Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Refusing to play at places where smoking is allowed
- Thread starter sonicland
- Start date
I have not read through the thread. I do not smoke, none of my band mates smoke, and we never go where there is smoking. If you walked into my audition and and said "I will not play at smoking gigs" you would not get to audition. Why? Not because of your feelings about smoking but because you are anal retentive and I have no need for that. 
jive1
Commercial User
As a guy who owns a business, and owns commercial property, it kind of irks me that that smoking is not permitted in MY OWN PROPERTY even though it is legal. This is a property that I pay mortgage, taxes, expenses, insurance, etc. I have responsibilities toward my business and property, and I have the legal right to protection from trespassing. Of course, for me it makes no sense to smoke inside my shop because it would negatively influence the price of my wares. It would steer customers away from my shop, and may cause potential employees to not want to work there. But, it is my shop, and I should have the freedom to do something legal within the shop, even if it's to the detriment of my business. Business owners do lots of stuff that are detrimental to their business or the community, but there's no ban on it.
The crazy thing is that if I wanted to open up a cigar bar, or someplace that allowed smoking, there's many places where I can't, even though the demand is there. If I wanted to open up a live music establishment that catered to smokers and hired bands that didn't care, I couldn't in some states. Now, say I wanted to open up a pron shop/peep-show. Sure it could be a nasty atmosphere, and lots of people won't go there. But, that's their choice. Most people won't want a job cleaning up jizz and jag rags, so they won't work there even if it's the only job in town. From body fluids to seedy characters, it could be a 'hazardous' place to work. And some would argue that it affects others, in terms of marriages, families, communities, etc., but they still exist in this country.
Now say you had a rehearsal space that you own in a public area, such a commercial space. You play loud music, which can be detrimental to one's hearing, but it's sound proofed so that it's doesn't get outside. The people going in know that it's going to be loud so they get hearing protection when they go in. You don't allow anyone to come in to rehearsal other than band members and people that you invite. Say they passed a law that said you cannot be over a certain number of decibels inside your rehearsal space because someone from the public might wander in and get hearing damage from it.
IMO, let the market do it's thing, because in the end it boils down to economics. If having smoking kills your business, it's your choice. If you can't get anyone to work there, it's your choice. You'll either ban smoking on your own, or you'll go out of business. If a having non-smoking bar is good for business, then I doubt someone in their right mind would allow smoking. If a couple of smokers are ruining it for everyone, the place would be best served by banning smoking. But, if everyone goes there for a smoke and doesn't mind the environment, then let it be. In short, if allowing smoking helps business, then let them. If banning smoking helps business, then let them. But, it should be the decision of the individual property/business owner, not the government.
Right now, the trend is toward having non-smoking places, but that doesn't mean that there can't be a niche for a place that allows it to make money from it. Right now, there are so many non-smoking places that there are plenty of options for non-smokers. From the cities I lived in, there are almost no options for smokers to enjoy live music and smoke indoors. IMO, IME, there's enough people on both sides of the fence to allow for both kinds of places without infringing on each other's rights.
The crazy thing is that if I wanted to open up a cigar bar, or someplace that allowed smoking, there's many places where I can't, even though the demand is there. If I wanted to open up a live music establishment that catered to smokers and hired bands that didn't care, I couldn't in some states. Now, say I wanted to open up a pron shop/peep-show. Sure it could be a nasty atmosphere, and lots of people won't go there. But, that's their choice. Most people won't want a job cleaning up jizz and jag rags, so they won't work there even if it's the only job in town. From body fluids to seedy characters, it could be a 'hazardous' place to work. And some would argue that it affects others, in terms of marriages, families, communities, etc., but they still exist in this country.
Now say you had a rehearsal space that you own in a public area, such a commercial space. You play loud music, which can be detrimental to one's hearing, but it's sound proofed so that it's doesn't get outside. The people going in know that it's going to be loud so they get hearing protection when they go in. You don't allow anyone to come in to rehearsal other than band members and people that you invite. Say they passed a law that said you cannot be over a certain number of decibels inside your rehearsal space because someone from the public might wander in and get hearing damage from it.
IMO, let the market do it's thing, because in the end it boils down to economics. If having smoking kills your business, it's your choice. If you can't get anyone to work there, it's your choice. You'll either ban smoking on your own, or you'll go out of business. If a having non-smoking bar is good for business, then I doubt someone in their right mind would allow smoking. If a couple of smokers are ruining it for everyone, the place would be best served by banning smoking. But, if everyone goes there for a smoke and doesn't mind the environment, then let it be. In short, if allowing smoking helps business, then let them. If banning smoking helps business, then let them. But, it should be the decision of the individual property/business owner, not the government.
Right now, the trend is toward having non-smoking places, but that doesn't mean that there can't be a niche for a place that allows it to make money from it. Right now, there are so many non-smoking places that there are plenty of options for non-smokers. From the cities I lived in, there are almost no options for smokers to enjoy live music and smoke indoors. IMO, IME, there's enough people on both sides of the fence to allow for both kinds of places without infringing on each other's rights.
That's a whole debate in itself right there.
If any new pharmaceutical drug had the track record of smoking, do you think it would ever be legal? I don't think so. I think it's that it would be too hard to enforce a ban and that there would be a backlash and that's why it's not done.
