Defend the indefensible: American Smoking bans.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

OK. So an American citizen's freedoms are enshrined in the constitution.

Meaning that your average Yankee-Joe, will fight to the death for the right to continue bearing arms. Allowing teenagers to buy automatic weapons and kill their classmates.

So why have the usually libertarian leaning Americans allowed laws to be passed banning smoking in public places, but not packing a shootah?

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 19:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Hi Calum!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 19:51 (twenty-one years ago)

High Colonic!

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 19:52 (twenty-one years ago)

HAHAHAHA "usually libertarian leaning Americans"!

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 19:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Begging your pardon?

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 19:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I am Guy N. Cogneato.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 19:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I almost wrote an enraged response to this, but all you guys posted first, thank god.

― Skottie, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 19:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, yes Libertarian. Meaning 'freedom of choice' not bowing to 'government controls' etc

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 19:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I usually curtsey to them.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 19:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Perry OTM.

― J (Jay), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 19:56 (twenty-one years ago)

bowling to government controls!
does that have anything to do with a WildC.A.T. Strike?

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 19:57 (twenty-one years ago)

god knows it's *too* easy to bring guns into those chelsea bars

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 19:58 (twenty-one years ago)

We are gathered here
Today in these majestic
halls of old to honor
a man they call
Sathington Willoughby.
There's a joke or two,
A pun or three
I feel that must be
told then I go on to
speak of Sathington Willoughby.
Sathington Willoughby
the legislator that
penned us up a bill
that banned the use
of certain things like this and
that.

― regarding the smoking ban that has more effect on me (nickalicious), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:00 (twenty-one years ago)

When I was at Starbucks during lunch, I decided to sit outside at one of those tables because it was 80 degrees or so. Then two people came and sat on either table beside me and started smoking. I don't normally get annoyed at people smoking. I go to concerts all the time. But for some reason, this really bothered me. When all smoking is confined to the area right outside of a restaurant, where can nonsmokers go for fresh air?

Rant over.

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't understand the primus reference?

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Montana

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:03 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:04 (twenty-one years ago)

I can understand the fact that many people find smoking deeply unpleasant (I don't smoke myself). But what interests me, is the fact that Americans have allowed a law to outlaw it.

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:05 (twenty-one years ago)

it should be noted that teenagers buying automatic weapons and shooting their classmates is banned also

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:05 (twenty-one years ago)

workers rights mrorangespangle

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:05 (twenty-one years ago)

ie. why should a worker sacrifice his/her health just so some bourgie customer can have 'the right' to light up?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:06 (twenty-one years ago)

why should a smoker's right to smoke trump a workers right to work in an enviroment not detrimental to their health?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:07 (twenty-one years ago)

the right of the individual to breathe

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:08 (twenty-one years ago)

OK..So it's about employee's rights...What about my health, were I to live in Los Angeles breathing in the fumes of a million 6 litre SUV's?

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:09 (twenty-one years ago)

you could move to Montana

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:09 (twenty-one years ago)

pls do, then you'd be close to me and we could hang out

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:10 (twenty-one years ago)

what job requires you to breath carfumes?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:10 (twenty-one years ago)

and are there not PLENTY of laws on the books in california regulating car fumes?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Policeman on the beat..hot dog seller. Not just a job. What about my rights as a citizen breathing in polluted air?

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:12 (twenty-one years ago)

or are you against those laws also, since they trump peoples "rights" to blow out as much car fumes as they wish?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:12 (twenty-one years ago)

sue them!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:13 (twenty-one years ago)

ie. do the EXACT SAME THING anti-smoking advocates did

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:13 (twenty-one years ago)

ie. put up or shutup

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, there may well be many laws on the statute books, but they are not very stringent. Consider the size of an average US cars engine, compared to that of a European one.

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:13 (twenty-one years ago)

What would you like to be done, Mr. Sparkle? Everyone is free to leave LA at anytime, yanno.

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:15 (twenty-one years ago)

there's room in Montano, the couch pulls out.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, I suppose there's the rub Mr littlejohnny. The American public and govt are deeply resistant to draconian laws curbing both vehicle emissions and indeed industrial emmisions. So why not the same resistance to smoking bans?

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:16 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/19990727/montana.jpg

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I've never been able to get to work while riding in my cigar.

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:17 (twenty-one years ago)

mrorangespangle until you bother to actually put forth an argument (ie, back up some of your statements with facts) or address anyone elses points (ie. show some fucking courtesy) I'm going to follow mr. mann's example and post pics of montana.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:19 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.virtualcities.com/ons/mt/montana.gif

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:20 (twenty-one years ago)

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:22 (twenty-one years ago)

ie. put up or shutup bitch

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Mr Johnny, before yau have a hissy-fit. I'm neither advocating smoking nor advocating banning cars.

