Smoking Ordinance--Your Thoughts?

John Russell · Post by **John Russell** » 19 Jun 2003 7:56 pm

This is pretty much the response I'd anticipated.

To me it raises the bigger issue of what I (we) really want out of this lifestyle that seems to accompany the music we love. When we started playing steel guitar, I don't think we envisioned decades of gigging in small smoky bars with a focus on consumption of alcohol. Of course we all expected to be on the concert stage playing for adoring fans doing wonderful, innovative music.

For the majority of us, that didn't happen. Let's be optimistic that, as in the '70s, the steel guitar sound can merge with other musical styles that a broader audience can enjoy. That could be jazz, folk, fusion or whatever. I never want to ignore the heritage of this instrument. I do feel that as things emerge and people's habits change, this conundrum can be overcome. It may not occur but it's my hope. --JR

Nicholas Dedring · Post by **Nicholas Dedring** » 20 Jun 2003 8:23 am

The biggest tragedy? All of a sudden I've been realizing how much bars smell like the toilet, now that it's not hidden in a veil of smoke

Danny Kuykendall · Post by **Danny Kuykendall** » 20 Jun 2003 8:40 am

Bob Hoffnar is right, almost all of us like the smoke-free environment but the intent of the legislation is scary. Since I own a pool room and bar the non-smoking has probably saved my lungs, but it seems that it's another power grab from the California legislators. The scary part of all this is the slow erosion of individual freedoms. Danny k

C Dixon · Post by **C Dixon** » 20 Jun 2003 9:19 am

I can not; no matter how I try see how someone can say the government does not have the right to do this or that.

Back up and check out the facts:

1. What ARE the government's rights?

2. Who gave them those rights?

3. Under what circumsance were they given a "right"?

In a democracy such as the United States, the government's "rights" are given to them by the majority of the ppl who have elected legislators to pass laws ("rights").

Take note: The above statement answers the three questions.

To say that the government does not have the right to ban smoking OR to allow smoking OR any other law (right), is to deny the very basic principal this nation was founded upon.

Indeed they DO have the "right",

UNLESS:

1. Is it thrown out by the Supreme Court (if it is appealed that high).

OR,

2. The PEOPLE throw the legislators who enacted the law, out of office; and replace them with legislators who will overturn the law ("wrong").

In the case of smoking, this is NOT about to happen; ever. The reason is quite simple. The majority of the ppl do NOT want smoking in ANY place where they frequent. As such these people vote into office those legislators who are in agreement; and pass laws ("rights") banning smoking just about everywhere. Thus the "right" of government to ban smoking was given to them by the people (majority).

The reason there probably will NOT be a ban on drinking is because the majority of the people love to drink. And the above scenario applies here totally. I wish with my soul, the majority of the people hated to drink. But that wish will never come true. So the "right" of government to allow drinking will stand.

Ocassionaly, "government" tries to pass a law ("right") that is truly wrong. Proabition should prove that forever! It will NOT stand, IF the majority of the people are against it.

Finally, whether a bar closes because of a smoking ban, will not stand the test of time. Let me give you an example:

In the 1960's MOST people in the deep south were FOR segregation. Many would fight (some did bitterly) to their deaths to keep segregation. It even required federal troops in some cases to quell the rioting.

Now almost 50 yrs later some of the most perfect example of intergration is IN the south while; real racial hatred still abounds in many cities outside the south.

Why did this complete turn around happen? Because once the "law of the land" filters down; especially to the young, it becomes the norm. And nobody knows the differnece (or cares)

The point is; if a bar closes because of a law (NO matter how bitterly that law is afronted), it is only a matter of time, before the crowds come back.

One final example:

When the law ("rights"), forced the intregration of neighborhoods, hords and multitudes fled the cities (with its forced integration of schools and neigbhoroods) and took up residence in the suburbs.

Downtowns in most southern cities became almost ghost towns of crime and cesspools. But that was not to remain such.

In most of those cities today, the downtown areas are now becoming meccas that draw people back like flies to honey. Millions of delapidated homes, buildings and "bars" are being restored and ppl are flooding back in.

AND they are integrated!!! And most of them do NOT allow any smoking!! And NObody knows the difference; or cares!!

To summarize. The PEOPLE (in a democracy) GIVE the government the "right" to pass laws by our duly elected legislators.

If you do not like that law ("right"), there is ONLY one way to change it. I pray that right will always be ours.

