I need more fodder in my flame-war against the anti-smoking prohibitionists who want to ban smoking, even in my own bar that I own (hypothetically).
Please do not reply telling me why you think public smoking should be outlawed. I am not having a discussion about it, and [in this case only] will summarily delete your comment.
Claire's blog 
September 30, 2006 at 4:52 PM
Haha, well, one argument one could use against those who wish to prohibit public smoking is this:
If smoking should be banned, because it has been shown to affect public health, then any sort of perfume (in public places) should be banned as well. After all, people have been known to have allergy attacks when exposed to really heavy perfumes or when they have to stand next to someone who has put too much fragrance on. In fact, I have seen signs in ladies’ rooms that state “PLease do not spray perfume or hairspray in here, as people are allergic to these chemicals”. (Anyway, this can demonstrate how it might be silly to regulate either cigarettes OR perfumes, hairspray, etc, because it severely limits persronal rights to a ridiculous level…no one would ever consent to never using perfume again).
I dunno, just a thought. I can think of arguments for both sides. ;)
October 1, 2006 at 10:03 AM
True enough. People seem to think that if something affects them adversely, that they automatically have a right to make it stop. Smoking, loud music, perfumes, shirts that have politics they don’t agree with.
I’m sick of the whole thing.
October 2, 2006 at 1:46 AM
If someone wants to not be exposed to second hand smoke, say in your own bar, they have every right to not go there, and go somewhere else.
If someone wants to bar smoking in their bar, let them. Let the owners decide, not the government.
Whatever happened to freedom of choice? Oh, right, we have less and less of that every day.
October 2, 2006 at 1:56 AM
Which reminds me of a story. I was in a casino sitting at the blackjack table, appily smokig while playing. Then these old folk sit down(americans), and they guy actually has the the balls to ask me to not smoke, cause his wife is allergic to smoke. I was doing good at the time, so I didn’t say too much, cause I didn’t want to fuck up my karma. As soon as I was getting ready to leave the table though, I started lighting up again, and he bitched again.
My response: “Hey, if she’s allergic to smoke, maybe she shouldn’t be in a casino!” The facial expression was just priceless. His jaw dropped, and I could just see the anger seething. He, he he.
Not to mention the hypocricy of asking one person to give up their vice(smoking) so they can indulge in another vice(gambling).
And also the fact that I was sitting at the table first. You don’t like it, find another table.
October 2, 2006 at 8:14 AM
“Not to mention the hypocricy of asking one person to give up their vice(smoking) so they can indulge in another vice(gambling).”
That cracked me up!! You’re right! I’d never thought of it that way.
January 9, 2007 at 8:33 AM
the law is too hard !
summers you not dependent with something ?
I think the smokers are misunderstood.
February 28, 2007 at 8:31 PM
i like platypuses with ketchup
December 11, 2011 at 10:07 PM
Youre fucking stupid
December 11, 2011 at 10:13 PM
*You’re
February 28, 2007 at 8:43 PM
@#6: Smokers are definitely misunderstood, because I have no idea what you just said.
@#7: If you are a smoker, this supports comment #6. Because I have NO clue what platypuses with ketchup have to do with smoking.
March 1, 2007 at 8:02 AM
I think #6 might be trying to say that everyone is dependent on SOMETHING that’s bad for them. But I could be wrong.
March 1, 2007 at 12:01 PM
I think you’re right Parthena…. I just don’t get “Summers”. *OR* “playtpus”, for that matter. :)
May 10, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Here we go – the nanny state or what?
Smoking bans? What’s next? Alcohol? Loud music? Hey, let’s ban pre-marital sex while we’re at it (STDs are harmful to your health as well!). Swearing in public?
Yup. Smoking’s what’s wrong with the world.
I am all for smoking vs non-smoking bars, but people should have the option!