What I'm interested in is, why as a nation of people who are in general pro-choice and deeply against government control, would allow laws to be passed in California and NYC that ban smoking in public places.

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't know, Calum, why do you think that?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:23 (twenty-one years ago)

and we have answered you and you have dodged our response. show a modicum of respect and you will be treated likewise.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:24 (twenty-one years ago)

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:25 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Boulevard/3080/montana.jpg

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:25 (twenty-one years ago)

With the greatest of respect, sir. I haven't dodged your responses.

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:26 (twenty-one years ago)

yes you have

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:26 (twenty-one years ago)

In what way, mark?

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:27 (twenty-one years ago)

at least he's honest that his only point is to hate the monolithic American; haven't we learned?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:27 (twenty-one years ago)

the usual way, by not bothering to read anything anyone else posts properly

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Americans are contradictory and heterogenerous. We don't have some overarching master ideology that controls all our decisions. We come to conclusions one at a time, and don't care if it goes against any perceived notions of Americanness.

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:28 (twenty-one years ago)

we contain multitudes

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:29 (twenty-one years ago)

My thread was not at all about hating 'monolithic' Americans. Just about allowing laws that I would have thought most Americans would be against in principle. Even if they hated the smell of smoke and related health issues.

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:30 (twenty-one years ago)

we'll let you speak for yourself...

My thread was not at all about hating 'monolithic' Americans. Just about allowing laws that I would have thought most Americans would be against in principle

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:31 (twenty-one years ago)

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Oops definitely OTM.

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:32 (twenty-one years ago)

principles don't matter for shit when you have unwanted smoke all up in your lungs everyday at work.

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:32 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.mtnwestrail.com/montana/skylineb.jpg

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Blount doesn't seem to realise that OrangeSpangle is on the same side as he is. They only differ in that Orange wants consistency in US legislation, whereas Blount seems to be too patriotic to demand anything so logical.

(Ah, Orange has made that clear himself in between times.)

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:32 (twenty-one years ago)

you can always count on a republican to defend the tobacco industry!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:33 (twenty-one years ago)

oh, and to say 'fuck the workers, where's my cigar?'

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:34 (twenty-one years ago)

we'll let Momus speak for himself...

Orange wants consistency in US legislation

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Who cares about consistency? American law is too much of a unmanageble behemouth for one to desire it to be consistent.

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Cinniblount, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Republican Party?

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I hereby demand that the Swiss vote with the Finns on every matter!

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:35 (twenty-one years ago)

meanwhile, I'll leave momus and orangespangle to argue past each other, not bother to read anyone elses posts, and to dishonestly ascribe arguments to others when it serves their 'purposes' (ie. masturbation)

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:36 (twenty-one years ago)

all u l4ym0rZ have the right to shuck the fuck up!!!!!11

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:36 (twenty-one years ago)

This thread is not about defending the tobacco, gun or auto industries. Surely if an employees health is paramount, then hand-gun legislation would have been brought in following many mass-shootings where disgruntled workers murder their collegues.

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:36 (twenty-one years ago)

or they would've SUED - read a newspaper

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Since you're here and I'm here, Mr Blount, can you explain why Richard Fausset, editor of Athens Georgia music mag Flagpole, calls you 'our staff Republican' here?

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I wouldn't raise this if it weren't for the fact that you constantly bandy this word Republican about in your posts.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:39 (twenty-one years ago)

haha - cuz I voted for Clinton!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Exactly Littljohnny, in those instances individuals sue without the need for formal laws. So whay have no formal smoking ban, and allow employees to sue for illness due to passive smoking?

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:40 (twenty-one years ago)

And your real answer?

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:40 (twenty-one years ago)

well, can i post pictures on THIS thread without people bitching?

― Kingfish (Kingfish), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Of course Kingfish, this is an inclusive thread

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:42 (twenty-one years ago)

ask fausset - CUZ I VOTED FOR CLINTON (ie. do you know nothing about green party holier than thou tactics?)

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:43 (twenty-one years ago)

How is it inconsistent to ban cigarettes? It's not like other harmful substances aren't banned.

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Momus, nobody takes blount seriously when he goes apeshit on you, you're like the only one left who does.

And blount nobody takes Calum seriously when he posts one of his useless threads except you! Let it go, good god man!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:44 (twenty-one years ago)

(of course those substances aren't just banned in public places... er, just ignore me plz)

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Curt other harmful substances aren't banned. Like carbon monoxide from petrol emissions, bullets or high levels of saturated fat in food.

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:45 (twenty-one years ago)

also, the people who are most strongly anti-gov't intervention are usually anti-choice (when it comes to a woman's reproductive rights)

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Sorry curt, just saww your follow up!

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Well that's true Mr Mann

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Mr Orange Spangle you would be wise to desist from referring to nations of people as a single like-minded entity when posing such questions. Consistent legislation is surely an extremely tall order for any society based on democratic libertarianism. The flaw of that system is that it practically begets inconsistency in that several heads get a say and get to instigate their ideas. Bloomberg's views will not always correspond with Dubya's but when it comes to New York state law then there's a certain degree of lea-way permitted between the powers that be, no?

