Non Smoking Bars

Bob Knight · Post by **Bob Knight** » 13 Feb 2006 7:26 pm

No Mike, I made that up about the illicict drugs, I guess I watch too much TV and have been too observant for the last 40+ years of being a professional musician

[This message was edited by Bob Knight on 13 February 2006 at 07:28 PM.]

HowardR · Post by **HowardR** » 13 Feb 2006 7:58 pm

John Bechtel · Post by **John Bechtel** » 13 Feb 2006 8:08 pm

Think about it¡ “The one and only, final cause of death is, and always has been; ‘Heart Failure’”! Anything else is only a contributing~factor!

------------------
“Big John”
a.k.a. {Keoni Nui}
’05 D–10 Derby
’65 Re-Issue Fender Twin–Reverb Custom™ 15”
Current Equipment

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 13 Feb 2006 9:01 pm

Well, here's my problem (self disclosure: I don't smoke cigarettes, but do enjoy cigars - Howard, you're supposed to take the wrappers off). Complete prohibition of potentially hazardous behaviours is puritanical zealotry combined with lazy law enforcement. It would be possible to have the best of both worlds by rigorously enforcing ventilation standards; so that some people might smoke in a well ventilated smoking area, and nonsmokers might not be seriously affected by the smoke. It would require some technical improvements in ventilation systems, and a little more energy consumption to run them, and to air condition or heat the fresh air. Enforcement of ventilation regulations could be paid for from tobacco taxes. The extra cost would be just another cost of doing business, like keeping the air a comfortable temperature and washing the dishes. But it's simpler for the lawmakers to just go with the puritanical nonsmoking majority and ban all smoking.

The same simple-minded puritanism has moved the drinking age from 18 up to 21. Instead of coming down sufficiently hard on the few irresponsible youngsters who drink too much and drive, alcohol has been banned from everyone under 21, even though they can vote and give their lives in the military. As a result, most kids, who start drinking in junior high or soon after, go through 6 to 8 years of unsupervised illegal drinking, and develop a strong disrespect for the law.

And we all know the story with marijuana. Because some drugs are addictive, grass (which is not) is banned (while tobacco and alcohol, which are addictive, are not). And again, millions of youngsters and oldsters smoke it illegally and develop complete contempt for the law.

Then there are the prohibitions against various forms of sex between consenting adults, etc., etc.

A similar method of lazy law enforcement occurs in the criminal justice system. If a cop or prosecutor makes a technical error, accidentally or intentionally, an obviously guilty criminal can be set free to prey on other victims. Why not fine or punish the errant cop or prosecutor commensurate with their crime (they typically go scot free now), but still prosecute the criminal and protect the public? Why should the public have to pay for the behavior of bad cops and prosecutors?

In all these cases, why not go after the lawbreakers who are hurting other people, and leave the rest of us alone? I just don't care for the idea of puritans ruling over all of us, or for the government "protecting" us from moderate vices when we are responsible and don't hurt anyone else. Protecting bar workers from unventilated smoke, or protecting innocents on the highways from drunk drivers is fine - lock up the guilty ones for a long time. Make the punishment sufficient for real deterrence. But let those of us who can be responsible be free of Big Brother.

[This message was edited by David Doggett on 13 February 2006 at 09:04 PM.]

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 13 Feb 2006 9:04 pm

"Guys,
I don't think you have a valid case."

Well, you've been proven wrong on that. Your "observations" don't quite refute the AMA and other medical authorities. Methinks your quialifications would prove a tad short.

"But I've played gigs in bars for 40 years"

Uh huh - next.

If I eat big bowl o' chili, walk over to your table and "let one fly" are you being "politically correct" to ask to have me tossed out?

Didn't think so.

Same thing.

And I was real happy to come home from gigs and NOT have to take $8 (with insurance) migraine pills and detox all my clothes to keep my kids (who have asthma) from breathing YOUR smoke. Not MY smoke - YOURS.

Never seen pot or coke IN a club in 30+ years of gigging. In the parking lot, yes. That "made up" argument just weakened your whole post.

And as stated later, you pretty ,uch proved whole point you're trying to refute, as those cardiac deaths ARE closely tied to smoking.

I get a kick out of the "blame it on the yuppies", or "political correctness" arguments. How about none of that - just simple health facts?

Sorry, but I guess those intrude on your "personal freedoms" as well.

Life's tough. Tell me - have you lost a gig because a place doesn't allow smoking? Or are you just annoyed?
[This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 13 February 2006 at 09:13 PM.]