May God continue to bless this mighty nation and all who reside here,

carl

Steinar Gregertsen · Post by **Steinar Gregertsen** » 20 Jun 2003 5:32 pm

Interesting reading, for sure.
In my native Norway this discussion has been pretty hot the last year since our government just passed a law that bans smoking in all bars, pubs and restaurants, starting next year. This will effectively give us the strictest smoking regulations in Europe, possibly in the world.

Personally, I gave up smoking a few months back after my doctor told me I basically had two choices; Quit smoking or quit breathing.
So that was pretty easy....
However, I have very mixed feelings regarding this ban since I have been a gigging musician for nearly thirty years (and also worked as a bartender), and knows that this is bound to drive many pubs and bars out of business.

33% of Norways adult population smokes, and since we don't live in 'Sunny California' that the pro-ban politicians always points to when they want to show how well it's worked other places,- NOBODY likes to be forced to stand outside in -20c in order to get a cig. So over here the 'solution' will probably be that many smaller bars and pubs will 'reinvent' themselves as private clubs requiring a paid membership in order to attend (the price for that will be very symbolic of course).

What really gets to me is the obvious double standard that's displayed,- Why, since smoking seems to have been singled out as the root of all misery in this world and then some,- Why don't they ban cigarettes and tobacco alltogether? Oh no, there's huge profits to be made, so they simply don't have the will and the guts to do it. The profit they get from smoking is far too huge. Instead they pass laws (we already had one of the strictest regulations in Europe), that will make 33% of the population feel singled out and harassed. The unwillingness to explore other possibilities like investing in proper ventilation has not been properly explored either.

Needless to say, this new law is not very popular here in Norway. Norwegians are NOT easily led as a herd of sheeps, so the result of this will be smoking going underground (as in private clubs) and our politicians has once again made a law that is not respected.

PS - anybody noticed that the head of the WHO, who is pushing this issue heavily, is a Norwegian? (And this is where I duck and run for cover....

)

Jesse Pearson · Post by **Jesse Pearson** » 20 Jun 2003 5:50 pm

It's no big deal to set aside a spot out back of the club and go inside the smokers igloo to smoke and rub shoulders with some foxy Nowegian babes, maybe the best looking babes on the planet! The same is true here in Calf. where people who smoke get to meet each other in the exclusive smokers areas and from what I've heard the babes are willing!

Mike Perlowin RIP · Post by **Mike Perlowin RIP** » 20 Jun 2003 7:20 pm

Bars, restaurants are PRIVATE busineses. Private business should have the right to make that choice

Time to play the "what if" game.

What if gladiator contests where people fought to the death were legal.

What if some club featured these contests as their entertainment?

What if the gladiators used military weapons like machine guns and hand grenades, and anybody standing too close to the combat zone was in danger of accidentally getting killed?

What if the musicians who accompanied the fighters had to play inside the combat zone?

Brett Cookingham · Post by **Brett Cookingham** » 20 Jun 2003 11:59 pm

Guess What?
Public Smoking is a thing of the past.
Thank God!

Gil Berry · Post by **Gil Berry** » 21 Jun 2003 6:04 am

Very interesting topic. I have smoked (on and off) for nearly 50 years. I remember when restaurants began "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections so non-smokers would be able to dine without being bothered by smoke from nearby smokers. Today, here in California, it is illegal to smoke in buildings open to the public, whether that be restaurants, bars, or supermarkets -- which is fine with most smokers (except many - including myself - would like the option of being able to smoke in a bar sometime). But it doesn't end here. Some local municipalities have banned smoking OUTSIDE in public places - parks, fishing piers, outdoor stadiums, etc. And it gets worse: some localities now forbid smoking inside PRIVATE rented buildings (i.e. you cannot smoke in your own apartment.) Now, if you think your booze and your privacy is secure, you'd best rethink what targeting minorities (and smokers are one) does to your own freedom.

Chippy Wood · Post by **Chippy Wood** » 21 Jun 2003 6:27 am

I don't agree with smoking, I'm not against people smoking, their choice.
I wish all smokers could have attended the post mortems I have had to assist in and seen the results of what smoking can do to you, then, if they wish to carry on so be it.
Passive smoking is another thing entirely, no one as the right to inflict a potential illness upon anyone else,and consideration should play an important part both in smokers choosing where they smoke and non smokers providing facilities for this practise without it causing offence.