How easy is it to buy a gun in LA or NY these days anyway?

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:47 (twenty-one years ago)

'Duane' + ten or so other names, that you again?

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:50 (twenty-one years ago)

as a nation of people who are in general pro-choice and deeply against government control-- MrOrangeSpangle

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, that's a very good point Stevem.

And whilst it is impossible to generalise about national characteristics of any nation. Certain characteristics are prevalent. Americans joke that the British all have bad teeth or do not rinse washing up liquid of their dishes.

And I would say it's a fairly reasonable argument, based on much evidence, that 'on the whole' Americans are resistant to heavy-handed government control of their lives.

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:51 (twenty-one years ago)

'evidence'

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:52 (twenty-one years ago)

that 'on the whole' Americans are resistant to
heavy-handed government control of their lives.
but can't get enough of it in their uterus!

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Americans joke that the British all have bad teeth or do not rinse washing up liquid of their dishes.

Not EVERY American does this, that's the point. Or, it's only useful if you're making a joke

Are you making a joke?

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:53 (twenty-one years ago)

yes we are totally unique in that regard. just yesterday i was saying to another american how much we both dislike gulags and speed limits and stuff.

― g--ff, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:54 (twenty-one years ago)

No, but I do have bad teeth, and I must confess to not rinsing the suds off my glasses thoroughly.

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:55 (twenty-one years ago)

The fact of the smoking ban is proof that the generalisation fails

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:56 (twenty-one years ago)

to answer the thread q: classic. can't wait for it to happen in mpls.

― g--ff, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:57 (twenty-one years ago)

you live in Metropolis, g-ff?

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:57 (twenty-one years ago)

do you know...Superman?

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:58 (twenty-one years ago)

So if I were an American senator, and I proposed a bill that would increase taxes by a cent in the$ to fund greater state assistance to the poor for their healthcare. Would that, do you think, be a wideley supported bill?

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 20:59 (twenty-one years ago)

The fact of the smoking ban is proof that the generalisation fails

this is where Flash Mobs may actually have some use. Gather around 200 people and have them march into City Hall reception, lighting up as they enter.

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:00 (twenty-one years ago)

are you switching to a new argument because you just lost this one?

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:01 (twenty-one years ago)

haha that's what i thought!

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think I've lsot any argument. I think that it is a valid 'generalisation' that the majority of American voters are against incresing government control of their lives.

And that includes things such as tax rises, as we have seen many bills proposing that defeated in congress.

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:06 (twenty-one years ago)

They are in favor of increasing government control of other people's lives, though.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:07 (twenty-one years ago)

The fact of the smoking ban is proof that the "valid" generalisation fails

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Hence nonsmokers in the majority -> laws that favor nonsmokers.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:07 (twenty-one years ago)

CP so OTM

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:08 (twenty-one years ago)

I think that it is a valid 'generalisation' that the majority of American voters are against incresing government control of their lives.

this applies to EVERY democratic electorate. it's a no-brainer. why are you singling out Americans? anti-smoking laws are in effect in other countries where you can get hold of a gun far more easily than in the States too I am sure of it.

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Could Mark S be more self-parodic? More calls for 'reading carefully' and reductions of threads to 'winning and losing' please! More semi-mathematical proofs!

This thread perfectly illustrates the way some habitually parry an attack on US ideology -- which is perceived by most outside the US as consistent, at least on the level of myth and stereotype, the main exports of the US -- with an appeal to empirical details or the pluralism of the federal system.

Contrast with the sister thread, where it is apparently perfectly acceptable to make a mythical, stereotypical reading of British dishwashing habits, and where British posters self-deprecatingly say 'Yuk, we are horrid' while Americans concur that they are, indeed.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:14 (twenty-one years ago)

my two biggest insights into the mentality of the American public are ILX and Fox :)

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:16 (twenty-one years ago)

The dark impenetrable void to thread, please.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Momus, the US making fun of the UK is like people within the US making fun of Texans. British folx are easier to stereotype in a silly fashion because there's a lot less of them than Americans.

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:18 (twenty-one years ago)

also the British dishwashing thread is clearly a joke thread, whereas this isn't (oh wait)

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:18 (twenty-one years ago)

It is precisely the gap between myth and reality -- between Bush's claim to be against big government, and the fact that the federal payroll has expanded phenomenally under his regime -- that Mr Orange is highlighting. Therefore the co-existence of a smoking ban with the 'libertarian' myth, as highlighted by Mark S, actually plays into his point rather than undermining it.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, I'd argue that British culture might be a smidge more monolithic than American culture (although probably not nearly as monolithic as, say, Finnish culture).

