I, for one, welcome our non-smoking overlords

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

One more reason to welcome no-smoking bans in Chicago and the WORLD.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1604620,00.html

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:11 (nineteen years ago)

it's still fascism and you know it.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:20 (nineteen years ago)

Bah, and here was me hoping it would eliminate those weak-willed smokers from our gene pool. Ah well, will just have to wait until lung cancer kills them all.

― We might force K8 to change her name to Marie. (kate), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:21 (nineteen years ago)

smokers who resist the ban are not 'weak-willed'. they are folk heroes.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:23 (nineteen years ago)

I'm counting on the cirrhosis to kill me before the lung cancer...

― M. White (Miguelito), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:23 (nineteen years ago)

Take it outside, fag-boy.

x-post

― We might force K8 to change her name to Marie. (kate), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:23 (nineteen years ago)

words alone cannot express how much that article makes me cringe.

― Ste (Fuzzy), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:23 (nineteen years ago)

Not loading for me for some reason. Quick precis?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:25 (nineteen years ago)

The Irish are using cigarette breaks as an excuse to pull.

― We might force K8 to change her name to Marie. (kate), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:26 (nineteen years ago)

Smoking = Getting laid...apparently...

x post

― smee (smee), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:26 (nineteen years ago)

The one good thing I can say about being forced to go outside to smoke in a temperate climate like SF is that when you're at a bar and someone is boring the hell out of you, you can absent yourself quite handily by excusing yourself to go out and smoke. It's also handy for watching the pretty ladies promenade.

― M. White (Miguelito), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:26 (nineteen years ago)

i don't smoke, btw, but the ban is monstrous.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:28 (nineteen years ago)

It's San Francisco, M. It could be pretty anybody/anything promenading.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:28 (nineteen years ago)

Oh fuck that, I want my booze WITH my cigarette, not in hurried gulps in between -- and frankly it's the safest way to keep both hands busy.

― Laurel (Laurel), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:31 (nineteen years ago)

non-smokers in high-horse shocker.

― g-kit (g-kit), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:32 (nineteen years ago)

smokers in pettily defensive of their disgusting little habits shockah!

― We might force K8 to change her name to Marie. (kate), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:33 (nineteen years ago)

g-kit in pwned shockah

― g-kit (g-kit), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:34 (nineteen years ago)

I'm for a worldwide smoking ban, I think you lot should only be allowed to smoke in your own homes, and even then they must be completely sealed so as not to pollute the air around them...

― smee (smee), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:35 (nineteen years ago)

"now children will be able to binge-drink in a smoke free environment"

― g-kit (g-kit), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:35 (nineteen years ago)

As long as they don't projectile vomit near me I'm all for that too ;0)

― smee (smee), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:38 (nineteen years ago)

that was a good 'un

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:38 (nineteen years ago)

smokers who resist the ban are not 'weak-willed'. they are folk heroes.

Smolk heroes, as it were

― Oh No, It's Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:38 (nineteen years ago)

i'd roffle, but my lungs would collapse.

― g-kit (g-kit), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:40 (nineteen years ago)

Anyway, fuck banning smoking from pubs, do us all a favour and ban children from pubs

― Oh No, It's Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:41 (nineteen years ago)

Last night I once again appreciated having a drunken night out and not smelling TOO bad upon coming home. Let the ban stand!

― Jordan (Jordan), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:41 (nineteen years ago)

Oh God, what if I smell bad the next day? I might DIE of smelling bad!

― Oh No, It's Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:42 (nineteen years ago)

jordan otm, the fucking reek i get after a night in a smokey bar is shocking and makes me vom. also yeah kids can fuck off outside too.

― Ste (Fuzzy), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:44 (nineteen years ago)

On one hand, I know exactly what this article is talking about. It's why I always turn my nose up at people that say I can smoke in their house -- no, no, the best part of any party is going out to the porch or the fire escape and having a cigarette and conversing with whomever happens to be out there.