Del Rangel · Post by **Del Rangel** » 21 Jun 2003 8:16 am

From an old post on the same subject see under my name: http://steelguitarforum.com/Forum15/HTML/001849.html

James Morehead · Post by **James Morehead** » 21 Jun 2003 9:01 am

It will come full circle. Business will decline with smoking laws, but non smokers that quit coming will eventually return when word is out that it's smoke free. Some clubs will die with the changes, those that survive will get creative and make it. Cruel, but survival of the economic fitest. Keeping up with the times, those that make it will be stronger/better. It's worth it for health reasons. Just my opinion.

Lawrence Lupkin · Post by **Lawrence Lupkin** » 22 Jun 2003 10:05 am

Oooh! Gladiators!
Interesting point, Mike. They still have cock fighting up in the Bronx, and I guess I can't support that.

Kenny Dail · Post by **Kenny Dail** » 22 Jun 2003 1:27 pm

Farting is a natural body function. Smoking is not. I think everybody knows when and where its proper to flactuate and when not to flactuate.

------------------
kd...and the beat goes on...

[This message was edited by Kenny Dail on 22 June 2003 at 02:29 PM.][This message was edited by Kenny Dail on 22 June 2003 at 07:59 PM.]

Janice Brooks · Post by **Janice Brooks** » 23 Jun 2003 8:09 am

http://www.rogerwallace.com/smoking.html

Roger Wallaces comments.

I'm working on getting him over here to read this column.

------------------
Janice "Busgal" Brooks
ICQ 44729047

Jeff Coffell · Post by **Jeff Coffell** » 28 Jun 2003 11:27 pm

Are we in Russia?

Damn I thought we had the right to choose. They are taking our freedom's a little at a time.

Thank God we can still smoke in all the bars we play in. It's hard enough to draw a crowd these days. Take away the smoking and we will not have any gigs left.

The right to choose. If you don't like the smoke, STAY THE HELL OUT.

We breath worse things than second hand smoke in the wide open air every day of our lives.

Jeff

Jesse Pearson · Post by **Jesse Pearson** » 29 Jun 2003 5:37 am

Jeff, that's just plain foolish thinking, "Stay the hell out", that statement pretty much say's it all. The big cigarette companies brain wash ya and add stuff to their smokes to make sure you stay hooked. When I see seniors smoking I just shake my head at how sad it is, it just looks wrong. Non smokers should have the freedom not to have ta breath second hand smoke just as much as smokers have the right to be the puppets of cigarette companies. Clubs that allow smoking should go under and will anyways because more and more Americans are getting hip to the B.S. It's not about freedom, it's about health, our health and our friends and loved ones health.[This message was edited by Jesse Pearson on 29 June 2003 at 07:27 AM.]

Herb Steiner · Post by **Herb Steiner** » 29 Jun 2003 7:51 am

Clubs that allow smoking should go under and will anyways because more and more Americans are getting hip to the B.S. It's not about freedom, it's about health, our health and our friends and loved ones health.

No, Jesse, it IS about Freedom. It's about how much government control we are to tolerate in our society. If a nightclub owner wants to have smoking in his establishment, he should be allowed to do so. If enough people choose not to go to his place of business, he'll either go out of business or change his smoking policies. But it should be up to the individual business owner.

The TSGA Jamboree this year was smoke-free, and there was a great debate over this on the Forum. The decision was made by the Board of the TSGA, who have the sole discretion in this matter, that the event would be non-smoking. I supported that decision because it was made by the Board of the TSGA and they're the ones that call the shots for the group. If people chose not to attend because there was no smoking, that was their individual choice to do so, and if people chose to attend the show for the same reason, that was their choice also. The TSGA has the freedom to decide what will take place at their show, and the attendees have the freedom to go to the show, not go to the show, or whatever.

As it turns out, all the guys I know of that were going to boycott the show came anyway, because they decided that the benefits of attending the event outweighed their not being able to smoke anywhere they wanted, which is a rule that exists in lots of places nowadays. And the environment was better, even the smokers admitted as much to me.

But it's a matter of PERSONAL CHOICE of the owner of the business/property. If someone doesn't want guests smoking at a party at his house, it's his right to request they don't smoke. If the guest chooses to not attend the party because he can't smoke, that's his choice as well. But I sure as hell don't want government telling me what I can do and can't do within the walls of my own house! And I think we're a couple of small steps away from that, which will basically outlaw all tobacco use.

