Bloomberg is a wolf in sheep's clothing. I am glad New Yorkers are hopefully his ass will get thrown out in the next elections or he will remove these laws.

Oops. What I meant to say was: I am glad New Yorkers are not following these shitty laws and hopefully his ass will get thrown out in the next elections or he will rescind the laws.

Am I missing something.

Josef Stalin may have committed some excesses in his time, but he never went so far as to ban smoking. It probably never crossed his mind to let the state interfere with the simple pleasures of a cigarette.

Seriously, I'm fascinated by the puritanical instinct in some leaders. As the saying goes, they are petrified that somewhere, someone is having a good time.

Isn't Bloomberg a former smoker? There's no zealot like a former sinner, I suppose.

Actually, it's that smoking is so pernicious to the people around the smoker. When I'm in restaurants and somebody lights up, if I'm too close my eyes will start to water, my throat will start to get itchy, and I have to get out soon. Frankly, I'd like laws that would allow me to go over and rip the bastard's throat out.

Smoking is just fine in the privacy of your own airtight chamber, it doesn't much bother me if you're out on a boat. But smoking in public should at least imdemnify those who hit them (which I consider equally rude and unfriendly) from any liability.

If people want to enjoy themselves, fine. Great. But they should do it in some way that's not as nasty to the people around them.

This almost makes me want to take up smoking. Does that make me a contrarian at heart?

Why don't you just stay out of restaurants that allow smoking?

Or only go to ones which are so well-ventilated that it's a non-issue?

My attitude: these sorts of things should be left up to the restaurant owners. Now, if the city wanted to do something creative, like ask restaurants to certify themselves as smoke-free or not, and have different ratings systems they had to live by in order to maintain certain ratings (low-smoke vs. no-smoke vs. choked with smoke), that would seem perfectly sensible.

But the notion that you're going to ruin it for everyone else just because you're bothered by the smoke? I don't appreciate that much. The smoke doesn't bother me nor does it bother other people I know. What they're saying with such laws is that every establishment must bend to the wishes of those who don't like smoke--whether they plan on visiting all those establishments or not.

Laws like Bloomberg's make me want to smoke again just to thwart the kind of pissant control freaks who pass laws like this.

Dean,

Ever been in a town with two restaurants (both of which allowes smoking)? Ever go to a restaurant where there aren't smokers, so it looks safe, but one lights up?

It's not that this isn't avoidable, but I just wish that there was some parity. If I could go and spit in the face of each and every smoker, I'd find it a socially acceptible trade, since they're polluting the air with things that irritate mucuous membranes.

It's not a legal issue, the owners of the restaurant have the right to do what they want on their property, but a social one. Smoking is an incredibly rude thing to do indoors, and it would be a step up if people who smoked realized that they weren't doing a public service by it, and that they are, in fact, imposing on their neighbors. It's not more than a minor unkindness, but it is certainly unkind.

I'm not arguing in favor of smoking bans in private places (public is a different matter), but if it's not acceptable to throw fireplace ash in someone's face, why is it socially acceptable to do it slowly by the use of cigarettes? If I threw fireplace ash in your face every day or a month, your eyes would probably get used to it, yet is that a reason to go around doing it to everyone, since some people are used to it?

Again, I'm not advocating laws banning smoking in private establishments. It's just that I wish that smokers would realize that they're not God's angels bringing much-needed smoke to the world. It's a filthy habit that a person is adicted to. If we could just all treat it as that, I'd be happy. Well, that or allowing non-smokers to punch smokers. I think that the inflicted suffering would be about on parity, and smokers would be free to go find places where people won't hit them, much the way that non-smokers are now free to find places where people won't smoke.

Ever been in a town with two restaurants (both of which allowes smoking)?

New York has more than two restaurants.

Ever go to a restaurant where there aren't smokers, so it looks safe, but one lights up?

I wouldn't care as long as it was a well-ventilated restaurant.

Smoking simply doesn't cause me the revulsion and discomfort that it causes you. I know lots of non-smokers who see it my way, though. Indeed, I find contemptuous attitudes toward smokers far more offensive than the smoke.

[shrug] It takes all kinds I guess.

A creative solution for a city like New York would be to certify restaurants as low-smoke or no-smoke or high-smoke. Then consumers can decide. It's the attitude behind New York's law that bothers me most.

"New York has more than two restaurants."

I had thought that the discussion had broadened. Sorry.

"I wouldn't care as long as it was a well-ventilated restaurant."

Now, I haven't spent all that much time in manhattan, but have you ever seen a well-ventialted restaurant? I haven't. I haven't seen a well-ventilated restaurant anywhere, actually (outdoor ones don't count).

"Indeed, I find contemptuous attitudes toward smokers far more offensive than the smoke."

Trust me, you're still nowhere near how offensive I find either smoke or the contemptuous attitues of smokers.

But second-hand smoke is like very low-grade tear gas to me. It severely irritates my mucuous membranes and results in extreme discomfort. I think, however, that I'm rare in this reaction and most people don't get watery eyes and scratchy throats from it. But the fact that in general smokers wouldn't care even a little is what really pisses me off. It's a vice. If everyone just admitted that it was, and smokers admitted that when people are made physically uncomfortable by it, it's the smoker's fault, not the victim's, I think that we'd all get a long much better.