May 11, 2007 at 7:20 AM
The only thing that sucks is that there ARE no non-smoking bars (at least where I live). So basically, if you happen to be prone to respiratory problems, that means you really can’t enter a bar or club for the rest of your life without also risking getting bronchitis or feeling sick the next day.
A friend of mine who lives in Oregon told me that they actually have lots of air filters in the bars and clubs over there, plus they have a smoking/non-smoking section, which I think is a good idea because it would draw more people out to the venue. I don’t know why this area doesn’t do that. But, I’ve basically had to avoid clubs and places where friends were gathering simply because all the smoke made me ill. Sort of a bummer.
May 11, 2007 at 8:47 AM
@Chriggy: Except in Texas, right? :)
@Alex: It’s not exactly the same thing as banning sex or alcohol. 2nd hand smoke causes cancer and, like Parthena pointed out, people with respiratory problems like me (thanks, my loving family, for smoking around me when I was a child!) have a hell of a time after being in a smoke filled place. I try to avoid it as much as possible but make exceptions for Clint’s parties because, well, they rule. :)
Why should I have to deal with cancer-causing effects and be punished with a runny nose for at least a day FOR GOING OUT IN PUBLIC?! If someone has premarital sex or drinks, that doesn’t make me stink, make my nose run or increase my risk of cancer for being around them. I’m all for live and let live but if someone else smokes around me, that isn’t exactly letting me live, y’know?
May 4, 2011 at 10:33 AM
But you have the option to go somewhere else.
December 9, 2011 at 10:48 AM
How do you know he has the option to go somewhere else? Just like Parthena said, there may not be any smoke-free places around. Plus, why should a lot of people have to avoid a certain place just because one smoker wants to smoke. Is it that big of a deal for someone to just step outside and smoke one cigarette then some back in? I am totally for separate areas of a restaurant for smokers, but apparently the government isn’t. And I appreciate the fact that I do not have to worry about coughing constantly over and evening meal in a restaurant with my family. My dad had an asthma attack one time when we went out to eat because someone was smoking. That’s pretty scary, and the smoker did not even seem to care that he had caused the whole thing.
December 9, 2011 at 10:53 AM
Of course there is somewhere else. But guess what? Even if smoking happened in 100% of privately owned establishments, THAT IS THE OWNER”S CHOICE. At least, until people like you forced the government to take away this very basic right from property owners.
I start a restaurant. It’s mine. It’s my property. I want to smoke in it. It is mine. I paid every dollar for the building, and I pay property tax on it. But I can’t smoke in it because of people like you.
Your dad wasn’t forced to go to that restaurant. As the restaurant clearly allowed smoking, then yes, the person who smoked shouldn’t care. If your father is too sensitive to go somewhere with smoke, then too bad for him.
Here’s an amazing fucking concept: I let you do what you want on your property, and you let me do what I want on mine. If you don’t like what happens here, stay on your own property. If I came over and told you what you had to do on your own property, you wouldn’t be happy. But it’s exactly what you support.
Also, in this state there is a smoking ban in all restaurants. You know what it changed? Almost nothing. Most restaurants around here voluntarily did not allow smoking! I can’t remember seeing one in the last 20 years. But a far greater selection of bars allowed smoking. Guess what? Smokers prefer to go someplace where there is smoking. BOth options existed. But fascist fucks like you took that option away from a minority.
It’s okay to take rights away from minorities, as long as they weren’t born that way, I guess.
May 11, 2007 at 8:51 AM
Why should I as a bar owner be forced to cater to a specific group of people, if I don’t want to?
Bars are about.. substance use. So it’s no surprise that people who want to use one substance – alcohol – want to use another – nicotine.
Freedom comes with a cost.
Amazingly, unless forced by law, pretty much 100% of bar owners want to allow smoking in their establishments.
The fact that a law has to be enacted to force the private owner of a private establishment to behave in a way they do not want to is an abuse of freedom.
