Bar Attendance in CT . . .

[Sundogue]

Why do you see freedom only in the ability to deprive others' freedom?

You mean, as in smokers depriving the freedom of non-smokers to breathe clean air?

If I go to a bar (and so far all bars around here have no ban on it...yet) I expect people to be smoking. As a non-smoker I can choose to go somewhere where they don't. In my opinion, bar owners can open non-smoking clubs. Just like they have non-alcoholic bars for teens.

It should be up to the owners, not the government. Let the free enterprise system determine the value of a non-smoking environment for drinkers. If there were that many places that could stay open, by catering to non-smokers, they'd all do it.

If all the non-smokers out there could support non-smoking clubs, what is the issue? You all seem to believe that they can. And they may be currently, because the clubs and the clientelle are FORCED to be in a non-smoking nightclub. Could they still do it without the laws? I don't believe so.

That's what I meant about freedom. All of us non-smokers are now free of that filthy habit infecting our lives, because the government took that "freedom" away from others.

I'm a former smoker. Think smoking doesn't get to me in a nightclub? As much as I can't stand the smell, I can't stand the thought of the government taking away the rights of those that do. Loss of freedom stinks even more.

If the government told you you were no longer free, you would not tolerate it. But when it does it little by little, you hardly notice it happening.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

What freedom was lost?

Smokers can still smoke.

Non-smokers can now also avoid the smoke.

Sounds like more freedom to me, actually.

I don't consider it an encroachment on my freedom, for example, to have to leave the bar area and go to the men's room when I have to pee. Peeing on other people would be rude and inconsiderate, even if I considered it an important personal freedom to be able to do so.

Likewise, smokers can step outside or into a smokers' lounge when they feel the need without metaphorically peeing on others.

 

[Sundogue]

What freedom was lost?

Smokers can still smoke.

Non-smokers can now also avoid the smoke.

Sounds like more freedom to me, actually.

I don't consider it an encroachment on my freedom, for example, to have to leave the bar area and go to the men's room when I have to pee. Peeing on other people would be rude and inconsiderate, even if I considered it an important personal freedom to be able to do so.

Likewise, smokers can step outside or into a smokers' lounge when they feel the need without metaphorically peeing on others.

I have to agree with you there... except if you had to pee outside in the middle of winter. Of course if you are out in a bar drinking, there really is no choice about peeing. It's not like you can just say, I don't think I'll pee tonight.

When I smoked, the whole idea of going out, having a few drinks and a smoke while watching a band was, to me, a good night out. The fact that I'd have to get up and go outside on a cold winter night (and here in Wisconsin...cold takes on a whole new meaning) to have a smoke...does infringe on my right.

Now if they had smoking and non-smoking clubs, which do you think would do better financially? I'd really like to know how much of this is actually driven by individuals and how much is driven by the government?

Let's say there were no laws regarding this. Do you think a non-smoking club would do as well financially as the same night club that allows smoking? Since so many people seem to find smoking offensive, you'd think the non-smoking club would do better, right? Profit drives business. If non-smokers put their money where their smoke free mouth is, the government would not even have to step in would they?

 

[NJL]

i am a smoker.

i hate second hand smoke

i have been trying to quit off and on for about 6 yrs.

when i'm at a bar - i go smoke outside - why should others inhale my crap; that's my stupid ass habit, not theirs; why should i push it on them?

i support non-smoking in public places. smoking sucks - it's the worst habit i have ever had.

having to go out in the freezing cold to go and smoke is a good thing, maybe one day i will actually quit.

 

[Sundogue]

No it does not. Are you a gun owner? Does it infringe on your right to have to go to a target range in the Wisconsin cold instead of shooting your gun in the saloon like the good ol' days? Right to bear arms and all that, yeeeeeeeee-haww? If people don't expect a shoot-'em-up, why, just don't go to the saloon, y'hear? LMAO !!!