On the other hand, you can bring your beer out to the porch at parties, whereas you can't go outside with a drink at bars, and I agree with Laurel: I want to be doing both. (Although upon closer inspection, the article seems to mention a "courtyard," so maybe it's okay to drink out there? I remember a couple of places in San Francisco -- Zeitgeist, Bottom of the Hill -- having outdoor areas like this.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:45 (nineteen years ago)

I'm in favor of banning other people from pubs. Then I can smoke my head off, order drinks with no wait, avoid unnecesary conversation, and be home smelly and drunk in half the time.

jaymc, there's more than that - Lucky 13, Hemlock, Mad Dog, etc...

― M. White (Miguelito), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:46 (nineteen years ago)

"The days when smoking was cool are supposed to be long gone."

Lame!!!!!!!!

― Oh No, It's Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:49 (nineteen years ago)

why do non-smokers think smokers do it to look cool?

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:53 (nineteen years ago)

because they are non-smokers. ie smoking n00bs.

― g-kit (g-kit), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:54 (nineteen years ago)

no, no, the best part of any party is going out to the porch or the fire escape and having a cigarette and conversing with whomever happens to be out there.

this is so OTM. this past weekend i felt a little excluded because it was cold outside and i had no reason to be standing on the porch except that it seemed like people were having fun out there. it also made me want to smoke again. wanting to smoke again after quitting is hard to resist. this must be the death of fun.

― The Milkmaid (of Human Kindness) (The Milkmaid), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:54 (nineteen years ago)

HOW DOES ONE GET TO THE MAD DOG COURTYARD?

Michael, I may be there Sunday AM for Chelski/Man U.

― F.R.I.E.N.D. (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:54 (nineteen years ago)

why do non-smokers think smokers do it to look cool?

Because smoking looks cool

― Oh No, It's Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:55 (nineteen years ago)

Adam, let me know. I'll probably be there.

― M. White (Miguelito), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 16:05 (nineteen years ago)

You sweet drunks.

(Again be warned I shall be stalking the Bay Area soon.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 16:06 (nineteen years ago)

Amanda, you can still come out the porch! I like talking to non-smokers, too!

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 16:07 (nineteen years ago)

I want to go but I am broke as per usual, and frankly, I think $20 to see a game is a RACKET! And still I go. It will be a last-minute decision based on how much money I spent the night before, I think.

xp - "Sweet drunks!"

― F.R.I.E.N.D. (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 16:08 (nineteen years ago)

There's no need to stalk, Ned.

― M. White (Miguelito), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 16:08 (nineteen years ago)

I don't think he can help it.

― F.R.I.E.N.D. (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 16:08 (nineteen years ago)

It is my evil nature.

There is a rumor I shall be performing live on stage with a band on the 12th. More as this develops.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 16:09 (nineteen years ago)

Because smoking looks cool

As a non-smoker, unfortunatly OTM. Doesn't make EVERYONE look cool, but dammit if Humphrey Bogart doesn't look cool smoking.

― Come Back Johnny B (Johnney B), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 16:12 (nineteen years ago)

I remember being in San Francisco a few years ago and appreciateing how much more of a social activity smoking had become as a result of the ban. Someone says "wanna go for a fag" (although of course they don't say FAG because they're American), a general consensus sweeps round the bar and the place empties. A charming al fresco social environment is created and the non-smokers sit inside bitterly staring into their pints, talking to no-one, while breathing in their revolting clean air.

― uptoeleven (uptoeleven), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 16:28 (nineteen years ago)

Chicago: OTM. Hanging out on Smoker's Corner is always the best way to meet people at any party. And lovers!

― giboyeux (skowly), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 16:31 (nineteen years ago)

I loved how after the ban got rid of all the new smoke smell, all you could smell was old smoke and stale beer in the dives. It was vile.

― M. White (Miguelito), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 16:33 (nineteen years ago)

Yes yes fine, I like having reasons to social up to people, esp pashable ones, and smoking is just the trick, but only if I'm not standing outside the bar BEREFT OF GIMLET. House parties are probably the ideal scenario but not the norm here.

XP to MW: yeah, for a few months after the ban, O'Conners smelled like mildew and FEET.

― Laurel (Laurel), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 16:40 (nineteen years ago)

I have been to the Temple Bar in Dublin. I can't remember any other place I visited, but I remember that place.

― andy --, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:19 (nineteen years ago)

God, I should stop visiting these smoking threads cause it makes me miss it. :-(

― nathalie, a bum like you (stevie nixed), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 18:26 (nineteen years ago)

two months pass...

so, probably a total ban in pubs in england on the way then.