Now, to outlaw tobacco use is another issue entirely. But as long as the product is legal to consume, the freedom to use it should be decided by the owner of the property where the usage takes place.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if businesses went non-smoking. But what I don't want is government intruding itself more and more into the personal lives of the citizens and making decisions for us, and I include business owners. Of course, regulation of business activity is necessary in our day and time, but this is one area that I feel such intrusion is unwarranted.

------------------
Herb's Steel Guitar Pages
Texas Steel Guitar Association

[This message was edited by Herb Steiner on 29 June 2003 at 08:57 AM.]

Ricky Littleton · Post by **Ricky Littleton** » 29 Jun 2003 9:27 am

Where's the public mandate? To my knowledge this issue has never been on a ballot anywhere? We also have to watch the free-wheeling use of the term "rights" when addressing governmental powers. Government does not have "rights" however they are empowered by charter of the people (our Constitution). Rights are inalienable and one thing for sure we do not want a government that can wield power under the guise of its' "rights". People have RIGHTS but goverment has authority as empowered by PEOPLE.

When a government presses its' rights, we ALL LOSE.

We need to maintain a focus on this issue as it is opening an entire new avenue of constrictions for us. Many of you will scoff at my thoughts here, but if we let these zealots dictate what is good for us, we'll all be shopping at the Peoples National Food Mart and falling in line like the sheep the left wants.

Ricky

------------------
Emmons LeGrande - 8x4
Session 400 Ltd
Dan-Echo, E-Bow, Ibanez Distortion, Boss Comp./Sustain, Ibanez Auto-Wah

Jesse Pearson · Post by **Jesse Pearson** » 29 Jun 2003 12:48 pm

I'll tell you boys what, I got no fantasies about freedom in the USA. It's all discretionary, period. The clubs are regulated by the Government and pay taxes on their profits unlike a private persons home. That club that had the bad fire recently is a failure of Gov., 100 people died. The great state of Texas is now one of the most polluted states in the Union because Gov Bush allowed private Business to regulate itself on the issue of pollution and clean up etc. Smokers who don't see the injustice they do with second hand smoke are selfish people, or addicts that are just hopelessly addicted. Live music that is way too loud should be regulated down too, but then we don't have a zillion people around the world dying from a loss of hearing? Where do you draw the line, that's a great question, I just don't think smoking falls under that issue as it stands right now.[This message was edited by Jesse Pearson on 29 June 2003 at 02:13 PM.]

Arty Passes · Post by **Arty Passes** » 29 Jun 2003 1:26 pm

Well, Herb, it is about freedom, but whose?
If it's a public place and if I can't hang with the smoke, I'm not free to go there. What about my freedom? If it's a private club, that's another thing.
If smoking is prohibited, everybody, including the smoker, is free to go there. They're just not free to force others to smoke.
Let's replace smoking in your argument about club owner's freedom with Blacks, Jews, Women, whatever, and then tell me how much freedom the club owners should have. It's all a matter of degree.
As far as government control, I kind of agree with Carl on that one (never thought I'd say that). "The government" is us (theoretically, although with the current administration I'm not so sure), and in many cases it must protect us from each other. We accept it in many other situations without the doomsday, big brother is taking away all my freedom predictions.
That said, and despite the fact that I'd prefer to not be subjected to the smoke, I'm still not sure I agree with the prohibition. Bars and drinking and smoking seem to go together, and I'd still like to see some comprehensive data on how this has affected other cities with similar prohibitions.
Arty

Sheri Salomone · Post by **Sheri Salomone** » 29 Jun 2003 1:36 pm

The smoking ban in California is NO BIG DEAL.
Smokers have adapted well, they set aside outside areas outside, everybody is happy.
After watching a good friend who is still on theverge of death go through radiation treatments for throat cancer, I think the ban is a good idea. Believe me, no clubs have lost any business over it.
The government hasn't banned smoking, only banned it it public places, to protect the health of the innocent. Many people are too stupid to quit smoking in spite of the overwhelmong evidence that it can kill you or cause some pretty nasty diseases, and too rude to respect others need for clean air. That's why the ban was created. If you are a smoker I am not trying to offend you, but HELLLOOOOOO!!!! IT CAN VERY LIKELY KILL YOU!

Jesse Pearson · Post by **Jesse Pearson** » 29 Jun 2003 1:43 pm

Howdy Ms Salmoni, ya ever heard of addiction, HELLO! Those big Cigerette companies put extra nicotine into the smokes so's it will be as hard if not harder than Heroin to kick. It just ain't right.