Cancer doesn’t enter into the equation. You’re going to a bar to drink. Alcohol gives you cancer too. You receive more carcinogens from car exhaust. And second-hand smoke doesn’t cause cancer due to incidental exposure. You have to be exposed for YEARS.
I actually have wanted to run a bar, I think that would be an interesting business to run. But I would never, ever do it in America, because whiners have caused the government to force bar owners to run their business in a way that is not of their choosing.
And that’s bullshit.
May 11, 2007 at 9:08 AM
@Clint: Sometimes I make exception and go to a bar because some friends of mine are meeting up there who I haven’t seen in a while. In other words, not drink, just talk. I want to meet up with them, not stink, have a runny nose or increase my risk of cancer (not drinking on this trip, remember? :))
I once went to this bar/dance place, Clarendon Ballroom with some friends. The place sucked, but one thing I did like was there was no smoking inside. They have a huge porch upstairs where people can go to smoke.
I see your point about bar owners having the choice. My gripe is they’ve had the choice for years, still refuse to have non-smoking areas, still refuse to install ample amounts of smoke eaters. In other words, they refuse to cater to people like me, and because of that, they’ve lost lots of business.
There was a report on the radio a few months ago about some restaurant nearby that went completely non-smoking, and it’s nearly impossible to get seating there now. Sure it’s a restaurant and not a bar, but I’ll bet there is a huge demand for bars like that, yet nobody’s delivering.
May 4, 2011 at 10:38 AM
If there were enough people demading a non smoking bar, trust me, someone would open one. But there isnt. What healthy activity can you name that goes on in a bar? eating fried foods? oh maybe drinking tell u puke. It’s a bar.
And we should be able to smoke in it!
May 11, 2007 at 9:23 AM
Thing is, “non-smokers” are not a protected group of people (well, WEREN’T) who have a claim to some sort of equal rights.
If an establishment doesn’t want non-smokers, that is (well, WAS) their right.
If 100% of a certain genre of establishment doesn’t want non-smokers, that is still (well, WAS) their right.
Your risk of cancer is not increased by going to a bar one night. There is a word for that: Negligible.
P.S. All bars in Virginia are also restaurants because they have to make 40% of their income from food, by law, I believe.
The real fact of the matter is that smokers are being forced to go outside in the freezing fucking cold because a few people who honestly shouldn’t be inserting themselves into a situation they aren’t comfortable with are whining about some sort of “equal rights” that they don’t actually have.
It’s tyranny of the majority, pure and simple. There were plenty of places non-smokers could go to not smoke. Now that the majority of people are non-smokers, they are systemically taking away places smokers can go to smoke.
It would be like if the smokers passed a law saying 100% of public places HAD to be filled with cigarette smoke. That wouldn’t really be fair to non-smokers, would it? If, by law, 100% of places had to cater to smokers?
Well, this is exactly what we have, only in reverse.
That restaurant example you gave really proves my point in my mind — if the majority of people are now non-smokers, then that means non-smoking restaurants are now financially viable. Thus, they will pop up to fill a market demand and will succeed.
But the capitalist demand of smokers for places that cater to smoking? It’s being interfered with by the government and eliminated, prohibition-style.
The market can usually work out most problems, but it’s not being allowed to function as it should here.
May 11, 2007 at 10:19 AM
Not sure who was responding to which comment, but I’ll just make a general response to the comments left since I’ve checked here last. :)
My point wasn’t that I thought I’d get CANCER from the smoke, I was merely saying it sort of sucks that people who are prone to respiratory problems have to (or had to) avoid going to bars and clubs because of all the smoke. Perhaps most people aren’t that sensitive to smoke, but I have severe allergies to it, and therefore if I put myself in a situation where a room is smoke-filled I WILL get sick. There is no doubt about it. The only thing that varies is the level of sick I actually get–for example, on the mild end, I could get severe cold symptoms, with my sinuses hurting and coughing all the next day. On the severe end, yes, I have actually gotten severe bronchitis that basically kicked my ass for 3 weeks. All because I spent one night at a club.