― emsk ( emsk), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 18:16 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 12 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

That's why I specified blanket bans--I think places that show shows should enforce smoking bans (I mean you can't even assume people going to a show are going to drink for god's sake, esp since many have all ages shows or 18-and-overs).

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 19:08 (nineteen years ago)

And yeah, in Austin or, say, Alexandria VA or Phoenix the noise/loitering issue won't be a very large problem as the bars are generally separate from the living sections. But in places like NYC or Chicago or DC this strikes me as a huge issue.

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 19:09 (nineteen years ago)

I predict less than 10% compliance in St-Henri and the Point.

This will rise by 90% after the first time they kill someone's license.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 13 January 2006 00:45 (nineteen years ago)

I'm with Ally, and I used that argt on LJ ages ago and got ABSOLUTELY VICIOUSLY SCREAMED AT (well, in text) by a lot of so called friends of mine.

I respect non smokers completely, even to the point of not smoking in my own home if they want that - but anyone who is, like Kate (I'm sorry Kate) totally "you filthy shitty horrible cunts just die already" about smoking only does one thing: make me want to walk right up and blow smoke in their face. And I want to give up smoking! But not when people sneer and abuse and mock like that.

Curious abt the bans: here in Melb, they banned smoking in places that serve food a long long time ago, and thats great (hate smoke around food, and Im a smoker). However some places still get around it with "no smoking between 11 and 3" rules even though they still serve food/snacks outside those hours. And here too they have beergardens/courtyards attached to pubs so you can sit outside and smoke and drink, so theres less of that people all over the pavement thing.

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 13 January 2006 01:00 (nineteen years ago)

(also, if theres an option to sit and smoke outside and its nice weather I'll try and do that over indoors if I can)

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 13 January 2006 01:01 (nineteen years ago)

Dec 8th, 2005 was the day the smoke died in Washington state (in pretty much any retail area except tribal casinos)... even tougher than California laws.

― Dom iNut (donut), Friday, 13 January 2006 01:04 (nineteen years ago)

They want to do this in Little Rock for some reason, even though seemingly 25% of the area restaurants are voluntarily smoke-free already. Why should the government force a rule that capitalism is already imposing on itself?

They should ban coal from coal mines as well as traveling more than 100 yards underneath the earth's surface. I'm just thinking about those single mothers who have to work down there.

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Friday, 13 January 2006 01:08 (nineteen years ago)

I've stopped smoking at work and also minimal tabs in the evenings this week. That said I've been getting v stoned in the evenings lately. The plan is to decrease it next week.

― Wogan Lenin (dog latin), Friday, 13 January 2006 12:23 (nineteen years ago)

I kind of like how the crowd outside gives you an idea of what the crowd inside is like. They're like a representative sample of the clientele stuck out on the path so you can window-shop pubs in a new area. Very helpful.
Of course what's not helpful is trying to walk through or past crowds of drunk assholes who are blowing smoke all over you and trying to get in your way. As someone who doesn't go to pubs a lot these days, mainly to avoid this kind of behaviour, I, like Ally, object to having to put up with it on the street.

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Friday, 13 January 2006 12:46 (nineteen years ago)

Trayce OTM. It amazes me how many people feel they have the license to be cunts to other people for putting a cigarette between their lips. Not the best habit to be sure, but also their decision and none of your business. Also, putting people down may make you feel superior, but it's unlikely to affect positive behaviorial change. It's just going to make them hate you and want to blow smoke in your face. These holier-than-thou whiners are often the same people who get very defensive about politicians/legislators trying to make very personal decisions for them. Which I find very funny.

― Laura H. (laurah), Friday, 13 January 2006 13:47 (nineteen years ago)

Anti semite.

― The Velvet Overlord (The Velvet Overlord), Friday, 13 January 2006 14:55 (nineteen years ago)

huh?

― Laura H. (laurah), Friday, 13 January 2006 15:08 (nineteen years ago)

"Not the best habit to be sure, but also their decision and none of your business."

Being rude to somebody cos they're smoking is one thing, politely asking them not to smoke is another. Like it or not, it IS the non-smokers business when they have to passively smoke.
People seem to act as if smoking is some inalienable right, likening the ban to illiberal anti-terrorism laws. It's preposterous.