Jon Jaffe · Post by **Jon Jaffe** » 13 Feb 2006 9:09 pm

Sorry John "heart failure" or congestive heart failure is a chronic disease. It is an inability of the heart to function as an adequate pump. It involves a complex interaction between the heart, kidneys, systemic vascular bed and our neuro-hormonal regulatory system. It is almost as complex as the steel guitar called "The Beast". Moreover, many people die with their heart still beating. In fact, on a death certificate, heart failure is a contributing cause. Let me suggest that you try smokeless clubs. Come to Austin, I'll put you up, we can check a few out.

Jim Peters · Post by **Jim Peters** » 14 Feb 2006 4:27 am

I choose to play clubs, therefore I choose to breathe other peoples' smoke(I have never smoked). If we had nonsmoking clubs, I would always try to play them. Cigarette smoking is bad for yoour health, there is NO doubt! Breathing second hand smoke is also bad, no doubt! I wouldn't have any problem if smokers had to go outside the club. The cigars are the worst for performance. It is in your face mentality to think you(smokers)have the right to effect anyone else with your actions. JP

HowardR · Post by **HowardR** » 14 Feb 2006 4:46 am

Howard, you're supposed to take the wrappers off

Sorry David,.....I play it safe!...

HowardR · Post by **HowardR** » 14 Feb 2006 4:50 am

The cigars are the worst for performance

Didn't affect Bill Clinton's......

Bill Miller · Post by **Bill Miller** » 14 Feb 2006 5:57 am

A smoking ban in bars will be coming into effect here this spring. I welcome it although it will interesting to see how it affects bar business. The managers I know are worried.
I'm a former smoker who quit for the good of my health years ago. It wasn't an easy habit to break but it was worth it and these days I would really rather not be exposed to other people's smoke. But among people who still smoke I keep seeing what I would call an an 'attitude of entitlement' which basically translates to " if you don't like my smoke stay away from me, regardless of where I choose to be". The simple fact is that if you smoke in public the public smokes with you. Where we play music I'd guess roughly one third of the patrons smoke. ( and none of us in the band) So should the other two thirds be expected to stay home? Why does the minority's right to smoke trump the majority's right to breathe clean air? Like it or not that isn't equitable and law makers most everywhere are finally recognizing that fact. [This message was edited by Bill Miller on 14 February 2006 at 02:21 PM.]

Tom Zielinski · Post by **Tom Zielinski** » 14 Feb 2006 6:05 am

As I could care either way on the issue of smoking, I would like to make one point clear about cigarettes in general. The cigs that people smoked 50 years ago were most likely pure tobacco whereas the smokes today have hundreds of processed chemicals (including several types of alcohols, like Jack Daniels!)

That doesn't mean that the smokes of "old days" were better for you. It does mean that the constituents found in todays cigarettes break down into far more dangerous compounds. The cig companys have basically figured out a way to deliver addicting drugs like nicotine in a cheap way. Big Brothers nicotine delivery system.

If you care about smoking so much, why not contact Marlboro and tell'em to use 100% tobacco. You really probably are better off smoking a pipe or a cigar or wacky tobacky.

Mark Eaton · Post by **Mark Eaton** » 14 Feb 2006 10:13 am

California bars have become much more pleasant since the smoking ban passed.

Before it happened, Limbaugh on the radio would go on ad nauseum with the Big Brother thing, like he was standing there wearing a three corner hat, a musket in hand, and a "Don't Tread On Me" flag waving behind him. Give me a break.

The tobacco industry is still one of the largest promoters in the number one spectator sport in this country, NASCAR, and stupid teenagers get sucked in on a daily basis with many becoming hooked on cigs.

If someone started smoking 40 years ago, they have my sympathy, because there was a lot we didn't know back then. For a young person to start smoking today, and with all we know about the dangers of second hand smoke-you gotta have s**t-for-brains!

My three teenagers-none of them would ever consider smoking, the way my wife and I come down their throats on it-it's probably one of our more successful campaigns in trying to be good parents. Gee-I suppose some think that we are infringing on their freedoms as young Americans.

There are plenty of people in the California bars today, so the owners of the establishments have survived.

It's a non-issue in the bars out here anymore.

This thread makes me feel like I'm traveling back in time...

------------------
Mark
[This message was edited by Mark Eaton on 14 February 2006 at 10:15 AM.]

Nic du Toit · Post by **Nic du Toit** » 14 Feb 2006 10:16 am

Does this qualify as a Smoking Bar ?

------------------
<img align=left src="http://home.telkomsa.net/peterden/al%20saut/images/nightmarefront85.jpg" border="0"><img align=left src="http://home.telkomsa.net/peterden/al%20saut/images/smokinfront85.jpg" border="0">Nic du Toit
1970 Rosewood P/P Emmons D10 Fatback 8x4
Peavey Session 500 unmodfied
Click for "Nightmare on Emmons Steel" CD
Click for "Steel Smokin'" CD
Click Veruschka's CD "Don't Dream it's Over"
<A class=db href="mailto:alsaut@absamail.co.za?subject=Forum Reply">Click here to E-mail us.</A>

Pete Burak · Post by **Pete Burak** » 14 Feb 2006 10:35 am

Nick, do you do that song, "Camel Toe'n" on that ablum?

