Monday
Jan032011
Smoking - Either Ban It or Not
Monday, January 3, 2011 at 14:43
I'm a non-smoker. I also believe in smoker's rights. For a better part of the past 15-20 years (longer really) there has been a concerted effort to slowly take away those rights of smokers. Each year there is another city or town that bans smoking. Or mostly bans it. Other places allow it or at least require a "smoking section" so all the smokers can be segregated to the back of the bus restaurant. This can be a touchy subject. Spark debates among smokers and non-smokers alike.
I've worked in an industry for over 15 years that mostly allows smoking. Some of those places only allowed it at the bar. Some were a smoke-free environment even when the city would allow it. I can say that as an employee it's normally a much better experience to work when I don't have to deal with it. As a patron of a bar or nightclub, it's nice to not come home smelling of smoke. Though these places can still have a scent of "bar/nightclub" anyway, just not cigarette smoke. So I've enjoyed the benefits of living somewhere that doesn't allow smoking in my workplace or places I like to go.
BUT. It's a legal activity. We as a society have tried to make accommodations so that those who enjoy smoking can still enjoy it while socializing. How many people do you know that would never actually buy a pack of cigarettes, but are more than happy to bum one because they "only smoke when I'm drinking?"
To me, if there is a part of a restaurant that allows smoking and they do everything they can to prevent the smoke from going to the rest of the place, I'm cool with that. As a non-smoker, if I want to sit in the non-smoking section and have to wait, then so be it. However, being the person that I am, I've sat in the smoking section plenty of times. Why? Because there was a wait in the non-smoking section. You know what else? I was perfectly happy there. Even though I had other tables around me smoking.
Maybe it's because I grew up in a smoking household. There were plenty of times I would walk out of my room into the living room and see smoke like cirrus clouds floating. I actually have fond memories of that. Did I also mention that I have asthma? As a kid I took a pill every night before bed to prevent an attack when I slept. Eventually I stopped taking it. The older I got, the less issues I had with my lungs. Yes, that's right, less issues, yet there was smoking going on in my house.
On the flip side, at work I've had to "put up" with smoke. I have to manage the area and talk with my guests. I sometimes have to position myself to avoid the smoke as it goes directly from the cigarette in the ashtray to my face, but that's an easy fix. Do I necessarily enjoy that? No. But it's part of the job.
When I'm out, I like to sit at the bar to eat. Normally I'm by myself. I take up one chair at the bar rather than a table with 4 chairs (2-top tables are not that common). I also get better service from the bartender since I can always get the bartender's attention immediately rather than wait for my server to come by. The downside? Smoke. Again, not everywhere is smoking, but where it is, I seem to be the smoke magnet rather than the chick magnet. I can sit between two smokers and their cigarettes are in separate ashtrays. The smoke from each cigarette will invariably come to me. Not go in the same direction as whatever the prevailing airflow in the place is. I know it's strange. Again, not a fan of this. However, I'm at a bar and normally all I have to do is ask the person to move the ashtray.
Now I'm sure you've noticed that I never mention smokers blowing their smoke in my face. This is because as much as the public seems to demonize them, they are a respectful group when it comes to their smoke. Many smokers are conscious of their smoke. Especially when they exhale. They will usually blow up or in a direction where there isn't anyone. When they hold their cigarette, they try to hold it in such a way as to not have the smoke go in someone's face. And they do this without waiting for someone to ask or fan the smoke away. Most of the time.
So now we seem to be at some kind of contradiction. And you are right. I hate that local, state, and federal laws are in place or proposed to ban smoking. I mean, I get it. Many more people don't smoke than do now. And in a smoke free environment you can smell it almost immediately from tens of feet and farther away. It's not healthy. Causes cancer and other ailments. There are a lot of negative aspects to it. And I wouldn't want my kids (if I ever have any) to do it. But it's a freedom of choice that has been getting eroded away for a long time. If an establishment or company wants to ban in, cool. But government stepping in, well, it's too late really now.
However, government doesn't seem content on banning it just in your local bar or restaurant (forget that public buildings were done well before now). Now "they" want to ban it in your home. It's easiest in apartments and condos. You see, your neighbor who shares a common wall might smell it. I've lived in apartments/condos for the better part of 20+ years. I can't say I remember ever smelling cigarette smoke (or any other) in my apartment coming from another one. I've smelled it in a hallway, but not my apartment.