― stew!, Friday, 13 January 2006 15:14 (nineteen years ago)

ha ha just love how the tide is turning all over the world and all the smokers are being revealed as bitter cunts as a result. here's a solution for y'all: coat your thumbs in nicotine and ash and suck away 24 hours!!

― 49, Friday, 13 January 2006 15:15 (nineteen years ago)

A free vote in the UK on a total ban. Bastards bastards bastards bastards bastards. Thanks for ruining everything, you cunts.

xpost.

FUCK OFF AND DIE

― Flower King of Flies (noodle vague), Friday, 13 January 2006 15:16 (nineteen years ago)

hahaha

― 49, Friday, 13 January 2006 15:19 (nineteen years ago)

People seem to act as if smoking is some inalienable right, likening the ban to illiberal anti-terrorism laws. It's preposterous.

so otm - is there any other context where people would be allowed to start a tiny fire and burn noxious chemicals inside a business??!? how the fuck is this a "right" just because youre an addict?!!?

― $!@$!!, Friday, 13 January 2006 15:19 (nineteen years ago)

"Not the best habit to be sure, but also their decision and none of your business."
Being rude to somebody cos they're smoking is one thing, politely asking them not to smoke is another. Like it or not, it IS the non-smokers business when they have to passively smoke.
People seem to act as if smoking is some inalienable right, likening the ban to illiberal anti-terrorism laws. It's preposterous.

-- stew! (cleanai...)

I'm not necessarily talking about people who don't like being exposed to smoke in public. The people I'm talking about are those who are high horse assholes about smoking regardless of where it goes on. See the post that follows yours for reference:

-- 49 (6...)

― Laura H. (laurah), Friday, 13 January 2006 15:23 (nineteen years ago)

yeah being a dick about smoking bans is pretty weak but its not your "right" to do it in a public place - i love blowjobs much as some of yall love nicotine but i dont expect restaurants to let me walk around with my dick out

― $!$@!$!, Friday, 13 January 2006 15:26 (nineteen years ago)

basically everybody should stop being assholes

― $!$@!$!, Friday, 13 January 2006 15:27 (nineteen years ago)

Do you want to lead by example?

― aldo_cowpat (aldo_cowpat), Friday, 13 January 2006 15:28 (nineteen years ago)

Pleasnat Plains OTM. Why in god's name is this not left to the bar/ restaurant owner's discretion. It can be plainly advertised on the front door for anyone who may potentially eat or drink or work there. I say this as non-smoker who loathes second-hand smoke.

― will(iam), Friday, 13 January 2006 15:29 (nineteen years ago)

but wouldn't that be discriminating against a non-smoking worker? It's like saying the bar owner has the right to put up asbestos and the customers/workers take it or leave it.

― Miss Misery xox (MissMiseryTX), Friday, 13 January 2006 15:33 (nineteen years ago)

I agree with the ban. I don't think the street is a good place as it's unfair for passers by and it can get quite noisy for people in the area. Unfortunately I quit partly because of the ban (drink over fags, a real Sophies choice moment) little realising that all the thin hot birds smoke [Copyright Ross O'Carroll-Kenny]. There I am inside stuck inside as friends as smirting their way to love. Sigh. Still, it means their drinks are left unprotected so everybidy wins!

― Kv_nol (Kv_nol), Friday, 13 January 2006 15:35 (nineteen years ago)

No one is talking about restaurants on this thread, ethan. And I went ahead and even specified that bars that have shows should have smoking bans as well, so that one is out of the way. We are talking pretty specifically about bars which have one purpose, which is drinking and hanging out. I am really not sure why those businesses (who, by and large, have come out against smoking bans) don't have a right to choose for themselves what kind of legal substances are allowed to be ingested in their establishment. The blowjob analysis is terrible because you can get fined for getting a blowjob in your own personal car if the officer is being a dick that night, but you won't get fined for smoking in your own personal car.

xpost re: the workers, what I just said is true, or at least it is true in the several cities I've studied this in: the workers and establishments have majority come out against the bans. I kind of feel like this "worker's health" thing is a red herring; I mean if they're saying they're A-OK with it how is it discriminating against them? And again I'm for banning it in restaurants and venues that have shows, just not actual proper bar-bars.