Anyway, wasn’t trying to provoke argument, just point out something that I think some people don’t often think about. Yes, people should be able to smoke if they want to, definitely–I just think that a better compromise could be reached than what’s in place now. I can understand both sides of the issue. I think bars SHOULD be forced to have some sort of air filter and also provide more options for non-smokers to go outside if they need a break from the smoke.
(Clint, at Alchemy, for example, if you went outside AT ALL, you had to pay simply to go back into the club. You couldn’t just leave for 5 minutes and come back–so basically, if the smoke was bothering you, you just had to leave the club for the rest of the night. Was pretty inconvenient) Although I agree that it sucks to make an all-out ban on something, I also think that it sort of sucks that people with allergies or who get sick from smoke basically have to exclude themselves from all potential bars or clubs.
One could also make the argument that corporations shouldn’t have laws that prevent it from dumping out too much pollution into the environment, because it’s infringing on their freedom. The truth is, it affects everyone. If a river is polluted, it doesn’t simply affect the people who work within the corporation. As you said, it takes years for secondhand smoke to cause cancer, and it’s not polluting anything on a grand scale, but it does affect other people who are in the area.
Anyway, just throwing my 2 cents in. :)
May 11, 2007 at 10:35 AM
I say “debate”, not “argument”. I was actually wondering how this old thread got started up again, cause when I posted it, there wasn’t much activity. But each posting is like a trap, waiting for people to come! I’m glad when comments show up on old postings.
Anyway, the converse of what you said about Alchemy is now that people who want to smoke have to leave, because they can’t re-enter, right?
So the rights of the few people with respiratory problems trump the rights of the far more people who want to smoke…
I mean.. it sucks to have respiratory problems.. It sucks to be disabled in any way. That doesn’t mean the world should cater to you, though.
For instance, if I had a condition that caused sunlight to be harmful to me — I wouldn’t go legislating that nobody is allowed to have skylights. (Okay, this is kind of a bad contrived example, since I could just wear an UMBRELLA HAT! and full body coverage.)
Air filters are fine, but once again — people are struggling to run a business, then the government comes in and forces you to spend $40,000 on something you can’t afford. The death of mom & pop shops, replaced by corporate everything, is one mere side-effect of over-regulation by the government in ALL aspects (not just smoking).
You might have some problems at our parties. But then again, it’s a big house and there is outside to get fresh air in.
I don’t know about arguing against pollution laws. I feel that is very different. No one is voluntarily imbibing a substance in a corporate factory; it is a side-effect of manufacturing, not human freedom. I just feel like it’s a different kind of a situation.
May 11, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Haha you know, in a slightly unrelated topic that can be applied to this situation… I was talking to a friend a few days ago about the “ride for free” program they do on D.C. area buses on days when the air quality level is “red” or “orange”. I pointed out that D.C. is ranked 20th for “worst air quality” out of US cities, and she pointed out that D.C.’s people are ranked in the top 10 for fittest people.
I was thinking that I should ride around on my bicycle wearing a gasmask as a sort of public statement (not to mention to filter the crappy air before it reaches my lungs). Now with this thread, I’m thinking I should buy one for when I go out to bars/clubs, for the exact same purposes, haha!
Although if I wore something like that at Alchemy, I’d fit right in, right? :)
May 11, 2007 at 11:10 AM
As I said, I understand both sides of the issue. I can completely understand why so many people are irritated by the fact that they can no longer smoke in bars.
Actually, I used to smoke, occasionally. Every few days I’d have a cig. or two (when I was 19ish)
Occasionally I have felt a bit sick at parties, when lots of people were smoking, but as you said, if there’s a place to step outside and just take a break from the smoke, I’m usually ok. It’s only in very enclosed areas with no ventilation that it affects me badly.