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:20 (twenty-one years ago)

where did bush claim to be against big government?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:20 (twenty-one years ago)

'Yuk, we are horrid'

effectively stereotyping that we all speak (or at least) type in a twee posh accent! strike a bleedin' light guvnor.

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Mr Orange doesn't seem to realize this is just a myth, though, or the implications thereof.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:21 (twenty-one years ago)

SteveM, I don't think a resistance to government control does apply equally to every democracy.

In Scandinavian countries like Sweden, the electorate pay incredibly high levels of taxes that many in the U.S and UK would deem unacceptable.

I could more easily understand a smoking ban in Sweden, than I can in the States.

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Bush claimed in the 2000 pre-election debates to be against big government and pulled ahead as a result.

'According to the Post poll, 58% of voters say that they would favour
"smaller government with fewer services", as against 32% of Americans who
prefer "larger government with many services". When asked which of the two
candidates would do a better job "holding down the size of government", 54%
chose Mr Bush, while only 33% chose Mr Gore.'

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:23 (twenty-one years ago)

paying more in tax doesn't equate to being more susceptible to having the government CONTROL your life more.

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:23 (twenty-one years ago)

um, bush doesn't claim anything there - that's the poll respondents doing the claiming

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:24 (twenty-one years ago)

i figure Bush considers his administration to be small because most people in it from the same area.

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:25 (twenty-one years ago)

You have shares in Google, don't you Blount? Come on, I could pull up a million quotes. You're wasting my time.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Only stupid people pay attention to what politicians say.

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:27 (twenty-one years ago)

and to be fair, the one area the right has jumped all over bush for has been the expansion of the budget (albeit for all the wrong reasons)(ie. it's not so much the deficit they have a problem with as the expansion of medicare)

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:27 (twenty-one years ago)

The original question related NOTHING whatsoever to Bush's obvious not-walking-the-talk w/ regards to "big government", but the maleability of America's morals. But thank you very much for changing the topic to something far more interesting/easily agree-upon-able.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, it kind of does, because paying those higher taxes in Sweden means the government funds programmes that would be probably be handled by charities or independant bodies here and in the US.

High taxes are seen by many as an imposition by the govt on the people.

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:28 (twenty-one years ago)

bush also in favor of a non-interventionist 'humble' foreign policy in 2000 (haha - the 'bright side' to his election I thought possibly at the time)(coming off of madeline 'why the use of having a big military if you aren't going to use it?' albright)

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:29 (twenty-one years ago)

The Daily Show's Bush vs. Bush debate, Gov. Bush 2000 "I don't think the US should be the police man of the world" vs. Pres. Bush 2003 "We need to liberate the Iraqi people".

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, we're all on the same page. We seem to be agreeing (with different emphases) that there are glaring contradictions between the American mythos and the American reality.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, duh.

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:39 (twenty-one years ago)

translation: the generalisation fails

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Myth is not generalisation!

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:41 (twenty-one years ago)

however, generalization is myth.

freaky.

― Kingfish (Kingfish), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:42 (twenty-one years ago)

i didn't say it was

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:42 (twenty-one years ago)

B-but Mark, you said that the fact of a smoking ban disproved the myth of American libertarianism!

If I may switch structual tools (puts down 'The Golden Bough', picks up 'Das Kapital') America is a huge class-in-itself which stubbornly refuses to become a class-for-itself. Its myth of itself makes it vote and act against its objective interests. It is incontrovertible that government gets big under Republicans and the economy does worse under Republicans, and yet Americans vote Republican in the name of small government and strong economy, for instance.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:47 (twenty-one years ago)

haha - Americans vote Republican in the name of strong economy!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Depends on where you live. I think there is more hostility here in the midwest toward smoking bans. Also, the affluent California-ness of it really irritates me : I had headaches several times a week because of the sulfurous industrial air where I lived, so I have no patience for snooty hippies who moan about their health as if there aren't people in the country who live in virtual gas chambers!

I have nothing against smoke-free restaurants and the like - I think a ban is too extreme. It's just that the arguments about "wanting clean air" that annoy the crap out of me.

Anyway, the smoking bans just reflect another facet of American culture : regulating everything to death for your own good, etc.

