Second Hand Smoke

[the_std]

Look, smokers are people too and if a business can be lucrative catering to them, I don't see why they shouldn't have the option of doing so. There would obviously have to be safe-guards put in to keep it from becoming active in EVERY bar and restaurant, but if there's money to be made and people can choose to go to that bar or choose to go somewhere smoke-free, that's the capitalist system at work.

Saying that smokers should just "suck it up" is a pretty offensive attitude, and this is coming from someone who is an avid non-smoker. Yes, when they started smoking they made the choice to deal with the consequences of their actions, but treating them as second-class citizens because of it is not the answer. Giving people the choice is how it should be.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

If only 5 percent of bar patrons are non smokers (and I'd like to see those statistics somewhere), it's because most non-smokers can't go out to a bar. It sucks for them. So they don't go.

Guess what happens when the anti smoking laws are passed? The non-smokers can suddenly come out and have a good time in a bar. So they do.

My town has a river running through it. My side of the river has no anti smoking laws. The other side does, being a different county. Guess what me and all my friends do now? We drive across the bridge to spend our money. The smokers are still coming out, they're just standing on the sidewalk like lepers now. But now the non-smokers are coming out, too. So the percentage of customers who don't smoke skyrockets.

Wow, what a concept: making it so everyone can enjoy a night out.

Yes, there are considerate smokers out there. But they are rare enough that common courtesy has had to be legislated. And if there had been more of them, I probably wouldn't find it as funny as I do to see a bunch of smokers getting rained on.

Yes, "suck it up" is a pretty offensive attititude. And it's been aimed at me my whole life by smokers. I hope they like the taste of that sweet, sweet karma.

[the_std]

I agree that something had to be done, I really do. I'm not saying that what is happening to smokers is cruel or anything like that. But completely ruling out every option they have? I don't know if that's such a good idea. It just seems... Well... Mean, to me. Take them out of the general populous, yes. Keep them away from almost everyone, yes. But if they want to have specialty smokers bars, why shouldn't they be allowed to, as long as it's kept in check and not allowed to run rampant all over the majority of entertainment venues again?

[Peppergirl]

Wait. So because the laws were one sided for years against NON smokers, now smokers should 'suck it' because the laws are unfairly biased the other way? Because two wrongs make a right, correct?

Again, I've gone on record as saying that as far as restaurants and other public arenas, smoknig should absolutely be banned. The concept of a 'smoking section' in restaurants was always ludicrous. Interesting how I'm able to step back and view things from the other perspective, and understand the reason why much of the legislation was put into place.

But to say that there should be NO place for a smoker to enjoy themselves is just painting yourselves with the same unfair brush that had the laws AGAINST you for years.

Oh, and as far as the statics, yeah - I'll see if I can get some 'proof' on that for you. What can I say, I live in an area where certain neighborhoods had some dive bars where 90-95 percent of the clientele smoked. And yes, some of these bars are/were along areas of the Ohio river where its patrons can literally walk across a bridge to another state and smoke, and has driven many of said bars out of business.

Look, I'm not asking for much. I just don't think it's unreasonable to have a place or two (compared to non smokers hundreds of places) where we aren't considered lepers (great word!) for our habits.

Because yeah, if there were a license to be had for smoking in establishments, therefore giving people a choice, they "ALL" would apply, and the poor, put-upon non smokers would be back to square one.

Please. Sure, most small 'dive' bars in town would apply for a license, but there would still be plenty of places that didn't...therefore making it fair to everyone.

Yep, most smokers are evil, nasty, inconsiderate assholes who deserved to have their lives legislated. Generalizations are an ugly, ugly thing.

I'm certainly not going to 'cross-contaiminate' threads (specifically the 'fathers rights' one) by getting into alot of detail, but the hypocrisy is alarming. And ironic.

[Seshat]

Here's a suggestion: Do the licences thing, but have a limit on the percentage of places in a region which can be smoking-licenced.

That way, the businesses who want a smoking licence can apply, and the first however-many who do get it.

For the initial batch of such licences, make it random. You have until $DATE to apply, and everyone who applies before that date gets their application put in a pool. The available licences are randomly assigned to businesses in that pool.

After that, it's in order of application. And when their number comes up, a business can accept it, or say 'oh, actually I now have a great set of non-smoking regulars. Thanks but no thanks.'

[AdminAssistant]

Exactly, RK. What's happened in KC is that a lot of places set up special 'smoking' areas outside with an awning and heaters in the winter. And a lot of bars there have outdoor patio areas you can have your drinks at.