But that is *part* of the reason why I normally don’t stay at parties for more than 3-4 hours…after that amount of time, I typically am feeling pretty sick from the smoke and just have to leave. It’s sort of a bummer because often parties get more enjoyable after midnight/1 AM, and I sometimes feel bad leaving early. But if there’s lots of smoke, I sort of have to, or I start coughing really badly. :\
“I mean.. it sucks to have respiratory problems.. It sucks to be disabled in any way. That doesn’t mean the world should cater to you, though. ”
Heh, kind of a harsh way of putting it, but I guess I understand that point of view. The world DOES seem to cater to disabled people in a lot of ways, already, such as the plethora of handicapped-only parking spots everywhere, or how the metro has elevators so people who can’t ride the escalator can use that. Etc…
May 11, 2007 at 11:17 AM
P.S.
This reminds me of that South Park episode where the kindergarten class kept getting tied results for their class president elections. One side would yell, “Why don’t you just concede and let us win?” and the other side would yell, “Why don’t YOU concede?! We shouldn’t have to!”
It’s very applicable to so many of these current issues. ;) Both sides get quite fiery.
May 11, 2007 at 1:13 PM
@Parthena: I’ve never been beat down by symptoms for 3 straight weeks after being around smoke, but 1-3 days is enough for me. This whole discussion got me searching for a solution. Maybe we might need to get some of these:
http://www.icanbreathe.com/picture.htm
Or if you want to go all out:
http://www.approvedgasmasks.com/mask-gas.htm
May 11, 2007 at 1:27 PM
I’m all for wearing gas masks. I could wear it with a black evening gown and make a unique artistic statement!!
I would totally go to clubs in a gas mask, if I thought that they wouldn’t make me get overheated or something. (ok, maybe I’m not that bold, but I like to think so…Heh)
Oh, and yeah, I still can’t believe how susceptible I am to bronchitis. It hits me especially hard for some reason…
May 11, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Does anyone know where I can find a list of states and cities that still allow smoking in restaurants?
Have had no luck with the search engines and am planning a move to a state where I can comfortably have a cigarette and a cup of coffee after a meal.
Are there any left??
May 11, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Marlene: Anywhere in Virginia still allows cigarettes, as far as I know (with the exception of some concert venues and a few restaurants). I’m pretty sure most of this conversation thread revolved around the Washington, DC smoking ban.
May 25, 2007 at 8:49 AM
hey i dont agree with smoking and also i like bumming its enjoyable lvyazzz x x x
July 28, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Parthena: Thanks for the info on Virginia. I sure wish there was a warmer state where smoking in restaurants is still allowed. If you learn of any please let me know.
September 2, 2007 at 6:12 PM
You as an american citizen do not have the right to smoke where you want, Illegal immigrants have more rights than you do !!!!! You will be fined if you smoke in an unauthorized place….the “welcome mat” is placed for illegals !!!!
September 15, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Clint … Here’s a viable argument for you, show me one death certificate that states the manner of death as “exposure to second hand smoke”.
I am 45 years old and don’t remember any of my young school friends with respiratory problems, yet, the majority of us were from homes where parents smoke. Now, all the kids seem to have respiratory problems – even when they come from homes where people don’t smoke, yet it’s being blamed on exposure to second hand smoke. Someone explain it, please.
One other point … Isn’t it funny that non-smokers with respiratory problems often “choose” to go into places where there is smoke, despite the risk – when they choose to (you know – when THEY want to have fun). I live by a casino. There was a newspaper article about a casino employee who complained about the smoke because it bothered her and made her sick. When asked why she didn’t just get another job, she said she was making too much money there to leave. How about that? A billion people that walk through that casino should be inconvenienced because this girl doesn’t have skills enough to find a comparable job. But, this is where it’s coming to.
Now, not only bars and restaurants, but hotels are banning smoking in rooms because the ajoining non-smoking rooms claim that the smoke creeps in!!! RIDICULOUS!!!!
