smoking ban
So, to stir things up a little bit, I may as well become more vocal about my opposition to the smoking ban, which is very nearly a reality, thus putting me in opposition to my metblog-colleague Andrew, who is clearly in favor.
Picture this:
Many of you know this place. It’s the Hermitage Cafe, near downtown Nashville. It’s been there, as far as I know, since Moses parted the Red Sea. It’s an institution: the prototypical greasy spoon. Even if you haven’t been there, you probably know its reputation: greasy, open 24 hours, and smokey. This place, and many other like it, will certainly be covered under the ban. The idea of people stepping outside to smoke at the Hermitage Cafe is comical. It’s so dissonant I can’t even fathom it. The majority of the staff of the place itself I think would wither and die without a steady stream of cigarettes. This ban may very well kill the Hermitage Cafe.
No one in their right mind would go to a place like this without expecting to get a healthy dose of secondhand smoke. Most of the patrons are going specifically to quash a hangover in biscuits, gravy, black coffee, and cigarettes. If you go to this place and are displeased with the fact that there’s cigarette smoke, you’re a minority. Period. Yet, proponents of this ban are willing to use their majority in the city at large to impose their will. There’s a term for that: tyranny of the majority. It’s not cool. Our entire government is (was) setup to avoid that sort of thing. Anyways, the idea of forcing a ban overlooks the inevitability that restaurants would start willfully going non-smoking. There’s even a niche market for it. I’d go to a bar if I knew it was non-smoking. I don’t like smelling like an ashtray any more than you do.
But, there are times when I don’t care. There are times when I want a cigarette, black coffee, and gravy, dammit, and I want that choice. I should have the right to make that choice for myself. The next time you think about this proposed ban, just remember the Hermitage Cafe. Imagine people standing outside of that place, huddled in the cold, smoking. Try not to giggle at the ridiculousness. Seriously, try not to laugh at the surreality of that scene. Can you even imagine it? I can’t.
Nice post, and i hear a lot of what you’re saying. However, if people are going to a diner to smoke, it must not be much of a diner. The scene that i find comical are the scenes of people so helpless for a cigarette that they can’t go an hour without one. This ban will hopefully help some of them realize how silly smoking a plant is and at least cut back until they get home or in their car. I for one would never have gone to a place like this, but would consider it now. There are a number of places i plan on frequenting more if they eliminated smoking. I hate having to pay attention to the wash-ability of hats and jackets i wear when i go out so i don’t ruin my clothes. how nice it will be when i can just go to a restaurant when i want to go, and not have to consider if i want to be able to breathe later.
Certainly smoking is stupid, no one is arguing that.
But my larger point is: when you say that you would never consider going to a place like that, but would after the ban: it’s not because suddenly the doors are open to you, and the place is essentially otherwise the same. This ban would fundamentally morph it — change it forever. The Hermitage Cafe that has been there for years is no more. You’d be going to a different place — a place you changed to suit your preferences at the expense of their liberty.
That sounds pretty melodramatic, but I think it’s true, and I think everyone that is supporting this ban would do well to think long and hard about all the people they are subjecting to their will.
LOL…Ivy & I are tickled that you want want a cigarette, black coffee, and gravy, dammit! God bless America!
Paul, Big Health doesn’t pay for a Tobacco War so your clothes won’t stink. They do it because they want to replace tobacco– the best antidepressant known to man–with prescriptipn drugs at ten prices.
A society based on the power and profits of the Medical Establishment won’t be much fun for anybody else.
All they have to do is limit their customers to over 18. Under 18 have no business with a hangover.:)
Good discussion.
As a former smoker, I can certainly see the point that there’s something cultural about greasy-spoon diners that goes hand-in-hand with smoking. I wrote about the Hermitage Cafe myself a while back and while its smokiness wasn’t one of the, uh, qualities that impressed me, it certainly wouldn’t have been surprising to see lots of folks in there lighting up.
That said, as a non-smoker for about 10 years, I now enjoy being able to go hang out with friends in dive bars and greasy spoons without feeling like I swallowed an ashtray the next morning. And being exposed to smoke, even if I’m not smoking, makes me feel like crap in the morning.