I don't care if people want to smoke when it only affects them. It's not my business of some people want to smoke in a restaurant (though I agree with you, restaurants should be legally required to carry some large and prominent sign indicating whether smoking is allowed in them). But smoking is impolite (when there are people negatively affected by it) the same way that my shouting to the person next to me is impolite. Sure, if you're in a room full fo deaf people, it's fine to shout. But that doesn't mean that if someone can hear and is annoyed by your shouting, it's his problem and he should just live with it and the shouter is a blameless lamb, pure as the driven snow.

Would it be polite if I had a conversation loudly enough for people to hear (but not so loud as to get me thrown out) about how smokers are satan's spawn and should be burned on mounds of burning cigarette butts, etc., and some smoker at the next table heard me and got offended, would it be entirely his problem?

It's not highly immoral behavior to smoke. In fact, it's perfectly fine when no one is around who suffers from it, or if there is adaquate ventilation. In those situations, people should happily smoke like the warner brothers characters with 30 cigarettes in their mouth at the same time. Burn giant piles of tobacco in large ceremonial platters, and make a bonfire of 30 cubic meters of the stuff, all in a barn. If our laws ever get straightened out, add large quantities of marijuana to it. That's all great.

But if you go to where there are other people, and it causes their eyes to water and their throats to turn try, and their lungs to caught, would it really be too much to ask that you not pretend that they're just mean-spirited people who are out to get you and stop your fun? I wouldn't even much mind smoke in public places if smokers were apologetic about it.

But damn it, I refuse to apologize because someone else's smoke is hurting my eyes.

I'm sorry that I get so vehement about this. I don't want to limit their fun, I would really just like some recognition that they're limiting mine. If we were all honest about smoking and the fact that to many non smokers, smoke hurts. It doesn't hurt like a taser to the groin, but it's genuinely physically unpleasant.

My dislike of smoking is not some puritanical hatred of pleasure. First, I consider the hatred of pleasure to be highly heretical. Second, I'm as much for democracy, wiskey, and sexy as much, or more than the next guy. I just object to things that hurt people, even in minor ways. Not that they should all be banned, but a spirit of cooperation and accomodation on both sides would be helpful.

I am in utter, complete agreement with Chris on this one; when someone smokes near me, I end up in _pain_. It is as if someone grabbed me by the throat and squeezed really hard. And the smell! I won’t even be in the same enclosed area with my sister if she has smoked recently...

In either 1996 or ’97, California banned smoking in something like 99% of all public areas. Before this, I don’t know if I had ever seen a hypothetical "no smoking" restaurant. Today, I can eat my meal in peace, without gagging on someone else’s poison, and they can still go outside to smoke...

I disagree with Chris regarding smoking because it will set a precedent where a political majority deems it has the right to limit what\where\when things the public can do.

Chris, can I expect you to feel the same way about alcohol in public? Don't you hate it when drunken people start groping you? Don't you hate it when drunken people jump into vehicles and kill innocent people? Don't you hate it when drunken people start fights? Don't you hate it when drunken people destroy public & private property? Don't you?

How about we let market forces work here? Do not go to establishments that allow smoking or that do not have sufficient ventilation. If it starts hurting their business then changes will be made or the business goes kaput. Now don't get me started about people that wear too much perfume...;-)

While I am entirely sympathetic to Chris' discomfort--in constricted, poorly ventilated areas, my chest hurts around smokers too, and ditto if I've got a chest cold--I see it more Brian's way.

I'll note that his example of perfume isn't all that hypothetical. I've been told that the city of Toronto outlawed the wearing of perfumes and cologne in public, for the exact reason that some people find it offensive and/or have bad allergic reactions.

One of the reasons I will not live in California is because of things like this. There are better ways to deal with discomfort than draconian laws like these. I despise them, I truly do.

What was it that Eddie Izzard said? "Watch out California, you're supposed to be the crazy wild and free state. Now it's no smoking in bars, and soon no drinking or talking too! We'll all have to go down to the library to have a good time." Or something like that.

If a city wants to give perks to restaurants that advertise as smoking-free, or certify as high-ventilation/low smoke, I'm less uncomfortable. Otherwise, I'm with the New Yorkers who are practicing non-violent civil disobedience and lighting up in defiance.

Chris
If you have such a violent reaction to smoking, you aren't likely to be in NYC EVER. You couldn't handle the buses, let alone the bars. Dean's ideas seem reasonable. Yours remind me a bit of the only constitutional ammendment ever to be revoked.

Guys, I'd been in non-smoking BARS in CA, Boulder and Tucson before their smoking bans, the claim that such things didn't exist purely due to free market forces is bunk.

And hey, I"m about as bothered by purfume and cologne when in a tightly enclosed space like an airplane as Chris is by smoke, and have watered up and gotten all stuffy from it my whole life.
So should we ban purfume to save the aromatic-molecule sensitive? Yes, I'm tossing out an explicit slipperly slope argument.

You start with the Nanny state telling you that you can't smoke in a restaurant, where DOES it stop?

"Chris, can I expect you to feel the same way about alcohol in public?"

Yes. People shouldn't throw alcohol in my face any more than they should blow smoke in my face. And I would also agree with banning people (who I don't know) groping me, killing innocent people, etc. I suggest that all these things should be banned in public. However, drinking alcohol in public is not throwing it in my face, but smoking in public (where public is in places like restaurants, I'm not talking about parks) is blowing smoke in my face, necessarily.