Mark Eaton · Post by **Mark Eaton** » 14 Feb 2006 10:42 am

Good one Pete. That was worth 10 points!

Nice work Nic...

------------------
Mark

Ben Jones · Post by **Ben Jones** » 14 Feb 2006 11:07 am

PC is killin country? coulda fooled me.
I have never seen Political correctness associtaed with cocaine use before either, that is too funnny...hehe

drinking age should be 13. let our kids have a few hangovers and a few barf fests BEFORE you give em a license to operate a motor vehicle. Look at other countries where there is no drinking age and alcohol is not some coveted taboo for the 18-21 year old. You dont see their kids dying in beer bong fueled alcohol poisoning frat hazing etc type stuff like ours seem hell bent on doin. Has nothing to do with smoking tho. When I come throw some of my gin and tonic in your face then you can compare it to smoking.

In feel for the smokers (my pops smoked three packa a day) but some of you were so inconsiderate with your smoking...its hard to feel too bad for you. I love the person that holds their cigarette out at arms length from themselves , right under your nose at the bar. "i dont wanna smell this thing, here YOU smell it!". or "im gonna half put my cigarette out in this ashtray right by you so it can keep smoking itself like an incense stick for another two minutes while i go to the other end of the bar...enjoy!"

Just enacted the ban here in Seattle and I am grateful.

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 14 Feb 2006 1:00 pm

One thing I wouldn't miss is the cigarette butts all over the ground everywhere. Now you find them all around the doorways where the addicts lurk, even if an ashtray is provided.

But I don't consider this an argument for making tobacco illegal, just an argument for a well-enforced $2,000 littering fine, or a stint on a road clean-up gang - litterer's choice.

Patrick Thirsk · Post by **Patrick Thirsk** » 14 Feb 2006 2:14 pm

Just thought you all might like to know. Parliament has just voted to ban smoking in all pubs and clubs in England. I just saw it on the 10.00p.m. news on t.v. Now all I got to do is to learn how to play my steel good enough to get a gig in a pub!! Cheers all.......Patrick

Archie Nicol · Post by **Archie Nicol** » 14 Feb 2006 3:27 pm

Patrick. You live in Wales.
Roll on the 26th of March. That's when our smoking ban in pubs and clubs kicks in. Woo-hoooooooo!

Ron Sodos · Post by **Ron Sodos** » 14 Feb 2006 3:39 pm

Somehow it just wouldn't seem right not coming home from a gig sick and hoarse from all the smoke......

Bob Blair · Post by **Bob Blair** » 14 Feb 2006 5:27 pm

Times change. Seems to me a couple of years ago when a similar thread was running there was a lot more vigorous opposition to non-smoking bars! Less than twenty years ago there were still smoking sections on most of the flights I was on. Now that seems almost unimaginable.

Webb Kline · Post by **Webb Kline** » 14 Feb 2006 6:13 pm

The way I see it is that in a case such as smoker's rights versus the rights of nonsmokers to clean air, it is only ethically right to rule in favor of the nonsmoker. Why? Because a nonsmoker isn't hurting or offending anyone. The smoker obviously is.

It doesn't really matter if the smoker sees his right to smoke being violated, as the very act of smoking is a violation of nonsmokers and is in fact, endangering their health. Both have equal right to gather in public places, but the smoker has no more right to offend the nonsmoker than the nonsmoker would have to sucker punch the smoker for blowing smoke at him.

There was a time when we didn't realize all the inherant dangers of smoking, but now we do. So, there is little reason to allow smoking in public places.

John Bechtel · Post by **John Bechtel** » 14 Feb 2006 9:52 pm

Cal;
I believe thats the first PSG that I've seen with a ‘Gold~Plated’ Undercarriage!

------------------
“Big John”
a.k.a. {Keoni Nui}
’05 D–10 Derby
’65 Re-Issue Fender Twin–Reverb Custom™ 15”
Current Equipment

Richard Sinkler · Post by **Richard Sinkler** » 14 Feb 2006 10:02 pm

Could someone shorten the link above that causes us to have to scroll left and right to read this. This is a great thread but it's really difficult to read.

Thanks.

I just Did - Joey[This message was edited by Joey Ace on 15 February 2006 at 08:28 AM.]

Tore Blestrud · Post by **Tore Blestrud** » 15 Feb 2006 4:44 am

Norway is a non public smoking country, and so will the rest of the western world be in a few years.

Too much of almost everyting will kill you in the end, but smoke get's in your eyes!