Prohibition, for example, was extremely unpopular in Chicago, but it was a large movement in middle-class society at the time.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Plus I think this "American mythos" is built on two completely conflicting ideas, FreedomLand vs. Proud-to-be-an-AmericanLand, all citizens' rights are protected vs. God baseball apple pie rasslin'. One thing I find interesting living here is how people try to consolidate these two opposing sides of what supposedly makes America America, like our society is torn between the America our teachers told us about vs. the America our preachers told us about.

xpost

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:50 (twenty-one years ago)

What it is is the Puritan/WASP/assimilation culture vs. everyone else.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:52 (twenty-one years ago)

fwiw I'm anti-anti-smoking bans, but the bloomberg 'pro-worker/anti-smoking' argmt (which is just spin - but what spin!) is one I've never been able to really counter and never heard a really strong counterargument against.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:52 (twenty-one years ago)

kerry otm

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:53 (twenty-one years ago)

LittleJohnny you were subscribing to the "'pro-worker/anti-smoking' argmt " earlier in this thread when you stated;

"why should a smoker's right to smoke trump a workers right to work in an enviroment not detrimental to their health? "

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Nickalicious, I don't think we should really think of patriotism for a specific country as an ideology, or 'myth'. I would say an ideology has to have points you can argue. It has to be exportable. 'Loving America' is not something you can export. 'Freedom of choice' or 'Human Rights' or 'Christianity' are ideologies, and exportable. 'My country right or wrong' is an emotion, and local.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:58 (twenty-one years ago)

right, hence my NOTING THE SELFCONTRADICTION

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:58 (twenty-one years ago)

ie. feel free to actually provide a counterargument (since you haven't yet) so that I might smoke in peace whenever the movement comes south

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 21:59 (twenty-one years ago)

'my country right or wrong' /= 'patriotism'

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:00 (twenty-one years ago)

cf my sadly under-replied to thread:
are rights-based state constitutions (national and/or international?) inherently imperial

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I have no need to provide a counter argument, since I wasn't advocating or decrying a smoking ban, but merely interested to know why a smoking ban has been so readily accepted when many other issues affecting citizens/employees health remain un-addressed. That in a country which I believe to be largely against state control.

― MrOrangeSpangle, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, Mark, maybe we should revive that thread (ie maybe I should sit down and work out what the hell it's about and what I think about it). In the current atmosphere of ILX-lite, it'll be a breath of fresh, stern air. Better than a cold shower!

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Momus otm (!!!)

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, I didn't even see Mark's thread. Must have been on vacation or something. That's an interesting thread.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:10 (twenty-one years ago)

(yes it probably leans unspoken on several then-frantic debates which have got a bit cold and forgotten since)

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:10 (twenty-one years ago)

the return of nabisco u + k

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:12 (twenty-one years ago)

nothing in this thread makes any sense at all!

― hstencil, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Joel, you actually sound surprised;>

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:29 (twenty-one years ago)

well I usually expect sense from at least some of the posters here!

― hstencil, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Let's take off our fencing masks and shake hands with Mr OrangeSpangle for raising the tone! (That way we'll get to see his face, too.)

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't see the contradiction. The parts of the country that are more likely to have gun control are also more likely to have a smoking ban.

Also, what's a Yankee-Joe?

― Nemo (JND), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:42 (twenty-one years ago)

sorry I'm late

Momus, you're wrong!

there, I'll try to be more punctual in the future

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:55 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not going to bait Momus on this thread because we were friends in the dream I had last night.

― hstencil, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Speaking of American Mythos...

so! how's the weather in Vancouver this time'a year?

― Kingfish (Kingfish), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 22:58 (twenty-one years ago)

tell that to the guy in the Anaheim Mighty Ducks jersey I saw walking around in Pilsen

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 23:01 (twenty-one years ago)

forgot to copy in, but it's WAY funnier that way

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 23:02 (twenty-one years ago)

http://home.att.net/~dickestel/images/kariya.gif

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 23:02 (twenty-one years ago)

um, what?

― hstencil, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 23:13 (twenty-one years ago)

something with hockey

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 23:14 (twenty-one years ago)

so now we're going to get into the Canadian mythos, too?

― hstencil, Tuesday, 4 November 2003 23:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Here's an anti-drug rap to show that America can also be consistent. Mayor Bloomberg and Devastatin' Dave (the turntable slave) are rapping from the same songbook, really.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 4 November 2003 23:24 (twenty-one years ago)

just to be clear about the false premise of this thread and give the lie to momus' complaints about hiding behind federalism - the only parts of the country that have enacted smoking bans are also the parts of the country most supportive of restrictions on guns, k?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 01:19 (twenty-one years ago)

right, plus duh the federal goverment, state and local governments all have the power to make laws, sometimes they contradict each other, yadda yadda yadda.

― hstencil, Wednesday, 5 November 2003 01:22 (twenty-one years ago)

So consistency isn't the hobgoblin of small minds, then?

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 03:26 (twenty-one years ago)

We seem to be agreeing (with different emphases) that there are glaring contradictions between the American mythos and the American reality.