But we already restrict what people do in public. You can't walk around nude in public (this one is questionable, but generally accepted), you can't urinate or defecate in public, going up to people and shouting at them at the top of your lungs and not stopping is at least frowned upon and the police might stop you if you don't. There are plenty of restrictions of what happens in public.

This is the odd sort of paradox of libertarianism (not that i am one) -- people should be allowed to do whatever they want at home or on private property, but in public they should generally be restricted to the intersection of what everyone finds acceptable.

China,

"If you have such a violent reaction to smoking, you aren't likely to be in NYC EVER. You couldn't handle the buses, let alone the bars."

Who takes buses in NYC? Well, at least manhattan. I only ever walked when I worked there.

"Dean's ideas seem reasonable. Yours remind me a bit of the only constitutional ammendment ever to be revoked. "

Why am I, or anyone else, supposed to care what unrelated reminiscences my words stir up in your mind? If they reminded you of the outcome of a baseball game in the early 1900s, or what the crowds did to mussolini, or Caeser's famous phrase as he crossed the rubicon, or the 7th, 9th, or 16th amendment, so what? We can share unrelated memories all day, but this hardly seems like a productive use of time.

Well I guess we should ban foul language and farting as well. And require everyone to shower twice daily to insure no offensive odors reach anyone's nostrils. And while we are at it, we should ban flower gardens because of all the extra pollen they produce, which inflames the mucus membranes of those with allergies.

What is the problem with a non-smoking section? I realize they are sometimes close to the smoking section, but it is a compromise. And i believe that it is precisely "the intersection of what EVERYONE finds acceptable". Of all the smokers I know, the large majority of them are considerate of those around them. They will smoke elsewhere if they see it bothers people, either going outside or up to the bar.

BTW, Ann Arbor has many non-smoking restaurants and a few non-smoking bars, though no law requires it. Strictly market forces alone.

"There are better ways to deal with discomfort than draconian laws like these."

Like what? And what is the extent to which do-what-I-want-in-public does? Can I carry around a putrifying dear carcass, the smell of which will make many people vomit? If they don't like me dragging it around, tough luck? Let them walk on other sidewalks?

And btw, a little perspective, laws banning smoking under pentalty of fine are not draconian. Dracos (the ancient greek) would laugh at them. Draconian would be executing smokers on the spot.

As I said, I'm not really in favor of banning smoking in restaurants -- I'm inclined to think that this is the restaurant's affair.

What I'm really against is smokers' attitude that they're morally superior for enjoying smoking and that everyone else is a prude because they don't enjoy choking on painful tobacco ash. Which is why my real desire is imdemnification from lawsuits if you punch a smoker. This way the playing field is leveled. :-) (note: the preceding desire is meant jovially, not as an actual suggestion for legislation.)

"What is the problem with a non-smoking section?"

Do you mean legally or practically? Legally, I see no problem with them.

Practically, they're typically implemented by a deranged monkey who had been lobotomoized twice before having his head crushed with mallet and what was left of his brains left to dry on a salmon-smoking rack in the gobi desert.

Putting a few tables next to the smoking section of an unventilated room -- when was the last time you saw the windows open at a restaurant? -- and calling it non-smoking is somewhere between silly and a cruel joke.

(note: the practical side does not, in my opinion, have any bearing on the legal side.)

"Well I guess we should ban ... farting as well."

It would make more sense than banning naked breasts, wouldn't it? :-)

The story is told that Sir Walter Raleigh, the English courtier of the original Queen Elizabeth who later lost his head (literally) at the hands of her successor, King James, was the man who popularized smoking in late 16th century England. But one day, they say, one of Raleigh's servants who was unfamiliar with this ritual saw the smoke rising from his master's head. He ran off, grabbed a pitcher of beer, ran back and poured it over Raleigh, whose reaction was not recorded in the literature.

I suppose you could try that in whatever restaurant or bar in New York you insist on frequenting even if people smoke there and it offends or sickens you. The reaction will probably be that same beer pitcher broken over your head, but you will have made your point, presumably. And that makes some people feel good.

I don't smoke. But, on the other hand, I don't like assholes who muscle other folks. Especially assholes who think they are doing it for the good of their victims.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Btw, on the topic of slippery slopes, the whole banning-in-public thing is necessarily a slippery slope. When is it permissible for me to tear-gas people in restaurants (bear in mind, with the undustrial-strength tear gas, people have been known to jump out of windows to get away from it). I presumse that the answer is never. When am I allowed to have mildly bad breath (i.e. brushed my teeth in the morning but ate inbetween and haven't gargled with scope lately)? I presume that the answer is always.

What is the difference between them? Degree. Nothing but degree.

Oh, you can set triggers on symptoms. When it causes caughing or crying or what have you. You could set the bar higher at "when people will jump out of windows to get away from it". But these are all just how people react to different degrees of irritation on their mucuous membranes and nose.

Unfortunately, we're stuck with a slipper slope, until you want to start letting people tear gas the other people in restaurants (and the worst that can happen to you for teargassing a restaurant is for the ownership to ask you to leave). Somehow, I don't think that this is acceptable, so it's a slippery slope for us.

"I don't smoke. But, on the other hand, I don't like assholes who muscle other folks. Especially assholes who think they are doing it for the good of their victims."