But wait, there's more. "They" also want to ban it in your house. That's right. Your house that doesn't share a common wall with anyone. I'd venture to say that there's a few feet separating your house from your neighbors. Along with thicker walls and insulation as compared to the shared wall in an apartment. Really? What frustrates me is just ban it outright if you're going to do this. Either outlaw it completely, or let it be something that the workplace or establishment controls.
Or is the government afraid to just outlaw it? We saw how successful Prohibition was. Not that it's easy to hide smoking compared to drinking alcohol. Instead, let's regulate it and tax it. Don't get fooled into thinking that these "sin taxes" are meant to prevent people from smoking or drinking. It's to generate revenue. And at this point, the governments cannot afford to eliminate them. That doesn't mean there aren't people out there wanting to tighten the noose.
Now the FDA wants to ban Menthol cigarettes? Menthol Cigarettes and Your Liberty Up in Smoke. OK, so as a non-smoker I really don't get this one. I know menthol is popular with different groups of people. I'm guessing that the menthol makes it a smoother or easier smoke. Probably not unlike taking a cough drop. So maybe it's a gateway cigarette to get people hooked. But let's be honest. Banning menthol cigarettes isn't really going to do anything. People will still smoke. It's an addiction. They'll adapt.
Also, is there some other agenda here? Not against the tobacco industry, but something else? According to the Wikipedia article on menthol cigarettes they comprise somewhere between 27-34% of the smoking population depending on the study and the year. However, 80% of African-Americans smoke menthol cigarettes. I don't know if this is a consideration or not. But I can imagine that there are organizations that would like to reduce this number. I still contend that the vast majority of that group will switch to whatever is legal rather than quit.
But, still, ban menthol cigarettes? That's like banning Appletinis or Wine Coolers. Just because they are tasty or popular with young people or other groups doesn't mean you need to ban it. Maybe I'm just blind or wrong or both. What I see here is rights being infringed. Smoking is bad only because of the chemicals and smoke. What makes people smoke isn't what's directly killing them. And with these electronic nicotine nebulizers, I mean smokeless cigarettes, then just ban the cancer sticks and let the people stay addicted to the drug. Then tax and regulate that. Less health care costs and people dying which means more people alive to tax.
Then there's cigars, pipes, and hookahs......that's for another time.
I've worked in an industry for over 15 years that mostly allows smoking. Some of those places only allowed it at the bar. Some were a smoke-free environment even when the city would allow it. I can say that as an employee it's normally a much better experience to work when I don't have to deal with it. As a patron of a bar or nightclub, it's nice to not come home smelling of smoke. Though these places can still have a scent of "bar/nightclub" anyway, just not cigarette smoke. So I've enjoyed the benefits of living somewhere that doesn't allow smoking in my workplace or places I like to go.
BUT. It's a legal activity. We as a society have tried to make accommodations so that those who enjoy smoking can still enjoy it while socializing. How many people do you know that would never actually buy a pack of cigarettes, but are more than happy to bum one because they "only smoke when I'm drinking?"
To me, if there is a part of a restaurant that allows smoking and they do everything they can to prevent the smoke from going to the rest of the place, I'm cool with that. As a non-smoker, if I want to sit in the non-smoking section and have to wait, then so be it. However, being the person that I am, I've sat in the smoking section plenty of times. Why? Because there was a wait in the non-smoking section. You know what else? I was perfectly happy there. Even though I had other tables around me smoking.
Maybe it's because I grew up in a smoking household. There were plenty of times I would walk out of my room into the living room and see smoke like cirrus clouds floating. I actually have fond memories of that. Did I also mention that I have asthma? As a kid I took a pill every night before bed to prevent an attack when I slept. Eventually I stopped taking it. The older I got, the less issues I had with my lungs. Yes, that's right, less issues, yet there was smoking going on in my house.
On the flip side, at work I've had to "put up" with smoke. I have to manage the area and talk with my guests. I sometimes have to position myself to avoid the smoke as it goes directly from the cigarette in the ashtray to my face, but that's an easy fix. Do I necessarily enjoy that? No. But it's part of the job.