Hypocritical? Yes!
jive1
Commercial User
Yes, it is a whole another debate. For now, smoking is legal. Which means banning something that is legal within a privately owned property doesn't seem right to me.
For me, it's not a matter of health. We have the legal right and ability to make healthy and unhealthy choices in our lives every day. It's a matter of private property and the government telling me I can't do something legal within it.
I had to quit a good job because the person I sat next to, smoked like a chimney all day. Today I'd be much better off. Just because you own a business it doesn't give you the right to subject your employees or customers to a practice with well known life damaging consequences. There are many regulations that pertain to privately and commercially owned property and the smoking ban is one of the best, IMO.
Smoking is about sucking, literally. Let's not suck, again IMO.
Yes they did. Who forced them to enter a smoking establishment? They are free to choose to work wherever they please.
This is just more Big Brother BS.
really? so it is your belief that employees have the opportunity to pick and choose jobs now?
Have you checked the unemployment rate lately? Over 10% of the population is unemployed. Yet you think someone who has so little career experience as to be forced to work as a server has so many options to choose from? Really?
that is absolutely ridiculous. People are desperate for work, anywhere they can find it. I would lay a bet that there are members of this forum who would love to have a ob as a server....and there are also those who would take advantage of them
In my area that is an automatic deal breaker. You would have basically said "I want to play with you guys but only for outdoor shows and bah mitzvahs."
We here in small town Indiana take pride in our right to disease everyone with our smokers bad habit. I would love it if the world were smoke free, those environments are much nicer to be in. However, being in a band where I am means you just accept the fact that you are going to be exposed to second hand smoke. Doubly so for me since two of my band mates smoke like a campfire.
You're on a slippery slope here and I wasn't surprised to see the discussion go this way. Being an ex-smoker I think I have the ability to see both sides. Indiana just implemented a smoking ban that is as weak as it is useless. If you're a bar (not sure about restaurants with bars), club, casino, etc. then you are not included in the ban. So basically, the places people already don't smoke. It did include ALL workplaces so now my coworkers can't blow smoke in my face all day long which is a little like shooting heroine in front of an addict.
I think the ban is a good thing for one simple reason: People are stupid. And by people, I mean martians. No one ever considers the kids. And yeah, you can argue that the non-smokers don't have to go in blah blah blah. This is the selfish stance of a smoker (I know, it used to be my stance). It is NOT your right to expose others, willing or not, to a toxic substance that is known to cause fatal disease. It is NOT your right to eat in a restaurant and a privilege for the non smokers to be in your company. I think a lot of smokers lose sight of everyone else in their quest to make their bad habit convenient. I wish they would just get it over with and put a $40 tax on a pack of smokes. Only the super rich can get lung disease! Yay!
See, I'm ranting now. Having kids makes this a touchy subject. Especially when I have smokers telling me that my kids should do without compared to theirs because in their infinite wisdom they have decided that it is ok for them to be exposed to second hand smoke (one of them even buys chew for his 15-16 year old boys) and I do not feel that way.Anyways, now that we are off on a path that is miles from the original post...
If you're moving to an area that allows smoking, restricting yourself to non-smoking venues is probably a bad move for your ability to find a group to gig with. If you are moving to more progressive areas that have realized that the planet does in fact continue to rotate on its axis with smoking bans in place, there could definitely be a place for you. Don't abandon your stance in the name of playing a gig. Smoke sucks. I hate the day after a gig, the pain and pressure in the chest from inhaling the equivalent of a lifetime of cigarettes...But until I get lucky enough to be in an area that is smoke free, I either play or I avoid smoke.
I would say "OK" and get on with the audition. Smoking has been banned in public establishments here for quite a few years. It's amazing the number of restaurants that have infra red heaters and offer blankets for those that wish to remain outside and smoke mid-winter.
Thanks to the legislative effort regarding smoking it's pretty much assumed that smokers go outside, regardless of the weather.
Refusing to play in smoking places would be comparable to refusing to play in butchers shops or submarines, i.e. not much of a limitation.
To me, the main problem with passive smoking isn't the health issue per se. An evening spent with smokers isn't going to reduce my health noticeably. But the smell and the burning sensation in my throat isn't something I'm willing to put up with.
I grew up with a mother who smokes. I didn't really think much about it then, but since then I've become really sensitive to the smell. She's 81 now, and we make her go outside when she wants to smoke.
Thanks to the legislative effort regarding smoking it's pretty much assumed that smokers go outside, regardless of the weather.
Refusing to play in smoking places would be comparable to refusing to play in butchers shops or submarines, i.e. not much of a limitation.
To me, the main problem with passive smoking isn't the health issue per se. An evening spent with smokers isn't going to reduce my health noticeably. But the smell and the burning sensation in my throat isn't something I'm willing to put up with.
I grew up with a mother who smokes. I didn't really think much about it then, but since then I've become really sensitive to the smell. She's 81 now, and we make her go outside when she wants to smoke.
OK, so you are saying you would be OK with allowing business owners the choice to have smoking on their property, as long as the economy was strong enough that employees could easily find other jobs in non-smoking establishments?