[expletive deleted] the smokers. I could give a rats ass that they're hurting themselves. That's their choice and I'm more than happy to let them make it for themselves. In fact, I'll give a smoker a light (if I happen to have one, I don't carry a lighter very frequently). In college, I once dismayed a friend who was trying to convince another friend to stop smoking (for health reasons) by using my cloak to shield the other friend from the wind so that she could light her cigarette. I have no interest in telling people what they should or shouldn't do (in a coercive sense).

I desire smoke-free restaurants because I don't want me to be subject to smoke.

(note: desiring them and advocating laws coercing them are distinct things.)

Chris,

Okay, I stand corrected. There are altruistic assholes, and self-focused ones as well. If the hole fits, wear it.

Smokers who somehow blow smoke in your face from 50 feet away seem to drive you up the wall. Then, too, you seem bothered by the notion that someone will carry rotting roadkill into your favorite restaurant. (When was the last time you had that happen to you?)

You seem mighty indignant over hypothetical situtions. Maybe you ought to just stay home and gobble down your quiche and Haagen-Dasz in the privacy of your own kitchen. Or bathroom, since you seem to sicken so easily.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

"There are altruistic assholes, and self-focused ones as well."

How, precisely, does wanting a world in which people don't smoke near me an asshole? I'm not trying to coerce them into stopping. I'm not trying to pretend to that I can make better decisions for them than they can.

All that I'm doing is pointing out that what they do is very unpleasant to many people around them, and that they are not morally superior for being addicted to a habit which spews non-trivial amounts of ash and chemical irritants into the air. It's a bad habit, like talking loudly on a cell phone, except somewhat worse because it causes physical discomfort. If we could all agree that it's a bad habit, and that there should be a social (not legal) obligation for smokers to try to keep their bad habit from making other people's eyes water and their throats hurt.

Most smokers do recognize this, and behave accordingly.

I merely object to people who talk about smoking as if it's feeding starving children or taking in orphans. It is certainly reasonable to champion it from a personal liberty standpoint, but it should be done with the same tenor as one championing cartoon child porn from a personal liberty standpoint, not one championing the civil rights causes of the 1960s.

Now, now kids. Please try to play nice.

I really try to encourage civility here, okay?

Arnold makes the same mistake that I have heard from many in this debate I don't like assholes who muscle other folks. Especially assholes who think they are doing it for the good of their victims.
Let me be perfectly clear here: I don’t give a rat’s ass what people do to their own bodies (well, I do, but not enough to pass laws against it). What I care about is being subjected to it. As the saying goes "the right to swing your fist ends at my face". If someone is not allowed to grab me by the throat with their hand, why are they allowed to grab me by the throat with their smoke? This is not a hyperbolic argument; it really does feel _just the same_...

I see that Chris made the same points with almost the same words! Great minds...

I'm reminded of the Steve Martin monologue in which he posits the following conversation in a restaurant between a smoker and a non-smoker:

"Mind if I smoke?"

"Why no...Mind if I fart?"

hee.

I apologize for my opening comment. Looking back, it was meant as complete hyperbole, but I doubt that it came across that way.

Because I'm one of the few people who has this severe reaction to smokers, or at least seems to be, I generally feel rather powerless about it, and that tends to make me very emotional about the topic.

When calm, my opinion is that I would really like effective segregation of smokers and non-smokers in restaurants, and would strongly consider mandatory prominent exterior labeling as to the smoking status (smoke-free, segregated, and all smoke), with those categories well defined. And I would like to execute everyone who thinks that breathing smoke is no big deal and those of us who suffer from it should just get over the pain.

(just kidding about that last part.)

Oh, and just for the record, I eat neither Haagan Daas nor quiche, and am primarily carniverous. In fact, I like to eat my beaf rare to the point of being raw, with the blood dripping down my cheeks as I growl and grunt.

Not everyone who dislikes smoking is an effete hippy. And there's a difference between being able to tolerate pain if you have to and wanting to tolerate pain.

Chris,

If I could go and spit in the face of each and every smoker, I'd find it a socially acceptible trade...

But you CAN. The downside is that you run the risk of being charged with harassment. Of course, you also run the risk of getting your ass handed to you by spit dripping smoker, who in turn runs the risk of being charged with battery. And the restuarant is likely to ban you both....

On the other hand, your reaction to smoke is not typical. If you are REALLY that allergic to smoke, you should consult with a medical professional, as there are other substnces you might encounter accidentally that will kill you rather than make you uncomfortable.

A smoker should be able to go to a restaurant and sit in the smoking section without worrying about offending. If your allergy is so serious that a restaurant with a smoking and non smoking section is unacceptable, that is YOUR problem, not everyone elses.

If you are so allergic that you cannot walk past a smoker on the sidewalk without having a reaction, again, that is YOUR problem, and you need to consult an allergist and DO something about it, rather than calling for a restriction on the rights of people who are every bit as much citizens as you are.

...but have you ever seen a well-ventialted restaurant?

After spending ten years in the restaurant business I can safely say "Yes, I have seen many many many well ventilated restaurants".

It's a vice.
As is drinking, gambling, eating fast food, spending too much money, and voting the straight Democratic ticket. So what? You are supporting Deans point there.

If everyone just admitted that it was, and smokers admitted that when people are made physically uncomfortable by it, it's the smoker's fault, not the victim's...