When I'm out, I like to sit at the bar to eat. Normally I'm by myself. I take up one chair at the bar rather than a table with 4 chairs (2-top tables are not that common). I also get better service from the bartender since I can always get the bartender's attention immediately rather than wait for my server to come by. The downside? Smoke. Again, not everywhere is smoking, but where it is, I seem to be the smoke magnet rather than the chick magnet. I can sit between two smokers and their cigarettes are in separate ashtrays. The smoke from each cigarette will invariably come to me. Not go in the same direction as whatever the prevailing airflow in the place is. I know it's strange. Again, not a fan of this. However, I'm at a bar and normally all I have to do is ask the person to move the ashtray.
Now I'm sure you've noticed that I never mention smokers blowing their smoke in my face. This is because as much as the public seems to demonize them, they are a respectful group when it comes to their smoke. Many smokers are conscious of their smoke. Especially when they exhale. They will usually blow up or in a direction where there isn't anyone. When they hold their cigarette, they try to hold it in such a way as to not have the smoke go in someone's face. And they do this without waiting for someone to ask or fan the smoke away. Most of the time.
So now we seem to be at some kind of contradiction. And you are right. I hate that local, state, and federal laws are in place or proposed to ban smoking. I mean, I get it. Many more people don't smoke than do now. And in a smoke free environment you can smell it almost immediately from tens of feet and farther away. It's not healthy. Causes cancer and other ailments. There are a lot of negative aspects to it. And I wouldn't want my kids (if I ever have any) to do it. But it's a freedom of choice that has been getting eroded away for a long time. If an establishment or company wants to ban in, cool. But government stepping in, well, it's too late really now.
However, government doesn't seem content on banning it just in your local bar or restaurant (forget that public buildings were done well before now). Now "they" want to ban it in your home. It's easiest in apartments and condos. You see, your neighbor who shares a common wall might smell it. I've lived in apartments/condos for the better part of 20+ years. I can't say I remember ever smelling cigarette smoke (or any other) in my apartment coming from another one. I've smelled it in a hallway, but not my apartment.
But wait, there's more. "They" also want to ban it in your house. That's right. Your house that doesn't share a common wall with anyone. I'd venture to say that there's a few feet separating your house from your neighbors. Along with thicker walls and insulation as compared to the shared wall in an apartment. Really? What frustrates me is just ban it outright if you're going to do this. Either outlaw it completely, or let it be something that the workplace or establishment controls.
Or is the government afraid to just outlaw it? We saw how successful Prohibition was. Not that it's easy to hide smoking compared to drinking alcohol. Instead, let's regulate it and tax it. Don't get fooled into thinking that these "sin taxes" are meant to prevent people from smoking or drinking. It's to generate revenue. And at this point, the governments cannot afford to eliminate them. That doesn't mean there aren't people out there wanting to tighten the noose.
Now the FDA wants to ban Menthol cigarettes? Menthol Cigarettes and Your Liberty Up in Smoke. OK, so as a non-smoker I really don't get this one. I know menthol is popular with different groups of people. I'm guessing that the menthol makes it a smoother or easier smoke. Probably not unlike taking a cough drop. So maybe it's a gateway cigarette to get people hooked. But let's be honest. Banning menthol cigarettes isn't really going to do anything. People will still smoke. It's an addiction. They'll adapt.
Also, is there some other agenda here? Not against the tobacco industry, but something else? According to the Wikipedia article on menthol cigarettes they comprise somewhere between 27-34% of the smoking population depending on the study and the year. However, 80% of African-Americans smoke menthol cigarettes. I don't know if this is a consideration or not. But I can imagine that there are organizations that would like to reduce this number. I still contend that the vast majority of that group will switch to whatever is legal rather than quit.
But, still, ban menthol cigarettes? That's like banning Appletinis or Wine Coolers. Just because they are tasty or popular with young people or other groups doesn't mean you need to ban it. Maybe I'm just blind or wrong or both. What I see here is rights being infringed. Smoking is bad only because of the chemicals and smoke. What makes people smoke isn't what's directly killing them. And with these electronic nicotine nebulizers, I mean smokeless cigarettes, then just ban the cancer sticks and let the people stay addicted to the drug. Then tax and regulate that. Less health care costs and people dying which means more people alive to tax.
Then there's cigars, pipes, and hookahs......that's for another time.
Reader Comments (4)
As a smoker, thank you for standing up for smokers rights!
Many smart senior people (un-named because their companies are involved in this snake-oil sale) have confirmed this for me, saying "sentiment analysis software? don't bother" glbzme glbzme - Tory Burch Shoes Outlet.
