Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Connoisseur' started by ArrowCollarMan, Nov 28, 2008.
Tony In Tarzana - Thank you for the info!
Blackjack - :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap
/rant/ I was around (and smoking) back in the day, and smoking wherever you want still seems perfectly reasonable to me. The whole smoking ban thing was based on a study of the effects of second-hand smoke that was later proven invalid, but the self-righteous anti-smoking weenies somehow still prevailed. As Blackjack stated, whether or not you get cancer is more a matter of genetics than the bogus threat of second-hand smoke. I find the smoking bans particularly offensive when it comes to smoking in bars. Bars are supposed to be dark, smoky places where rakes and lowlifes can be among their own, not bright, clean social centers for yuppie twits.
I'm too old to have much patience with the nanny state.
Just out of curiousity I went to The American Lung Associations homepage and read about second-hand smoke and its effects. It was interesting and it contradicts the whole "cancer is strictly genetics" argument. I'm not trying to be a smart aleck but its important that young people who think "smoking is cool" know the facts.
Ok, I'm not trying to PROMOTE smoking or anything else that's a health hazard. Smoking is not good for you, but either is fast food, caffeine, stress, alcohol, drugs, excessive exercise, and radical dieting. My point is as an adult you make choices in what you want to do with your life, if you enjoy it and it's not illegal, no one has the right to tell you you can't do it. If i get on an elevator and someone next to me "stinks", I hold my breath until I get off and avoid standing next to the person again. I DON'T petition the government to pass laws against people who don't practice good personal hygiene. If you "can't stand" the smell of tobacco and someone is sitting enjoying a cigarette on a park bench, DON'T SIT NEXT TO HIM, go somewhere else, it's a big world. Too many people think that their rights are more important than others, that they should have the right to sit anywhere they want and not be bothered by a smoker. A lot of these same folks will bring their three year olds into a restaurant and let them run around the restaurant bothering everyone's dinner. Should we pass laws to not allow people with kids in restaurants? That is where this is all heading, and if you think I'm off base fine but once you start letting the government control peoples freedoms, don't bitch when it rolls your way.
I think Blackjack's onto something. Ever notice how those who want to control every aspect of others' lives always start with highly polarized issues - smoking, guns, etc. These tend to be, for the most part, "either/or" issues. Either you approve of others' right to smoke in public, own a gun, or what have you, or you don't. Few people take the "i don;t want to smoke, but I don't mind if you do" approach. So, with at least half the population behind them, the meddlers can easily get the "offensive" behavior banned. The problem is, much of our legal system is based on "precedent." Do it once and you set a precedent, making it easier to do the next time. Today we ban smoking in public places. Hey, maybe 53% of the public thinks it's a great idea. Next, we ban smoking in private homes. Maybe only 20% think that's a good idea, but nevermind - there's already a precedent for such legislation. Now, since trans fats are unhealthy, let's ban those too. Don't want your french fries to taske like cardboard? Too bad. Sooner or later, they'll get around to banning something YOU found enjoyable or pleasurable. When they do, remember that smoking ban you so eagerly supported!
When men start wearing hats again.
This is so refreshing.
Now, I truly wish I didn't enjoy smoking as much as I do. But I do. The lighters, the cases, the ashtrays, the whole ritual nature of it. Also, I've always tended to be on the nervous-wreck end of the spectrum and it does take the edge off for me.
HOWEVER, I recognize that it is no damn good for me. I'm into my forties now and there is no denying that tobacco smoke has taken away some cardio-vascular oooph I used to have. If I could wave the magic wand and have never heard of cigarettes, I'd do it in a blink. But since I have so deeply embraced the risky habit, I'm committed to it - for the eventual worse I fear.
The refreshing part is that while the reality is an unhealthy one for most actual smokers, the assessments from Warbaby, staggerwing and Blackjack about the shady principles behind 'anti-' movements are spot-on. Almost no one has the nerve to say it like it is anymore and I applaud you.
Smoke up everybody because in 5 years it won't only be illegal it'll be down right immoral.
Of course one should be able to smoke if one chooses too, and anti-smoking legislation is certainly not respectful of individual freedoms. But, does your right to smoke take precedent over others right to enjoy their meal (which they have paid for) without cigarette smoke interfering? And it does interfere, believe me. Nothing worse when trying to savour the delicate flavours of poached trout than someones stale smoke clogging up the senses. It would have made far more sense to allow restaurants the choice to choose between allowing smoking or no. I know here in Australia many of the better restaurants had smoking bans in place long before it was legislated.
A a smoking ban is hardly necessary in somewhere like McDonalds, however, where the food tastes second hand at the best of times. Cigarette smoke mixed in may actually be an improvement.
When it comes to smoking in public however, Mr Blackjack is quite right, if you do not like it, move to avoid it.
As an aside, french fries freshly fried in decent oil should not taste like cardboard, trans fats are not needed,they are just a cheap convenience foisted on a somnambulent consumer base.
In regards to letting children run rampant in a restaurant, it is certainly as distracting from ones rapast as some inconsiderate oaf lighting up on the table next to you, perhaps more so.
Short answer, no! However, the creation of smoking and nonsmoking sections handled this quite nicely - with the added benefit that I could sit in the smoking section and generally be pretty much free of people you let their ill mannered little urchins play "tag" betwixt the patron's tables. When you cross the line to outright bans, then you're infringing on the rights of others.
I would question whether a person has a right to be free of cigarette smoke while eating in a private establishment; you may have purchased your meal, but if you are still in the establishment, the owners set the rules for the environment. The fact that many better restaurants banned smoking before the legislation would indicate to me that legislation was not needed. People who dislike smoke with meals can frequent the restaurants that don't allow smoke. If the businesses are taking care of it in house, why should the government step in?
Well, quite so. The wholesale bans are heavy handed and rather unjust.
I highly doubt the bans will ever get reversed, they'll only get more heavy handed. Public smoking is on its way out which is the part that bothers me. No smoking indoors? Fine. It'll smell and make people sneeze. But no smoking outside? Thats going too far.
I live in Ireland which banned smoking in public places 3 or 4 years ago, the first country in Europe to do so. It hit the pub trade a little but not so much the restaurants. i don't smoke anymore but i really thought the ban was a bit heavy-handed. segregated areas or modern extraction systems could have been put in place. i just returned from Poland which is a proud smoking country and to see people lighting up in bars and cafes gave me a surge of nostalgia, it seemed like light years since i had seen public smoking.
I don't miss smoking much, but right then and there i had to fight the impulse to order a cheroot and an espresso and sit outside watching the world go by- just for old times sake....
Boston just banned the sale of cigarettes in drug stores and on college campuses. The whole state already has a smoking ban in restaurants, but still allowed for smoking on outdoor patios. Well, in 60 days Boston will also close that loop hole.
Boston also has 6 cigar bars that serve ONLY smokers. No non-smoker would have business going there to be bothered by smoke. Well, Boston is shuttering them also. Just flat out putting 6 small business owners out of business.
And to think this is the Cradle of Liberty and the birthplace of the revolution. :rage:
I think we smokers need to show a little more attitude toward those who try to tell us we can't smoke.
Yeah...I found out Iowa State University, which I currently attend, is a completely tobacco-free campus. You can't even fire up while crossing central campus, which is basically a huge common green with sidewalks.
You would probably enjoy the Arturo Fuente Dominicans I occasionally puff. They're as pleasant on the blowout as on the draw (in a totally different way). No Orange Crush note whatever.