When I was a smoker, I had no problem at all with not smoking if there was someone in the room who was bothered by it. If you are getting crap from smokers, well, I don't think it is smoking that makes them rude.

...some smoker at the next table heard me and got offended, would it be entirely his problem?

It would be pretty clear that YOU were the one with the problem, and the smoker should be able to understand that and ignore you.

I refuse to apologize because someone else's smoke is hurting my eyes.

No need for that, but if your tone when you ask people not to smoke is as whiny and accusing as it is here, I can understand people being less than sympathetic, too.

What I'm really against is smokers' attitude that they're morally superior...

I suspect I know where the morally superior attitude problem is.

Andrew,

Before this, I don?t know if I had ever seen a hypothetical "no smoking" restaurant.

I don't know about California (which I view as Moscow on the Pacific), but here in Rochester, New York, we had non smoking restaurants until a law was passed that made smoking in restaurants forbidden anywhere in the county. Smoking is still legal in bars and taverns, but we have number of smoke free bars. The first one was "Johnnys Smoke Free Tavern", and it did so well that several others have opened up since (Johnny has 2 or 3 now). Neighboring counties still allow smoking in restaurants, and there are smoke free restaurants in those counties.

Dean,

I've been told that the city of Toronto outlawed the wearing of perfumes and cologne in public, for the exact reason that some people find it offensive and/or have bad allergic reactions.

Municipal employees in the City of Rochester are forbidden to wear perfumes, colognes, after shave or to use heavily scented hand lotions for just that reason.

Chris,

If I could go and spit in the face of each and every smoker, I'd find it a socially acceptible trade...

But you CAN. The downside is that you run the risk of being charged with harassment. Of course, you also run the risk of getting your ass handed to you by spit dripping smoker, who in turn runs the risk of being charged with battery. And the restuarant is likely to ban you both....

On the other hand, your reaction to smoke is not typical. If you are REALLY that allergic to smoke, you should consult with a medical professional, as there are other substnces you might encounter accidentally that will kill you rather than make you uncomfortable.

A smoker should be able to go to a restaurant and sit in the smoking section without worrying about offending. If your allergy is so serious that a restaurant with a smoking and non smoking section is unacceptable, that is YOUR problem, not everyone elses.

If you are so allergic that you cannot walk past a smoker on the sidewalk without having a reaction, again, that is YOUR problem, and you need to consult an allergist and DO something about it, rather than calling for a restriction on the rights of people who are every bit as much citizens as you are.

...but have you ever seen a well-ventialted restaurant?

After spending ten years in the restaurant business I can safely say "Yes, I have seen many many many well ventilated restaurants".

It's a vice.
As is drinking, gambling, eating fast food, spending too much money, and voting the straight Democratic ticket. So what? You are supporting Deans point there.

If everyone just admitted that it was, and smokers admitted that when people are made physically uncomfortable by it, it's the smoker's fault, not the victim's...

When I was a smoker, I had no problem at all with not smoking if there was someone in the room who was bothered by it. If you are getting crap from smokers, well, I don't think it is smoking that makes them rude.

...some smoker at the next table heard me and got offended, would it be entirely his problem?

It would be pretty clear that YOU were the one with the problem, and the smoker should be able to understand that and ignore you.

I refuse to apologize because someone else's smoke is hurting my eyes.

No need for that, but if your tone when you ask people not to smoke is as whiny and accusing as it is here, I can understand people being less than sympathetic, too.

What I'm really against is smokers' attitude that they're morally superior...

I suspect I know where the morally superior attitude problem is.

Andrew,

Before this, I don?t know if I had ever seen a hypothetical "no smoking" restaurant.

I don't know about California (which I view as Moscow on the Pacific), but here in Rochester, New York, we had non smoking restaurants until a law was passed that made smoking in restaurants forbidden anywhere in the county. Smoking is still legal in bars and taverns, but we have number of smoke free bars. The first one was "Johnnys Smoke Free Tavern", and it did so well that several others have opened up since (Johnny has 2 or 3 now). Neighboring counties still allow smoking in restaurants, and there are smoke free restaurants in those counties.

Dean,

I've been told that the city of Toronto outlawed the wearing of perfumes and cologne in public, for the exact reason that some people find it offensive and/or have bad allergic reactions.

Municipal employees in the City of Rochester are forbidden to wear perfumes, colognes, after shave or to use heavily scented hand lotions for just that reason.

Chris,

Apology accepted. Actually, I like to eat Haagen-Dazs now and then. But it works out to be more then than now, because my wife not only makes me walk four miles a day but also compels me to avoid most of the world's delicious fatteners.

By the way, it's been a long time since they roamed the earth, but I recall that most of the real hippies were not effete. Disconnected, maybe. Which is what you get when you smoke wildweed.

Are there people who approve of smoking cannabis but not tobacco?

Maybe I ought to direct that question to this guy in nearby Madison, Wisconsin, Ira Sharenow, who is always in the news terrorizing the city fathers/mothers about why they don't create even more insane levels of anti-smoking ordinances. Got himself into Mother Jones once, too, as a warrior against smoke-blowing. As far as I know, anti-smoking is that man's singular shtick. He's always in the Madison newspapers leading this or that crusade. But they are all related to the evils of smoking.

Oh, well. I guess the world needs its Torquemadas. But I am uncomfortable in the presence of gods, even if they're perfect.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Great find, Gary!