HHH Yes, the design of national policy is important, how our economic development plans for the next five years, how the implementation, how to make our economy even faster. Are designed to advance our focus to invest money in what ways it should be carefully arranged. fdzdjs fdzdjs - Belstaff Outlets.
" The net" Spain recently to Real Madrid in the next 6 months the ten transfer targets cheap soccer cleats were inventory, the 10 players in the world soccer world most is just emerging young star, such as the grid plan, Hazzard wear cristiano ronaldo cleats, and Florentino earlier formulation of the" little old player introduction, nike mercurial give the young a chance to" transfer targets extremely consistent; and nike ctr360 in 2011 with an unlimited scenery performance gunman king Van Persie wear nike total 90 also appears in the Real Madrid this extension list. Of course, Real Madrid and rumors about Neymar wear nike ctr360 maestri ii is still the Milky Way battleship in 2012 in a maximum prey.
Neymar wear nike tiempo ( Barry Santos ): Real Madrid now maybe for the genius of Brazil produced a little tired. In the past two weeks Neymar wear adidas adipure to Barcelona frequently are good, plus he had been Santos mark with extremely high adidas predator value, which are much less likely to join real madrid. But Neymar wear mizuno wave cup recently in the Brazil League and World Cup final against Barcelona 's performance, lionel messi soccer cleats the genius of Brazil present even joined the red and blue did not play regularly may. wayne rooney cleats If Barcelona had no intention of signing him, Real Madrid and Neymar wear nike tiempo legend iv is ushered in the opportunity to sign.
Van Persie wear nike mercurial vapor superfly iii ( Premier League Arsenal ): Robin man in the new season for the Gunners scored 20 goals and 6 assists, nike total 90 laser iv but also to know that this is the Dutch in the 24 game in the postings, he wear nike ctr360 maestri ii elite continued 2011 since first half of the year the hot state and the momentum of the goal. Van Persie wear adidas f50 adizero trx and Arsenal have 1 and a half years, if the Dutch refused, he would leave in the summer. adidas adipower predator trx Real Madrid, although more than once said to the commander 's favor, but to have Gonzalo Higuain wear adidas adipure iv sl and Benzema striker, introduced Van Persie to arrange the position and tactics is a problem. Soccer cleats But the Premier League Manchester City seems to be more suitable for Van Persie wear Nike Total 90 Laser IV future development.
Lampard ( Chelsea ): Mourinho on their member of this Nike Mercurial Superfly III old will still appreciate, as once led Chelsea and Barcelona against many times and Nike Tiempo Legend IV had a blitz of Barcelona brilliant history of the representative characters, Lampard absolutely has the Nike CTR360 Maestri II ability to find a space for one person in the Real Madrid squad. But the team president Adidas F50 Adizero TRX Florentino Perez some time ago for Mourinho to put forward " do not introduce too many veteran, Adidas Adipower Predator TRX to give young people the opportunity to " it is to restrict the transfer between the biggest Adidas Adipure IV SL obstacle.
Grid plan ( German Dortmund): as the 2011 European golden boy, Mizuno Supersonic Wave II only 19 years old, they have a star style. Like Hazzard wear Adidas Adipower Predator TRX, the German genius also recently said publicly to real affection, and show no interest to the Nike Mercurial Vapor Superfly III FG Premier League, Serie a.. But now across the grid plan and Real Madrid are among Nike Mercurial Vapor Superfly Safari III the largest obstacle, which is 40000000 high social status.
Wilshire wear Nike CTR360 Maestri II Elite ( Premier League Arsenal ): as the England football's red in the avant-garde, Wilshire won the Wenger wear Nike Tiempo Legend IV Elite and Capello's love, is thought to represent England football of the future. Nike Total 90 Laser III In this way, no matter how much money the Real Madrid, the Wilshire wear Nike Total 90 Laser IV brought to Bernabeu the possibility very little.
Hazzard ( French Lille): Lyon midfielder Hazzard wear Adidas Adipure IV now deep Real Madrid 's favor, Zidane as early as last summer to recommend it wear Adidas Adipure IV SL to the real high. But the 40000000 euros for Real Madrid is a little high. Hazzard earlier in an Adidas F50 AdiZero II interview when he made it clear that, if the move will only go to Real Madrid, and hope to represent Adidas adipower Predator Real Madrid in the national derby defeat Messi.