ARGH
there are also:
*glaring contradictions between the English mythos and the American reality
*glaring contradictions between the Japanese mythos and the Japanese reality
*glaring contradictions between the Germans mythos and the German reality
*glaring contradictions between the Mexican mythos and the Mexican reality
*glaring contradictions between the academic mythos and the academic reality
*glaring contradictions between the artistic mythos and the artistic reality
*glaring contradictions between the critical mythos and the critical reality
*glaring contradictions between the health-care mythos and the health-care reality
*glaring contradictions between the historical mythos and the historical reality, to say nothing of
*glaring contradictions between the historiograhical mythos and the historiographical reality
what's more, there are
*glaring contradictions between the pop-music mythos and the pop-music reality
*glaring contradictions between the How Economies Work mythos and the How Economies Work reality
*glaring contradictions between the Christian mythos and the Christian reality
*glaring contradictions between the Buddhist mythos and the Buddhist reality
*glaring contradictions between the electrical mythos and the electrical reality
*ok I just made that last one up but you get my point
*one hopes

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 03:34 (twenty-one years ago)

replace "English" in bullet-point one with "American" OK! all-one! all-one! all-one!

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 03:35 (twenty-one years ago)

strike that, reverse it

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 03:36 (twenty-one years ago)

J0hn Darn1elle and the Chocolate Nirvana

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 04:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Nice to see you deconstructing my inclusiveness at such length, J0hn!

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 11:47 (twenty-one years ago)

(re 'counterargument to pro-worker stand' - how about this? The presence of sulphurous fumes everywhere should act as an incentive to ppl to get a better job than waiting tables! Like, "If I don't start crawling up that ladder soon I'm gonna die of lung cancer, better start gettin' that piece of the dream now!" Haven't you ever worked a shitty job and thought, "Man I am gonna work my ass off to make sure I NEVER have to do this shit ever again?" Posioning them is just an extra kick in the ass!)(or maybe now that there's such a huge income divide the top percentile realise they're gonna have start gilding the rapidly-expanding cage a li'l bit to delay the revolution a bit longer)

― dave q, Wednesday, 5 November 2003 12:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Like, when workers had to slave away for 19 hrs daily in 200-degree blast furnaces and experience digital amputations regularly, that led to the creation of labor unions! Making 'emotional labor' front-line jobs (which are actually more blatantly exploitative, at least in the 'old economy' sheet-metal workers could afford a vacation and a 2-car garage however many fingers they were missing) more 'comfortable' is just reformist-tendency trimming around the edges! (I dropped the 'u' from 'labor' cuz it's a US thing)

― dave q, Wednesday, 5 November 2003 12:59 (twenty-one years ago)

My company just banned smoking even outdoors within its confines becuz of some 'passive' bollox. I don't drive, so I'm taking soem moral motherfucking high ground: passive smoking outdoors is hooey. Anyway, I don't see what positive content anti-smokerz see in life: for them the objective seems to be to live as long as poss. I don't understand this at all. Life is miserable so I'll die how I choose, not at the whim of some nuke-wielding dickwad.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 13:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Angry comedian warning!

― Ricardo (RickyT), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 13:03 (twenty-one years ago)

That said, I do take the point about bartenders etc. It's the sanctimony of anti-smokes ppl that gets me down, as with anti-drinking ppl. And esp pro-drugs/anti-hunt ppl. But that's anutha thread.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 13:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Was that a Hicks ref? Cuz if I was channelling, it weren't deliberate.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 13:06 (twenty-one years ago)

'SANCTIMONY OF PRO-DRUGS PPL'!!!? Taking drugs are GOOD FOR...oh why am I wasting my breath (*sighs condescendingly*)

― dave q, Wednesday, 5 November 2003 13:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Curse that wag Francis Drake for bringing the Demon Weed back from the New Worlde in the first place! We are not amused.

― Her Royal Highness Queen Kate (kate), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 13:23 (twenty-one years ago)

'SANCTIMONY OF PRO-DRUGS PPL'!!!? Taking drugs are GOOD FOR...oh why am I wasting my breath (*sighs condescendingly*)

Oh that was sort of a syntactical error BUT yes actually a lot of pro-druuugggs ppl *are* all wanky about it, less concerned by actual conditions in Columbia, Afghanistan etc.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 13:25 (twenty-one years ago)

I quit smoking 11 days ago, and I'd punch my mother in the face for a cigarette right now.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 13:29 (twenty-one years ago)

In Colombia coke is about 50 cents a gram, in Afghanistan smack is practically free, and I'm supposed to feel sory for THEM?

― dave q, Wednesday, 5 November 2003 13:30 (twenty-one years ago)

I cant even by ephedrine in this hellhole. How is that fair?

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 13:31 (twenty-one years ago)

In Colombia coke is about 50 cents a gram, in Afghanistan smack is practically free, and I'm supposed to feel sory for THEM?

Please use emoticons when it isn't obv you're joking!

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 13:32 (twenty-one years ago)

In Colombia coke is about 50 cents a gram, in Afghanistan smack is practically free

God damn it, and once again I'll only be touring Europe and the U.S. - when the hell am I gonna learn

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 13:40 (twenty-one years ago)

also, Momus, that's not what "deconstruct" means

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 13:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Enrique it was pretty obvious!