It's made it soooo much more enjoyable for me to go out. I don't feel like I have to shower as soon as I get home. I don't have to spray my coat down with 3-4 layers of Febreeze. I don't have to wash my sheets and pillowcases the next morning because the smoke residue rubbed off my body onto them. I don't have to worry about some drunk guy getting his ash all over my nice clothes.

I really don't know how I'd feel about smoking permits. I'd be worried my favorite bars (because local dives are the best!) would all apply and then I wouldn't be able to go there anymore. I've not heard of any place, in KC or here, that has closed because of smoking laws. The smokers are just dealing with it and more non-smokers are coming out.

[Peppergirl]

Exactly, RK. What's happened in KC is that a lot of places set up special 'smoking' areas outside with an awning and heaters in the winter. And a lot of bars there have outdoor patio areas you can have your drinks at.

Now, I'll give you that one. Alot of the nicer bars around here have done the patio with heaters/mini-ac unit thing. I actually enjoy those places, because everyone in those areas are generally smokers, and we can all 'suck it' together. Kidding aside, I mainly miss my 'dive' bars, where we have to hang out in the alley - because like you said. The dive bars are the best!

Two of my old stomping grounds closed in my city, and one of the owners was on record as blaming the smoking ban, because they were right on the river. Sure, coulda been an excuse, but both were 'dive' bars, and most patrons were hard-core smokers.

[linguist]

Wait. So because the laws were one sided for years against NON smokers, now smokers should 'suck it' because the laws are unfairly biased the other way? Because two wrongs make a right, correct?

But to say that there should be NO place for a smoker to enjoy themselves is just painting yourselves with the same unfair brush that had the laws AGAINST you for years.

.

in this case, two "wrongs" (though i don't see it that way) do make a public health right. nobody is saying smokers can't go out and enjoy themselves, they just can't smoke in the bars. and if it's necessary to smoke to enjoy yourself, you've got a whole other set of problems.

when the smoking ban was first passed in my city, smokers everywhere were crying about the threat to businesses. guess what? not a single bar has closed that wasn't in danger before the ban. and revenues have gone up at the others, as now the nonsmokers who refused to go out to the bars are able to without having to worry about not being able to breathe or smelling like smoke.

[Peppergirl]

when the smoking ban was first passed in my city, smokers everywhere were crying about the threat to businesses. guess what? not a single bar has closed that wasn't in danger before the ban. and revenues have gone up at the others, as now the nonsmokers who refused to go out to the bars are able to without having to worry about not being able to breathe or smelling like smoke.

Again, I live in a border city where the surrounding states don't have smoking bans. So it's a little different.

I'll concede that I might be in the minority or wrong on some of these things. I'm willing to see both sides. I'm willing to have a hearty debate about it.

I just really, REALLY hate the nasty generalizations that are being thrown around here that we're all (or the vast majority of us) are inconsiderate assholes. And terms like 'smokers can suck it', because of the behavior of SOME smokers.

[Greenday]

For the record, I was drunk last night while posting. But I still agree with the majority of what I've said. I don't see a wrong in making smokers not smoke inside a bar or restaurant. I don't see a wrong in not letting smokers smoke at entrances to buildings. If all the bars don't allow people to smoke inside them, then the smokers will still go to the bars anyway. The only reason the supposed number of 95% of bar patrons are smokers is because non-smokers don't feel like choking themselves to death on the fumes.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Wait. So because the laws were one sided for years against NON smokers, now smokers should 'suck it' because the laws are unfairly biased the other way? .

Cool. That works.

1. Seriously, what's unfair bout it?

2. I'm all for smokers having their own place to hang out and smoke. What did I say to lead you to believe otherwise?

[Greenday]

RK, I'm pretty she's referring to me saying smokers should suck it.

[Peppergirl]

Actually, both of you. For generalizing that we all (or the vast majority of us) suck.

It's all good. I love a lively debate.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Yes, there are considerate smokers out there. But they are rare enough that common courtesy has had to be legislated. And if there had been more of them, I probably wouldn't find it as funny as I do to see a bunch of smokers getting rained on.

.

Well, here we have it. I did not say "all". Admitedly, I did say "most". I am many others have observed, hence the new anti-smoking laws.

Peppergirl, I'm not talking about you or other considerate folks. Maybe we have more brain dead troglodytes down here than most places. It is, after all, South Carolina. Tobacco is king. A lot of people down here smoke and don't seem to notice or care what is going on around them.

Greenday, you may have said it, but I was thinking it so loud I am sure it leaked into your mind.

[Peppergirl]

Well, here we have it. I did not say "all". Admitedly, I did say "most". I am many others have observed, hence the new anti-smoking laws.

Which is why I qualified my statement by saying all (or the vast majority) of us.