Boy, oh boy, a good old fasioned banwagon is rolling its way into civic perfection. It began with tobacco. Now they've turned their municipal furies on people who stink. God help the next person who farts in Toronto or Rochester.

Betcha the next targets will be people who walk their dogs. Then folks who drive vehicles other people think are too large, followed by all autos. (People really should be compelled to take public transportation, whether they like it or not. Even if the local bus system doesn't go where you want to go. All for the public good.)

The Robespierres of the city councils are gathering their forces.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Dean,

John Ashcroft is gonna get jealous that someone else in the GOP is being referred to as "Stalinistic."

Theaters, cars with children in them, and public/government facilities, hospitals, and schools are really the only places I feel (or that I can think of right now) that smoking should be banned.

While I am not a smoker, the militant anti-smokers irritate me more than the smoke itself. (As do most militant anti-type movements: meat, fur, abortion, alcohol, guns, immigration, wombats etc.)....plus smokers are helping fund our schools and since they usually die sooner, less social security is spent on them...puff puff away.....

Tim

From a former New Yorker...

How can you say that New Yorkers have a trademark attitude problem?

Shouldn't that have been a "trademark[ed] attitude"?

"But you CAN. The downside is that you run the risk of being charged with harassment."

I think that you get the day's prize for extreme misinterpretation. My [hyperbole] was referring to doing so with as little legal risk as smoking currently carries. It's kind of obvious that it's physically possible for me to do so.

Btw, I was told that in NY, at least, spitting in someone's face is taken to be starting a fight, so you won't be considered defending yourself. Is it possible for both parties to be charged with battery?

"If you are so allergic that you cannot walk past a smoker on the sidewalk without having a reaction..."

I'm not, nor did I ever claim to be. I have no objections whatsoever with people smoking in the great out doors where the smoke gets quickly diluted.

"If you are getting crap from smokers, well, I don't think it is smoking that makes them rude."

Depends on what you mean. I consider smoking itself to be getting crap from smokers.

If you go someplace, notice that many people aren't smoking, notice that the air isn't moving, and light up, this isn't being considerate. A good general rule of thumb would be "if a room isn't filled with smoke when you walked in, don't fix that", with exceptions for places that are supposed to be smoke-holes, like bars and restaurants with a 4-table non-smoking section in the corner.

"if your tone when you ask people not to smoke is as whiny and accusing as it is here, I can understand people being less than sympathetic, too."

Actually, I generally don't ask smokers to put out their cigarettes. It would be rude.

Part of the problem is that cigarette smokers are used to cigarette smoke. They don't notice it, and they generally don't have a good sense of proportion about when a room is big enough for the smoke to not actually carry the 10' over to the non-smoking section in the course of 20 minutes. It's not their fault, really, but it is still generally the case.

However, it's not typically smokers who are smoking who seem to think of themselves as God's gift to clean air. People who actually have a cigarette in their mouths are usually quite nice (unless they're the sort of person who is never nice, but they don't count for exactly that reason). It's smokers (and ex-smokers) on discussion boards and conversations about smoking who take the tact of arguing that people who want to ban smoking also want to enforce the laws against oral sex, make everyone go to church on sunday, force people to use the missionary position because it's the least fun, and club baby seals because they're cute and looking at them makes people less miserable. It's people defending smoking who start pulling out arguments like "if you don't enjoy smoke you're morally, intellectually, and physically deffective and don't deserve to live, and if you mention this to anyone, you should have your tongue cut out." (just to be clear, since I haven't been doing to well today, the preceding paragraph is hyperbole meant to be humorous in the hope of defusing tensions by stating a mocking exaggeration of what I actually believe.)

Arnold:

Are there people who approve of smoking cannabis but not tobacco?

Reminds me of the dust-up when the Stones played Madison Square Garden and Bloomberg wanted to stop the show and issue citations to Keith Richards and Ron Wood for smoking cigarettes on stage.

Heh.

Keith Richards hauled into court for smoking tobacco.

As Casey Stengel would have said, "Who'd of thunk it?"

Arnold,

Out of curiosity, what do you think should be banned in public?

Tim,

"As do most militant anti-type movements..."

What about the anti-discrimination movement of the 60s? The anti-privacy-invasion movement now?

What we really all need is a smoking helmet. Something that smokers can put on that keeps their smoke contained around their head. It should be like a large glass bubble, and should look like a science fiction astronaut helmet. As an added bonus, someone could sell small battery-powered devices to go inside of the helmet and put on micro laser shows in the smoke.

This would make us all happy, and the smokers wouldn't waste all of the smoke that isn't getting nicotine into their lungs.

It seems no a win-win proposition, doesn't it?

Actually, kidding aside, I'm somewhat surprised that noone has come up with a device to do just this, so that smokers could smoke in places officially designated as no-smoking areas.

Oh, btw Tim, you forgot airplanes in the list of places where smoking should be banned.

So what would I ban in public, Chris?

This'n that...

Altruism. Dangling participles. Bare asses, unless they're female and good looking. Whiners. Ablebodied beggars. Catsup on hot dogs. Burgers without real grilled onions. Places that serve Coke only and no Pepsi. Reformers. Senators with $200 hairdos. Phonies. People who treat the word "reason" as an alibi rather than a process.

That enough?

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Arnold,

"Bare asses, unless they're female and good looking."