Your rights are perfectly intact, including the rights of non-smokers for a change, and the non-smokers will continue to subsidize your health care for when you succumb to smoking-related illnesses.

Don't sweat it - most bars will add a smoking room or heated patio and smokers can be cozy and warm and not miss any of the exciting changeovers between bands.

Umm, I don't smoke. I haven't smoked in almost 2 years now. You'd think if anyone would be pissed about smokers in a bar it would be me.

But I'm more tolerant of smokers, obviously. My rights aren't affected one bit by this new law that now protects me. I'm a big boy and I don't need no stinking law to protect me.

As far as subsidizing the health care system. Smokers don't live as long as non-smokers, so it is really the the non-smokers that live to a ripe old age that drain the health care system more than smokers...and that is a financial fact, jack.

 

[mycranium]

That is until one of their personal freedoms are taken away because of someone else's pet peeve.

Tell me why a person's freedom to smoke should supersede my freedom to not breath that person's exhaust fumes? Are smokers the only ones with rights in that case? How does my exercising my right to breath unpolluted air cause hardship to a smoker? Yeah, I can leave a place if the smoke bothers me. But by the same token, a non-smoker can leave a place if the non-smoking bothers him or her. Why should it be incumbent on the person not creating the nuisance to compromise their freedom? Doesn't it make sense that the person who desires to behave in a way that is known to be a nuisance to others should be the one to make a sacrifice in order to participate in that behavior? If a person is so addicted to nicotine that it would be a hardship for them to have to find some appropriate place to smoke, why the hell do they get to make that MY problem?

The argument that a smoker should be able to smoke regardless of the nuisance it causes to other people who also have rights is ludicrous. We don't have laws about that just because we want to piss off smokers. We have laws because, as the pro-smoking arguments amply illustrate, people who engage in such behavior cannot be relied upon to consider the effects of their behavior on other people; rather, they rely upon infantile arguments about their absolute right to have a negative effect on other people without consequence, then hide behind the cover of the cry of "my freedoms are being taken away" as though they possess some moral high ground when in fact they're merely rationalizing their own selfishness.

Listen up - with liberty comes responsibility. If you want to maintain your freedoms, behave responsibly and respect the freedom of others. If you don't, you may believe yourself to be a champion of liberty, but you'd be deluded.

 

[Sundogue]

Tell me why a person's freedom to smoke should supersede my freedom to not breath that person's exhaust fumes? Are smokers the only ones with rights in that case? How does my exercising my right to breath unpolluted air cause hardship to a smoker? Yeah, I can leave a place if the smoke bothers me. But by the same token, a non-smoker can leave a place if the non-smoking bothers him or her. Why should it be incumbent on the person not creating the nuisance to compromise their freedom? Doesn't it make sense that the person who desires to behave in a way that is known to be a nuisance to others should be the one to make a sacrifice in order to participate in that behavior? If a person is so addicted to nicotine that it would be a hardship for them to have to find some appropriate place to smoke, why the hell do they get to make that MY problem?

The argument that a smoker should be able to smoke regardless of the nuisance it causes to other people who also have rights is ludicrous. We don't have laws about that just because we want to piss off smokers. We have laws because, as the pro-smoking arguments amply illustrate, people who engage in such behavior cannot be relied upon to consider the effects of their behavior on other people; rather, they rely upon infantile arguments about their absolute right to have a negative effect on other people without consequence, then hide behind the cover of the cry of "my freedoms are being taken away" as though they possess some moral high ground when in fact they're merely rationalizing their own selfishness.

Listen up - with liberty comes responsibility. If you want to maintain your freedoms, behave responsibly and respect the freedom of others. If you don't, you may believe yourself to be a champion of liberty, but you'd be deluded.

And damned if it didn't take over 200 years for this country to come to this conclusion regarding smoking. How long has this country been smoking? And only now we realize that someone's freedom is being denied?