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 13:42 (twenty-one years ago)

You know, I really used to love Momus. What a fool I was!

― J (Jay), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:19 (twenty-one years ago)

: maybe some ppl will never have anything other than 'shitty' jobs
: we need ppl to do shitty jobs
: making them less shitty to do is in all our interests

i notice that ppl smoking in public generally don't hold the burning cig directly beneath their own nose and inhale every acrid particle - they like to hold it behind them/up at their shoulder/at arm's length: aren't they are themselves acknowledging it as annoyingly unpleasant?
if it was nothing, they wouldn't take steps to preserve their own & their friends comfort at the expense of others

i am considering patenting pocket-sized personal petrol engines for carbon-monoxide junkies, who can then fire them up inside bars/clubs/restaurants etc in order to take the occasional drag on straw sized micro-exhausts
as the engines idle away, filling the air with fumes, the suckers can celebrate their personal freedom, glory in the decadence of their self-destructive derring-do, and tell any complaining smokers to quit their holier-than-thou whining - i mean it's not like the wheezing ashholes can claim to have any sense of smell left anyway

― Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:24 (twenty-one years ago)

society in not being organized perfectly shocker

― amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Erm, right -- also we don't hold 'em against other ppl's nose do we? This is a silly argument: passive smoking is v difficult in the open air.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Enrique is OTM.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 14:30 (twenty-one years ago)

You know, I really used to love Momus. What a fool I was!

Do you think I could stand the sight of those big puppy dog eyes gazing up at me every day? I have set you free. To love... this place.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 5 November 2003 21:52 (twenty-one years ago)

If they start revving up their smoking bans in the UK I will smell much much nicer but bars/clubs will have less atmosphere or in fact less harsh light [mmm, flattering fog]

Though I don't smoke. But basic human rights what what. Surely we all have the right to kill ou-..

ah.

― penelope (penelope), Thursday, 6 November 2003 01:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Everyplace I've ever worked that would want to let their customers smoke -- bar, restaurant -- was staffed almost exclusively by smokers. Tell the bartender he shouldn't relieve the stress of his shitty job by smoking behind the bar and if he has any spine he'll refuse to serve you. Secondhand smoke never gets that thick in modern bars -- what do you think they made smoke eaters for? If there's insufficient ventilation to take care of cigarettes then the owners probably cheap their workers in all kinds of ways, which means they're getting liquor stolen from them at a rate that will hopefully sink the business. I now work (worse hours for a lot less money, keep that in mind) at a newspaper where the publisher makes us smoke outside in the Chicago cold -- so as not to bother the ad reps' clients. Now THAT is "screw the workers," if you ask me... not to mention the vivid image I get of Mike Royko rolling over in his grave every time I have to smoke a rained-on, cold-air-flavored pill.

Anyway, I feel about as civilized as a lizard when I have to eat a meal without smoking afterward. "Let's ingest some life and pretend death doesn't exist, that's a complete evening, now let's drive over to see a boring movie! Bleeeeeh, I'm a driving jellyfish!!!"

― Ann Sterzinger (Ann Sterzinger), Thursday, 6 November 2003 01:28 (twenty-one years ago)

"ban"

― ron (ron), Thursday, 6 November 2003 02:17 (twenty-one years ago)

The surface material of the bra and shorts are coated with liquefied titanium oxide, a substance which could break down unpleasant smoke smells And if that fails, a pad attached to the Triumph bra could be used as a face mask in smoky bars.

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 6 November 2003 03:12 (twenty-one years ago)

what are men supposed to do? are they going to make anti-smoking rocket jocks?

― the surface noise (electricsound), Thursday, 6 November 2003 03:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Anti-smoking panties????????

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 6 November 2003 03:14 (twenty-one years ago)

"do you smoke after sex?"

― the surface noise (electricsound), Thursday, 6 November 2003 03:16 (twenty-one years ago)

give me a break ann, have you ever been to the rainbow, simon's, etc.? the smoke gets awfully thick in there on fridays or saturdays and often other days as well.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 6 November 2003 08:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Sterzinger -- but you must work nr J Rosenbaum! Consolation!

― Enrique (Enrique), Thursday, 6 November 2003 09:59 (twenty-one years ago)

It's really annoying when restaurants don't cater for smokers. You should be allowed to do anything you like, e.g. light joss sticks and bang a tambourine. I once had a waiter complain about me having a wank over my own tagliatelle.

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Thursday, 6 November 2003 10:31 (twenty-one years ago)

if anyone hassles you for banging a tambourine they deserve to be beaten within an inch of their lives

― the surface noise (electricsound), Thursday, 6 November 2003 11:28 (twenty-one years ago)

seven months pass...