How long until Abayas for ugly women?

:-)

Immediately.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Well, the most sane approach to smoking in restaurants in my mind would be similar to the almost-ban in Tucson, with a slight modification.

Here, smoking sections are allowed only if they are in a seperate room, with a seperate ventilation system. This unfortunately has hurt a lot of smaller restaurants that had a clientele that was overwhelmingly composed of smokers (mostly mom-and-pop greasy spoons).

I'd fine-tune that with an exemption for restaurants under a certain size or revenue, with a clear signage requirement. I'd leave the choice up to them and the market.

Oh, btw Tim, you forgot airplanes in the list of places where smoking should be banned.

Oh no - Not AIRPLANES! At least not LONG flights.

There would be a whole lot of people turning UGLY.

Besides I've been on large airplanes with smoking sections - I don't know how but they keep the non-smoking section full of clean air.

Boy, some people are really anti-smoking.

I was once on a four-hour flight and wanted the pilot to land somewhere so I could have a smoke break. I asked the stewardess and was half-serious. She assured me the flight would only be another hour and brought me a soda. Another time, on a stopover on a cross-country flight I lit up in the Minneapolis airport next to a cop under a no-smoking sign and more or less DARED him to arrest me. He didn't even look twice -- he'd no doubt seen his share of desperate smokers.

Smoking is a civilized, sublime, wonderful activity that takes much of the pain out of the inconveniences of modern life. Every time you have to wait -- hey, have a cigarette. You get a massive reward with a blast of freebase nicotine every time someone gets in your way.

For example, I didn't even notice I had a really brutal commute in the morning until I quit smoking. Until then, I thought I had a great opportunity to smoke for an hour before I got to work, with plenty of stops on the way to light a cigarette. After quitting, the commute was such a drag I moved.

I saved more than one job by getting mentored on smoke breaks by oppressed smokers and got more than one good story by casually talking to smokers at conferences. Smokers tend to be social and friendly. They tend to accomplish things. Freebase nicotine will do that for you.

Another example: When a fairly young smoker had a mild heart attack, every single senior manager in my former company who was older than he quit smoking. Every one. Office morale plunged. Worse, so did interdepartmental communication and camaderie. It turned out most of the work and planning was being done outside.

Additionally, smoking has a important spiritual and philosophical component; it reminds you that life is temporary, that you are merely a mortal, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, and that you're on your way to another, better place.

Still, I quit because it was getting hard to breathe and I didn't want to get emphysema, which is a horrible, horrible way to go. My grandfather and my uncle died of it. So I quit on the patch five years ago.

When I defend smoking, it's because I fear for a world where smoking can be banned. Bloomberg is out of his mind.

If they can do this, why not fatty food? Why not sugar? Why not wheat flour? Why not milk? Don't these products cause obesity and tax our medical system and raise the price of medical insurance for all? Why stop at banning bad behaviors? Why not make mandatory good behaviors as well -- compulsory tai chi in the public squares, or workouts at Bally's?

While my friend Chris makes the compelling point of well, yes, it's uncomfortable to him when others smoke and it constitutes an assault of sorts, the solution is a combination of rational regulation and consideration. I can see banning cigarettes in certain places.

But not in restaurants or bars where the owners want to offer smoking, or smoking/non-smoking sections. Bloomberg's program is not rational; it impinges on our freedoms, and Bloomberg can go fuck himself. Power to the people! Refuse and resist! Don't tread on me!

I need a cigarette.

What. Ever.

Eventually, the gene pool gets flushed out.

I'm just saying.

In the meantime, let's all sing along!

Now I'm a fellow with a heart of gold
And the ways of a gentleman I've been told
Kind-of-a-guy that wouldn't even harm a flea

But if me and a certain character met
The guy that invented that cigarette
I'd murder that son-of-a gun in the first degree

It ain't cuz I don't smoke 'em myself
and i don't reckon that it'll hinder your health
I smoked 'em all my life and I ain't dead yet

But nicotine slaves are all the same
at a pettin' party or a poker game
Everything gotta stop while they have a cigarette

CHORUS

Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette
Puff, puff, puff until you smoke yourself to death.

Tell St. Peter at the Golden Gate
That you hate to make him wait,
But you just gotta have another cigarette.

In a game of chance the other night
Old dame fortune was good and right
The kings and queens they kept on comin' around

Aw, I was hittin' em good and bettin' 'em high
But my bluff didn't work on a certain guy
He kept callin' and layin' his money down

See, he'd raise me then I'd raise him
and I'd say to him buddy ya gotta sink or swim
Finally called me but didn't raise the bet!

--Hmmph! I said Aces Full Pal -- I got you!
He said, "I'll pay up in a minute or two
But right now, i just gotta have another cigarette."

CHORUS

Now the other night I had a date
with the cutest little gal in any state
A high-bred, uptown, fancy little dame

She said she loved me and it seemd to me
That things were sorta like they oughtta be
So hand in hand we strolled down lovers lane

She was a long way from a chunk of ice
And our pettin' party was goin' real nice
And I got an idea I might have been there yet

So I give her a kiss and a little squeeze
Then she said, "Travis, Excuse me Please
But I just gotta have a cigarette."

CHORUS

Epilogue:
From the New York Times, Oct. 13, 1985

Country-western songwriter and entertainer Sollie "Tex" Williams, a heavy smoker best known for his tune, "Smoke, Smoke, Smoke That Cigarette," died after a year-long battle with cancer, his daughter said.