 

[Passinwind]

Never in my 36+ years on the planet have I ever been to or even heard of a non smoking bar (previous to this ban)

Hmmm, I guess brew pubs haven't caught on in CT yet? I've never seen one anywhere that allows smoking, and I've been to more since 1984 than I might want to admit to. In any case, you guys in the Midwest and wherever better get used to the idea, it's coming at you too. People do vote with their wallets, and out here at least, the vote says smoking is going away in clubs. I'm currently considering whether to play my first smoking venue gigs in more than ten years, and smoking is not illegal in clubs in the states I play in-yet. The upside for me is that the smoking clubs have to pay better, and do so. A chance to play actual jazz for decent wages might sway me, but it'll still be hard to go for, in my case.

Fortunately, common sense is also kicking in here regarding sound pressure levels. As a sound man, I have no problem telling bands to turn down, or forget return gigs. I am fine with occasionally mixing in ear plugs, if that's the club owner's choice, but few would make that choice these days, IME. I just pass on those shows the next time around. The patrons can, and do, go outside if it's too loud where I work, but drunks are essentially defenseless. I don't relish being a party pooper, but at least I can learn from past mistakes, and refuse to hurt people repeatedly.

Almost no non-smokers go across the street to the local smoking bar when there's music there. There is a lot of foot traffic the other way. Free market economics are going to sort this all out eventually, regardless of the laws, IMO. I'm not so crass as to tell someone to move to another state if they don't like it. You could always start or join a private club, which many people around here do. The speakeasy model is rife with tradition, and will likely continue for a long time. Talking about the good ol' daze is fruitless, I think. It a moving playing field, and money talks. I tried to deal with smoking as a given in clubs gracefully, and with good humor. Here's hoping that those experiencing the shoe on the other foot manage that too.

 

[Passinwind]

Brew pubs allowed smoking too, or at least they did.

Wow, that's really unusual, IME.

In case my last post didn't make it clear: I'm not for legal regulation of smoking. I am for abolition of it (in clubs) by economic pressure. I could go off about government subsidies and the like, but I'm not here for the politics, eh?

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

And damned if it didn't take over 200 years for this country to come to this conclusion regarding smoking. How long has this country been smoking? And only now we realize that someone's freedom is being denied?

If that's how long it takes, that's how long it takes. No big deal. I think we'll see the trend continue.

Laws to protect the freedoms of some people from the actions of others are not uncommon. For example, some time ago the freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road was taken away from us, but it results in greater driving freedom for all.

Obviously, not everyone gets it that smoking is not merely a pesonal activity but is one that everyone around the smoker engages in whether they want to or not. You repeatedly and falsely claim that people who don't want to smoke along with the smoker are therefore intolerant of smokers. That is a fallacy.

Here's a free market solution for you: invent a smoking device that contains the smoke, so that only the user is exposed to it.

 

[Nick man]

Here's a free market solution for you: invent a smoking device that contains the smoke, so that only the user is exposed to it.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Just pop one of these over your head and you can smoke anywhere you want!

Peace
Nick

 

[Sundogue]

Obviously, not everyone gets it that smoking is not merely a pesonal activity but is one that everyone around the smoker engages in whether they want to or not. You repeatedly and falsely claim that people who don't want to smoke along with the smoker are therefore intolerant of smokers. That is a fallacy.

No, it's only been my experience that most non-smokers I've met are intolerant of smokers, whether they are smoking or not. They get on their high horse and get all preachy and damned irritating, if not threatening to smokers...even when they are not smoking...as if just knowing they are around a smoker puts them at risk, should the smoker suddenly light up and ruin their lives. It's just ridiculous.

It's the pomposity and piousness that goes along with the intolerance that I'm talking about. Hell, I don't smoke any more and when I'm around a bunch of smokers I can't stand it either...but I do not work them over like I'm a saint and they are pure evil.

I should add, not all non-smokers are like this...but I'm amazed at how most act around smokers, as if non-smokers have cornered the market on what is good and righteous. It's enough to make one want to take it up again, if only to puff a few smoke ring halos around their heads.