Not only that but there are several of these "worker's health" groups who have now come out trying to ban people from smoking in their own homes so while it's a sympathetic argument I think a lot of the groups really pushing for this are kind of using the workers.

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Friday, 13 January 2006 15:38 (nineteen years ago)

"I'm talking about are those who are high horse assholes about smoking regardless of where it goes on."

There are always going to be people who are high horse assholes about all sorts of stuff. This reminds me of that excruciating episode of Friends where they go all tough love on Chandler for smoking. Self-righteous and annoying maybe, but it's hardly persecution.

― stew!, Friday, 13 January 2006 15:46 (nineteen years ago)

I've been living in two places while they swapped over to total smoking bans (California and Toronto), and even the curmudgeonly diehards (which is exactly what I'd be if I still smoked) rolled over and got used to it within a matter of weeks. Incidentally (and this point only counts if you're cheap and broke like me), smelling of smoke particularly sucks if you don't own a washing machine -- too many launderette trips.

― Chuck_Tatum (Chuck_Tatum), Friday, 13 January 2006 15:49 (nineteen years ago)

The blowjob analysis is terrible

my condolences

― $!@$!$!, Friday, 13 January 2006 15:50 (nineteen years ago)

Of course people get used to it! What do you expect, mass protests? It's really not that important an issue. No one is debating people will just go ahead and follow the law and go outside to smoke.

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Friday, 13 January 2006 15:51 (nineteen years ago)

xpost don't you have some pointless "who is more of a self-stereotype?" arguing to be doing with gabbneb?

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Friday, 13 January 2006 15:54 (nineteen years ago)

The restriction on private businesses is the hugely frustrating part. I keep coming back to the idea that if no-smoking bars and pubs are in such high demand, anybody is free to open such an establishment. Presumably they'll make a fortune from all these vehement anti-smokers who're desperate for somewhere to drink. Why can't an employer tell any potential employee that their place of work will allow smoking? They'd be free not to take the job. If employee safety was the real concern then the government ought to be tackling building and agriculture, which I believe are the seriously dangerous work areas in the UK.

― Flower King of Flies (noodle vague), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:11 (nineteen years ago)

Why can't an employer tell any potential employee that their place of work will allow smoking? They'd be free not to take the job.

When I've worked at a pub/bar, it's usually 'cause I'm desperate for a job, so refusal isn't really an option.

― Chuck_Tatum (Chuck_Tatum), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:39 (nineteen years ago)

"I'm talking about are those who are high horse assholes about smoking regardless of where it goes on."
There are always going to be people who are high horse assholes about all sorts of stuff. This reminds me of that excruciating episode of Friends where they go all tough love on Chandler for smoking. Self-righteous and annoying maybe, but it's hardly persecution.

-- stew! (breath...) (webmail),

I said that they were assholes, that they were ineffective in producing behavioral change, and that they were often hypocritical. I never said it was persecution.

― Laura H. tracks monkeys with lasers (laurah), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:40 (nineteen years ago)

so you'll tolerate a society with built-in unemployment as a structural device designed to keep down wages, but not smoking in pubs?

xpost

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:41 (nineteen years ago)

That sounds like an accurate summary of a lot of people's logic, Henry, yep.

― Flower King of Flies (noodle vague), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:43 (nineteen years ago)

Uh, I'd say it's Henry's logic that seems a little flawed here. How does badly needing a job = tolerating a society with built-in unemploymen?

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:15 (nineteen years ago)

god, chuck OTM about the laundry. travelling becomes a nightmare because you can never re-wear anything, and your jackets smell like ass!

the article up top made me wistful (quit for one month, save a 5-hour lapse last weekend) until i remembered smoking's anti-libidinous effects.

― yuengling participle (rotten03), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:18 (nineteen years ago)

How does badly needing a job = tolerating a society with built-in unemploymen?

it doesn't

― adamrl (nordicskilla), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:19 (nineteen years ago)

When I've worked at a [pub/bar/coalmine/meatpacking plant/contruction site/corporate farming operation/textile mill/on and on and on], it's usually 'cause I'm desperate for a job, so refusal isn't really an option.