. . . her father, who was diagnosed a year ago as having cancer, smoked two packs of cigarettes a day, dropping to about a pack a day before he died.

"He tried to quit, but he couldn't," she said.

==========================================
Webby Awards voting ends 5/23/03
Cast a write-in vote for Dean's World as best Personal Site.
Click here to register and vote.
==========================================

David: good job! You have just enunciated the entire problem in a nutshell:

First we have social engineering (government meddling in things that aren't its business), then onerous requirements to private industries (anyone here have any idea how expensive it is to build that specialized "smoking room"?), then suggestions for wasting yet even more time and money on uneccessary laws (fine-tuning the regulations)!

I'm impressed. Really. :) And all this so Chris can eat in a public establishment.

To quote Yakov: "I love this country!" Heh.

I, too, am a former smoker, and I happen to concur with Dean on several points.
I would posit that the smokers that Chris has encountered are grouped in the "rude" end of the spectrum. My experience with smokers and non-smokers is this:
1) Most smokers will stop smoking in a public place if it is causing you distress, and they are in your immediate vicinity. If your request is polite, they may indeed apologize for the distress.
2) Some nonsmokers don't have any problem whatsoever with smokers being nearby.
3) Smokers are aware of the fact that smoke is emanating from the cigarette. Smoke can impregnate cloth and other materials with its odor, so they are noticeable consequences of smoking.

Part of the problem I have with the anti-smoking measures in my area is that they have banned smoking in public areas where there is ventilation. For example, there is a certain number of feet away from a workplace's exterior in which smokers have to move, in some locations. This inconveniences the smoker without adding significant value to the nonsmoker environment. It appears to be a "shaming" measure, because the smoker can no longer find an inobtrusive location to perform their activity. If they were doing a variety of other activities, it would be allowed.

Casey, I'm not in favor of govt. regulation, but society seems bound and determined to regulate public smoking. So yes, I'd rather see existing smoking laws "fine tuned" so as to be more just towards all involved, than for them to be totally draconian and disrespectful of property rights.

This is a good illustration of why regulating something in the first place isn't usually a good idea, as "the more that's controlled, the more that needs controlling"; so they've started by controlling smoking, and now need to control it in more detail.

I strongly disagree that "society" wants to regulate public smoking. I'll say it's a minority group of activists (AKA the Safety Nazis) who see themselves as protecting everyone else, whether they want to be protected or not.

They're the same people who sue gun manufacturers for "making unsafe products", Mickey Dee's for making people fat, and are forcing playgrounds all over the country to remove allegedly unsafe swings, slides, etc., to avoid ANY possible liabilty in case some poor child scrapes their knee and their nitwit parents sue.

I could go on listing all the things that Safety Nazis worry about, but the above is a good start.

Parenthetically, I don't think Chris is a Safety Nazi. I just think he's unbalanced about smoking. Heh. [running & ducking for cover]

The real problem is lawyers. I remember when lawyers were not allowed to advertise. it was a better world.

I remember when lawyers weren't allowed to breed... :)

Let me emphasize the word "most" from my post:
" (As do most militant anti-type movements: meat, fur, abortion, alcohol, guns, immigration, wombats etc.)" That still leaves some room to support the occassional justified militant movement or protest....

btw, smoking is banned on 95% of all flights including really long ones (Korea, Japan etc. but many times on foreign airlines, this regulation is often ignored without even a citation.)

Smoking shouldn't be banned on long flights. Just let the smokers go out on the wing and light one up.

Tim

I've never met a militant movement or protest that I could like let alone justify...

>>Arnold,

Out of curiosity, what do you think should be banned in public?

================================

Democrats

What a difference a mayor makes, twenty-four little hours... from irascible Rudy to pandering Bloomy. Rudy seemed to care less what people thought, just went about the business of making New York a better place to live, a great place to visit. Now, when The City needs all the slack it can possibly be cut, we get this wuss that makes life even MORE difficult. Worse, he did it to look "progressive" on an issue he (wrongly) thought was politically bullet-proof.

Here's an idea Mister Mayor: Leave your personal baggage in your private mansion. New York's a big, raucous, vibrant city - mostly because we've had very few of your ilk at the helm. So kindly butt out.

Alrighty, just stopped in to see what was being stated and my goodness...forget about smoking!..can we not, PLEASE, enforce an anti-Chris law...how about some non-chris sections in restaurants or even bars which don't allow chris at all??!! Sounds like a swell idea to me. Okay, I slightly apologise for my stint into immaturity but (shrug) I guess I couldn't help it.
For God's sake (whoops, I just blasphemed) Chris, Shut Up. I am sorry that you get so affected by smoke, but egads Man, why on earth did you move to this city?? Was it so that you could indulge in self-righteous whining??
FYI - there are, I repeat, there are 100% non-smoking restaurants AND bars that you can go to and drink yourself into a merry stupor without being assaulted by cigarette smoke. Just incase you didn't quite understand what I just said, I'll repeat. THERE ARE 100% NON SMOKING RESTAURANTS AND BARS IN NEW YORK CITY. Therefore, don't you think that allowing us naughty smokers at least a few establishments in which we can perform this heinous act is only fair, if not just to keep us off the streets...hmmmm?