Marlene Medow … There’s a town called Kirksville, MO where you can still smoke in restaurants. It’s probably no warmer than Virginia, but it’s a nice little town.
September 26, 2007 at 1:20 AM
Hello All,
I was reading around some of the posts here and I found interesting things that you guys talk about, I just made a blog about quitting smoking resources and ideas that you might want to check out.
If someone is interested in this topic just go to; http://endthehabitnow.blogspot.com and let me know what you think.
Thanks in advance.
November 1, 2007 at 6:53 AM
hi i h8 smoking i think in stead there should be more girl on girl action x
December 13, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Hey, I need to argue “why smoking should not be banned in public places” for a school debate and I was wondering if any of you had some good reasons I could use. TY :)
March 24, 2008 at 10:56 PM
I understand where you are coming from. Banning smoking and perfume and such in public places is a huge infringement upon your rights. But unfortunately as a high school student who has an allergy to smoke, perfume, hairspray, candles, bathroom cleaner and just about any other non-natural scent so severe that my windpipe closes the instant I smell any of it and I stop breathing, lose my ability to speak (obviously), I begin losing my ability to think and see correctly, my balance and sense of direction virtually cease to exist and I develop immense headaches, it is impossible for me to avoid the daily beating of having to deal with lotion, hairspray, perfume, and air freshener. So on a personal note I understand why such banings are being pushed for, because as my allergy gets worse every year, it may not be to long before a simple whiff of perfume hospitalizes me or even kills me. My father smokes and his girlfriend is obsessesed with candles and fragrances, which they only indulge in outside now, and I’m not trying to say that smoking and such should be banned everywhere but in some cases such as school and work where we have no choice but to be there, I believe it should be banned. Even though it sucks terribly that I can’t go enjoy my favorite restaurant anymore (Waffle House), but its not my place to infringe upon the rights of others.
April 1, 2008 at 11:40 PM
osha has proven beyond any doubt that cigarette smoke,second hand smoke as well as exhaled smoke is not harmful in any way,shape or form.this entire thing is political.check out this web site…the case against smoking bans,osha.
April 1, 2008 at 11:48 PM
dead man walking,i really do feel for you.i have a friend with envirnmental allergies,even to loud noises.but she deals with hers with medications and does just fine.maybe you could do that for yourself just so you can enjoy a walk in the park,go to your favorite places,too.anyways good luck with that.
April 1, 2008 at 11:56 PM
here’s another site you can check out….clearing the air true confessions.there are a lot of sites on the against smoking bans site.you should be able to find what ever you are looking for there.more power to ya.
April 2, 2008 at 12:11 AM
parthena,i have a question for ya, why do smokers and non smokers have to go to the same bar? here’s another one, why can’t bar owners choose for them selves if they want smoking or not?
April 21, 2008 at 8:36 PM
wassup Clint,I keep checking back,theres nada.Where’s all the feedback?Maybe this whole thing has become a non-issue with everyonelse,but not me.As long as my rights and freedoms are being taken by the socialists,my voice will be heard-somewhere!!!
October 22, 2008 at 6:22 AM
Two of the best arguments against smoking bans:
Hospitality closings after bans are enacted:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html
Secondhand smoke IS NOT a workplace health hazard:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2008/10/smoking-bans-air-quality-facts-economic.html
November 6, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Actually you cannot still smoke in Kirksville, MO. A smoking ordinances covering bars, restaurants and public places went into effect in July 2007.
February 3, 2009 at 9:20 AM
to all of those people trying to support public smokin i solute you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
September 23, 2009 at 8:49 PM
Here is a fix for all you folks that can only wish there was a bar in your area that did not allow smoking.
Open one! Yup! It’s truly that simple. Just invest your money into your business, agree to pay the required taxes on the place, and you and your friends can not smoke to your hearts content!