First California and Florida, now Ireland. No doubt this will face both resistance and legislation from businesses and individual patrons alike, not to mention loopholes such as those based on the ratio of food to alchohol sales, but apparently the government is pretty keyed up. Apparently recent research suggests that the citizens of Ireland support this (though the article doesn't cite anything). Anecdotal evidence (sorry, couldn't find anyting concrete before i gave up trying) suggests that while some places in California and Florida have lost business, bar patronage is actually up, on account of people no longer being deterred by smoke. Your thoughts?
Posted by Roy at February 23, 2004 10:10 PMI think it sucks. You should be allowed to smoke in a bar. That's what they're for - to poison yourself and have fun. Alcohol is horrible for you too, but people who drink enjoy it just as smokers dig a cig.
The only rational argument for banning smoking in bars is that non-smoking employees are subjected to smoke. Well, no one is requiring them to work in a goddamn bar.
I can't believe no one has asked the anti-smoking crowd to explain why they feel "smoke-free" is important when they are killing off brain and liver cells with alcohol. Maybe this sentiment won't apply under Irish personal-freeom-of-action type laws, but in America, if you don't like smoke you should choose to stay the hell out of a bar. Period. Like the Radio thread - if you don't like what's on the radio, don't bitch, moan, and cry until laws are passed: turn the damn channel.
Speaking for myself, I don't mind bars with smoke. It is a certain atmosphere you expect with a bar and can appreciate. That being said, if I have the choice, I would prefer bars without smoke -- and probably patronize them more. Assuming there is a choice, which in these places, I guess there isn't. It hurts my eyes. But if it was that bad, i am not going to get legislation passed, I just wouldn't go. And since my legal mishaps occured leaving Remington's, obviously I am not passionate.
Posted by: Pat at February 24, 2004 12:03 PMI agree that the law shouldn't have been passed, but I don't agree with one of Chris's arguments- "when they are killing off brain and liver cells with alcohol." You can control how much you drink individually, and limit yourself to just one or a few drinks, even if the other guys sitting at the bar are all getting sloshed. But if they all decide to light up, you're exposed to their smoke just by being there. But like everyone's said, smoke is something we've come to expect in bars- just like people expect to get wet at Sea World. If you don't want smoke, don't go in, or don't apply for a job there.
I think it's funny that since they've banned smoking in bars in Cali that bar patronage has gone up. So they've decreased the number of future cases of lung cancer, but they've increased the number of cases of cirrhosis of the liver and cancer in the digestive tract, not to mention the number of drunk drivers on the road.
Posted by: Fatboy at February 24, 2004 12:24 PM"SOAP BOX"
America is over-legislating EVERYTHING. Christ, if I want to light up a cigarette, I should be able to. I can see not at a gas station, where I endanger others, but has there ever been a confirmed case of lung cancer strictly from 2nd degree smoke? I don't think so. And f.f.s. Why the hell is gas so expensive? Sorry, I just had to bitch about gas.
And while we're at it we might as well clone Stalin, because we're seeing a lot of 'you can't say this' and 'you can't show that' ever since Boob-gate...crap...dammit
"Stepping down - confused...what was my point again?"
Posted by: Nate at February 24, 2004 12:46 PMI ocasionally smoke, more than anyone here at least, and smoke in bars even hurts MY eyes (seriously, Cornerstone on a Saturday is painful). Still, I stand by my smoke v. alcohol statement, even if by Jeff's reasoning my point is indefensible.
In fact, some guy was just on Comedy Central Presents with something to the effect of "hey, I'm on my 8th Tequila shooter, and I'm about to drive my Hummer landbehemoth home with this woman I just met...but can you please put that cigarette out?" That's what I mean - being in a bar implies doing bad things to yourself. America needs places where adults can decide to hurt themselves, and I maintain that if you (the generic "you," not "You" Fatboy) don't want to be involved in that, it is American policy that you don't have to. Americans have the right to stay the eff home and turn the effing channel.
A few thoughts. First, I think Fatboy hit the nail on the head, the difference between drinking in a bar and smoking in a bar is that there is such a thing as second-hand smoke - smoke created by some, inhaled by others - but not second hand drinking. as for whether second hand smoke causes lung cancer (which is where i think nate was headed), in nonexperimental research, it is not possible to prove causation, but there are piles of evidence to support that theory. as for chris's example from comedy central, yes "being in a bar implies doing bad things to yourself" but it does not mean others can do bad things to you. you can do a lot to yourself - smoke, drink, pour drano down your throat, but there are limits to what you can do to others. you cannot go into a bar and force another person to drink and you can't pour drano down their throat, and it looks like the Irish government is saying you shouldn't be able to expose them to second hand smoke. like pat, i would frequent bars more and enjoy them more if there was less smoke, and i think there are a whole lot of people who feel the same way.
Posted by: roy at February 25, 2004 08:42 AM