Bosko Balaban Stats For Season

Name Bosko Balaban
Team Aston Villa
Total Appearances 0
Starts 0
Substituted 0
Total Minutes Played 0
Avg Minutes Played Per Start 0
Goals 0
Avg Goal Mins When Starting 0.0
Avg Mins Played/Goal Scored 0
Goals Scored As Sub 0
Number of Bookings 0
Total Booking Minutes 0
Avg Bookings Per Start 0
Number of Red Cards 0
Total Red Card Minutes 0
Avg Red Cards Per Start 0

― bosko, Monday, 14 June 2004 03:15 (twenty-one years ago)

eight years pass...

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2013/05/30/report-starbucks-to-ban-smoking.html

― iatee, Thursday, 30 May 2013 19:08 (twelve years ago)

9 years ago, but...

Secondhand smoke never gets that thick in modern bars...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

― New Authentic Everybootsy Collins (Dan Peterson), Thursday, 30 May 2013 19:42 (twelve years ago)

Secondhand smoke untested in "gastropubs" iirc

― A deeper shade of lol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 30 May 2013 19:46 (twelve years ago)

continue to love the smoking ban, thx bloombito

― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Thursday, 30 May 2013 19:51 (twelve years ago)

Is there a major US city left where you can still smoke inside of a business?

― they are either militarists (ugh) or kangaroos (?) (DJP), Thursday, 30 May 2013 19:52 (twelve years ago)

smoking bans are the best. I remember going to see Prefuse 73/Four Tet/Manitoba in a bar pre-smoking ban and I literally had to go outside every 20 minutes or so just to get a breath of fresh air/wipe the tears out of my eyes it was so lung-cloggingly awful. totally caught me off-guard

― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 30 May 2013 19:53 (twelve years ago)

ha i thought this revive was gonna be about the "smokeshow" controversy

― goole, Thursday, 30 May 2013 19:55 (twelve years ago)

playing shows pre-ban was the worst - so many hours breathing in the muck. I can only imagine what it must have been like for people worked in those places every night.

― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Thursday, 30 May 2013 19:56 (twelve years ago)

^^^ Playing shows seconded. Last time time I was in New Orleans one of the smoky clubs was so awful I gave up and left. It's been a long time since I've had to try to deal with that.

― New Authentic Everybootsy Collins (Dan Peterson), Thursday, 30 May 2013 20:21 (twelve years ago)

I actually like going out for a smoke.

― A deeper shade of lol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 30 May 2013 20:26 (twelve years ago)

I just wish they'd leave us the outside. I've noticed a slight trend of patios and outdoor spaces putting up no smoking signs, which, you people have the whole inside of the bar, rain or shine! This is all we've got, have a heart.

― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Thursday, 30 May 2013 20:28 (twelve years ago)

ehh you have every manhattan sisdewalk

― iatee, Thursday, 30 May 2013 20:30 (twelve years ago)

Let me know when you can have a margarita brought to your Manhattan sidewalk and drink it openly, and I'll allow the point.

― lets just remember to blame the patriarchy for (in orbit), Thursday, 30 May 2013 20:31 (twelve years ago)

no my point is that it should be banned from every manhattan sidewalk too

― iatee, Thursday, 30 May 2013 20:32 (twelve years ago)

There's a bar in town that still allows smoking and has horrible ventilation, and every time I go I have to change into clothes that I don't care about because they will reek of smoke for days afterwards (also: my hair)

― walk in the room they throwin Sade left to right (Stevie D(eux)), Thursday, 30 May 2013 20:32 (twelve years ago)

Is there a major US city left where you can still smoke inside of a business?

I haven't experienced it myself, but some friends were complaining about this in Philly recently.

― a monolithic testament to shiftlessness and lost productivity (dan m), Thursday, 30 May 2013 20:33 (twelve years ago)

lol iatee

― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 30 May 2013 20:34 (twelve years ago)

last time i was in milwaukee people were smoking in a coffeeshop and it blew my mind. that was probably four years ago though.

― congratulations (n/a), Thursday, 30 May 2013 20:35 (twelve years ago)

A smoking ban (either state or local) has been enacted covering all bars and restaurants in each of the 60 most populated cities in the United States except these 16: Arlington, Texas, Atlanta, Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Memphis, Miami, Las Vegas, Nashville, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Tampa, Tulsa, and Virginia Beach.

― sleepingsignal, Thursday, 30 May 2013 20:42 (twelve years ago)

what is taking philly so long

― iatee, Thursday, 30 May 2013 20:46 (twelve years ago)

to DIE

― goole, Thursday, 30 May 2013 20:46 (twelve years ago)

one thing I remember is that every diner/restaurant hostess in America said "smoking or non" in exactly the same pitch and tone

― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Thursday, 30 May 2013 20:49 (twelve years ago)

Smoking should be banned everywhere but inside private homes, for real.

― Huston we got chicken lol (Phil D.), Thursday, 30 May 2013 22:03 (twelve years ago)

totally

― iatee, Thursday, 30 May 2013 22:06 (twelve years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.