― TOMBOT, Friday, 13 January 2006 17:23 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah the laundry thing is probably my #2 reason for supporting the ban, in spite of feeling slightly bad about making my friends step outside. Number one just being that I often feel like my lungs have been scraped with a brillo pad when I come out of a bar, and even if I "just didn't go to bars" I'd still have to be in them when I played shows.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:24 (nineteen years ago)

xpost Other dangerous jobs often offer pay comensurate to the danger and have some kind of worker redress system for health problems and injuries.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:25 (nineteen years ago)

The restriction on private businesses is the hugely frustrating part.

Are we opposing "restrictions on private businesses" as a general principle here, or just vis a vis smoking?

― phil d. (Phil D.), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:26 (nineteen years ago)

worker safety is such a fucking red herring on this one and I'm kind of appalled that the people on this board and out in the world who presumably know of the kinds of industrial accidents that happen on properties owned by businesses with much more powerful lobbying arms than bars are using that as their stupid front for this asinine legislation

Bartenders make a lot more than anybody who works in a meatpacking plant in this country, dipshit.

hands up who wants to bet a lot of the anti-smoking tobacco hataz think that mary jane should be legalized?

― TOMBOT, Friday, 13 January 2006 17:28 (nineteen years ago)

I don't know if I'm an "anti-smoking tobacco hata" but . . . well, scratch that, I am, I detest it, I grew up around it, and I'll go out of my way to avoid it, which means I rarely go to bars/clubs unless my band is playing or it's a very special occasion. That said, I think MJ should be legalized. I also think it should be subject to whatever restrictions are placed on tobacco.

― phil d. (Phil D.), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:38 (nineteen years ago)

I think the same as Phil. I think both should be legal but not in public places.

― Miss Misery xox (MissMiseryTX), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:39 (nineteen years ago)

I predict less than 10% compliance in St-Henri and the Point.
This will rise by 90% after the first time they kill someone's license.

-- Andrew Farrell (afarrel...), January 12th, 2006.

True enough - I predict this will be among the last parts of city to have this happen!
Hope the city has plans for dealing with the inevitable mountains of cigarette butts on the sidewalk. Gross.

xpost I was actually thinking that an ill-effect of the ban will be increased difficulty for smoking stealth joints at shows.

― superultramega (superultramarinated), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:40 (nineteen years ago)

"worker safety is such a fucking red herring"

Say what? Never heard of passive smoking? Roy Castle? Jeez.

An optional ban wouldn't work. The majority of bars would choose to remain smoking dens for fear of losing customers. The only reason some bars have brought about smoking bans is cos the ban is on its way. Smart business move.

The persecution comment wasn't aimed at you personally Lauren - just being general.

― stew!, Friday, 13 January 2006 17:53 (nineteen years ago)

Tombot, I don't really think "There are worse things in the world" is a very strong argument.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Saturday, 14 January 2006 07:17 (nineteen years ago)

Anyway, I think the ideal situation would be to allow for some kind of "smoking bars" that would have to get a special license, and in order to get this license they'd have to have super high-tech ventilation systems that minimize the health risk, stench, etc.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Saturday, 14 January 2006 07:19 (nineteen years ago)

Abbadavid: Sounds iffy to me, just because it would mean the bars with the most money already will be the ones able to become smoking bars, and then pretty much put everybody else out of business.

FWIW generally: here in Athens GA we've had a ban in some form or another for well over a year now, although it's only since last Summer that it's been a complete and total all-hours ban. Mind you, the enforcement arm on this is pretty underthought, so there's still plenty of pseudo-covert smoking going on. In the more good-ole-boy bars they don't even try to hide it; the pretentious Euro-Williamsburg bar has installed a smoke machine to camouflage anything. Anyway, there are plenty of smoking patios/front stoops, etc, so in general if I go out and really cruise the town I do end up with some amount of smoke on my clothes etc.

BUT...I can now go out and DANCE, cycling massive amounts of air through my lungs, and NOT spend the following two days battling off the beginnings of a sinus infection and contemplating various unlikely natural remedies for not being able to fucking breathe. As nostalgic as I am for my youth of two years ago, I emphatically do not miss the marriage of a rock and roll lifestyle to weekly asthma cases.

― Doctor Casino, Saturday, 14 January 2006 07:40 (nineteen years ago)

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