While I’m all about the “ain’t nobody’s business if you do” style of non-legislation, there can be no denying the detrimental effects of secondhand smoke on smokers and non-smokers alike. It’s not just a personal rights issue for smokers. I don’t want people killing themselves with cigarettes, but I don’t support legislating against it (except to keep them out of children’s hands - I started smoking when I was 11). I do support legislating against people killing other people, however indirectly, through the public use of a drug whose by-products are known to cause cancer.
Kate O’:
The Tennessee Legislature doesn’t care whether you support their legislation or not. They don’t answer to you, they answer to the antitobacco movement which is described as the Fraud of the Century. It’s an exercise in junk science and political corruption that sets a precedent for a nanny state to control your personal life like livestock. If you’re already livestock, you won’t mind much.
Making my point more clear…hopefully…I am normally more libertarian in my thinking. I don’t like legislated morality, even when i am personally against something. But in the case something that effects those around you this much (not to mention is an addictive substance) i reluctantly support controlling legislation, and personally look forward to being free to go more places without as much personal risk or personal inconvenience.
Paul…I think you only think you’re normally a libertarian. Remember…libertarianism means less government regulation…not more…ie…more liberty. While it might “affect” other people around you, there is a choice to remove oneself from that environment or not even go there at all.
Now, I get the “you are crazy if you think that” look when I say the following, but the effects of second-hand smoke are nowhere near as detrimental as the one actually smoking the cigarette. Those that think that apparently aren’t rationalizing the fact that condensed smoke inhaled directly from the cigarette is completely different from smoke that has been diluted by surrounding air.
There have been several studies that have shown that second-hand smoke doesn’t lead to an increased level of lung cancer. Other studies that do don’t take into consideration outside factors. The best study was performed on German airline attendants over a period of a couple of decades (smoking was allowed on flights). The airline attendants actually had less incidents of lung cancer (and were generally more healthy) than the general population. And they were constantly around second hand smoke.
Now, that’s not to say that second-hand smoke doesn’t affect things such as asthma or allergies…it does…but throwing around the “c-word” around in order to get something banned that you don’t like carries the whole movement to the point of a crusade.
When any group gets to the level of crusading against something by attempting to legislate their beliefs on others, rational facts are thrown to the wind.
Ed, I’m laughing at your comment about junk science written after you say that tobacco is the best anti-depressant known to man. What type of science says that?
Aside from that, I don’t support the smoking ban, either. I think it should be up to the business owner and their employees whether or not they want a smoky or smoke-free environment. If anything, there should be an amendment to this ban that allows for establishments that serve the public to seek permits to allow smoking. Granted, it’s just another way for the government to make money, but it will show that an establishment truly wants the patronage of smokers.
Additionally, I think this legislation will harm me more than hurt me in the long run. I like dining al fresco and that will nearly be impossible once every patio in the city is crammed with smokers.
Lesley, good point about the al fresco dining. Yikes.
Chris, I just read the text of the legislation and it seems that any restaurant can skirt this law by electing to become an age-restricted venue. That is specifically defined as any venue that prohibits entrance by those under the age of 21 by checking ID at the door. It does not stipulate that to be an age-restricted venue you must possess liquor or beer licenses or in any way be construed as a bar. The Hermitage Cafe could easily elect to do this since the majority of their customers are over the age of 21. I’m also worried about Brown’s Diner.
Chris, and others…
Please check out the not-really-a-blog at:
http://fauxbacco.blogspot.com
and http://ktc.com/~bdrake for some very underreported info about the “smoking” brouhaha.
Both sites are packed with “I didn’t know THAT!” kind of info…that the commercial media, and corporate serving officials are not About to tell anyone.
Bottom line is…Smoke Bans are frauds wrapped, AS EVER,in “for your protection”. In fact, they serve the cigarette makers enormously by the old faithful “pretend enemy” tactic. That is…pretend to oppose those you serve and you eliminate the VALID and potentialy EFFECTIVE opposition. Nothing new.