.dictionary.com's take on "sissified": Of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a sissy; timid, cowardly, or effeminate. Do you really mean to say this? That's my beef, plain and simple.[This message was edited by Dave Mudgett on 22 April 2005 at 07:37 AM.]

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 22 Apr 2005 6:48 am

I fail to see the use of the term sissified (meaning soft, weak, delicate) in reference to a behavior or preference as rising to the level of Lenny Bruce or Carlin's 7 words.

Nope Marty, that isn't the same catagory...
but in MANY parts it is in the catagory of "Thems Fightin words".

On the other hand saying it is wimpy to avoid very bad air,
implies it is more manley etc to breath crap all night long.
For me anyway that dog don't hunt.

Lungs don't know from macho or manly or sissified,
they just know healthy and damaged..
and festering grey areas in bewteen.

In another way,I would more likely admire the man standing up,
and inssisting the cigarrette be removed from his lady's vicinity,

than the guy fighting him to keep blowing smoke in her face all night.

No one is forced to work in a smoking environment.

But if your new girl friend supported her kids waiting tables or tending bar in a smoking place,
vs working McDonalds for MUCH less money and no smoke...

She's gonna stay in the bad air job for the good of her kids.. no not forced,
but a strong familial and economic incentive to ruin her health for altruistic reasons.

Herb Steiner · Post by **Herb Steiner** » 22 Apr 2005 6:55 am

Funny thing about words...

I saw a first hand example of "soft, weak, delicate" about 18 months ago: My father-in-law laying in a hospital bed in Columbia MO, dying of emphysema. He was no sissy either, lemme tell ya.

Personal freedom is a function of a variable population in a fixed amount of space. When we have two people and two bathrooms, we have 100% freedom. When we have four people but only two bathrooms, we now have 50% freedom. As the proximity between people gets smaller, more controls (self-imposed or external) have to be created to keep us from killing each other. Many of these we already have and agree upon, like speed limits, levels of intoxication, etc.

The degree of control is the issue we're arguing about, and that's simply the tug and pull of democracy.

------------------
Herb's Steel Guitar Pages
Texas Steel Guitar Association

Mike Perlowin RIP · Post by **Mike Perlowin RIP** » 22 Apr 2005 7:15 am

Mike, do you feel the same about marijuana smoke?

Yes.

------------------
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." -Albert Einstein

Mike Perlowin RIP · Post by **Mike Perlowin RIP** » 22 Apr 2005 7:18 am

Good comment Herb. You and I might not agree, but you correctly defined the nature of the issue, without letting a lot of emotion cloud things up.

------------------
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." -Albert Einstein

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 22 Apr 2005 8:08 am

Quitting cigarrettes was really hard to do. I feel much better now without them.

Its nicer in the clubs now without the smoke. Bussiness seems about the same as before. With all that I don't like the police telling me what to do. If there was a vote about if smoking should be legal again in public places I would most likey vote for it.

------------------
Bob
intonation help

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 22 Apr 2005 9:53 am

I'm closing this before someone gets hurt.