I will smoke just to be spiteful now

[threeplusfire]

I would just like to give a big hearty FUCK YOU to the City Council of Austin for passing a smoking ordinance that will ban smoking everywhere except pool halls. Pool halls? What the fuck?

Don't fucking legislate my perfectly legal self destructive behaviour thank you very much. And expect some hateful furious emails tomorrow Council people. I'm out for blood.

How long til Metro gets a pool table I wonder?

Comments

Re:

[tsarina.livejournal.com]

Well, Metro has always kinda skirted the legality of the smoking ordinances anyhow.

My thinking is as follows. Smoking is still legal. Yes it is bad. But it's still legal, just as drinking, eating fast food, and driving cars is still legal. All of those things produce serious public health concerns.

I don't like the idea of picking on just one group of people in the name of public health concerns.

[puella.livejournal.com]

Most of the comparisons that you made are very different because they do not affect other people in the same direct way. You do not make other people sick by eating fast food. You do not make other people sick by drinking. However you can make another person feel sick by sitting next to them while you smoke your cigarette.

Cars I would say is a better comparison, because they produce pollution that affects people in the same way cigarette smoke affects people. But lawmakers are never going to stop people from driving cars, because we are a car driving society. What they are doing for cars would be the equivalent of making cigarettes with less toxic smoke. But we have already established that consumers aren't interested in those cigarettes. (They exist but hardly anyone buys them.)

Anyway, does that make sense? Other public health concerns such as drinking and the foods you eat can be totally avoided by simply not doing them yourself. But smoking is different.

Re:

[tsarina.livejournal.com]

But by doing those things, you do engage in behaviours that have serious consequences for yourself and others. Not to mention that, you support industries that produce a lot of pollution.

Would anyone stand being told when and where they could drive, because of the health concerns of exhaust pollution? No. So why is it okay to police smoking? Because it's a smaller group of people? Because it doesn't inconvenience the people passing the laws?

If you aren't comfortable when someone sits down and lights up, you should either ask that person to move, or move yourself. It should simply be a matter of politeness handled between adults, and not something that has to be bloody legislated.

[puella.livejournal.com]

Points I disagree with-
If there was horrible pollution in a certain place during a certain time I don't think it would be unreasonable to ask people not to drive there if it would help to significantly decrease the pollution. I think its reasonable to ask people to find alternative forms of transportation to help make the air cleaner. Of course that isn't what we're ever really talking about. So just ignore this paragraph. :p

The problem I have with the third little bit you wrote is this- when I go to emo's there is no way to avoid breathing in cigarette smoke. It isn't a matter of standing next to someone who is smoking- the smoke completely fills the room. You can go outside where its easier to breathe- but if you're outside you can't see the band. I completely agree that in most cases it should be handled between the two parties. However when people are smoking in a room that just isn't an option. It fills the room. I'm sure smokers don't want to force anyone else to breathe in their smoke anymore than nonsmokers want to breathe it, but when lots of people are smoking inside that's just what happens.

I feel sick everytime I go to emo's. There are other elements that I can deal with, like how my clothes smell disgusting when I get home. But I don't feel like I should have to feel sick to be able to hear music, espeically when only a minority of the people there are causing the problem that is affecting everyone.

[sammka.livejournal.com]

Couldn't the problem of smoking in clubs be handled by the private sector? Lots of clubs in DC have two floors, smoking and non-smoking. The ones with the bands are non-smoking, not just because the smoking bothers non-smokers, but because lighted cigarettes in crowded areas can burn people, and because the bands like it better. The smokers don't seem to mind, since they can always just go up or down a floor and catch a quick smoke. Shows don't last that long, so most can wait until a break in the live music.

Overall, this is a pretty good solution, and since it's a private establishment its choices don't create that much controversy, because, as the thinking goes, if you don't like it you can just start your own club and make your own rules.

[puella.livejournal.com]

Yes, that sounds like a great solution to me. There would still be some law changes though, stating that you need to establish seperate rooms/floors for smokers and nonsmokers. The clubs aren't going to do it on their own for fear of losing business.

Re:

[sammka.livejournal.com]

Why would they be afraid of losing business? The smokers aren't terribly bothered, and the non-smokers are more likely to go to a club that's not filled with smoke. I can't imagine them losing business.

In fact, the whole point of that example was that it was something you could get a club to do on its own, without legislation. Get enough people to petition a club to adopt that policy, and say that a lot of people don't go to the club because they can't stand the smoke, and the club will most likely make the change on its own. Just like a lot of restaurants voluntary make smoking/non-smoking sections.

[puella.livejournal.com]

Well I said they would be afraid of losing business because all of the clubs and bars here in Austin were very against the no-smoking policy because they said they would lose business. Also because no clubs have actually done that yet, because it's a big hassle and they don't have to and people will come anyway.

I agree that it seems like it wouldn't make them lose business. It seems to me like they wouldn't. I just think the clubs won't do it unless they have to.

Re:

[sammka.livejournal.com]

Of course a strict no-smoking policy will make them lose business. Non-smokers don't want to go somewhere that will make them go outside to smoke. The thing I was talking about is not a strict non-smoking policy, it's a compromise that doesn't seem to hurt their business at all.

I think the 'people will come anyway' theory depends on the region as a whole. Sure, there will be some people in every place that don't mind clouds of smoke, and some clubs cater specifically to those crowds. But other clubs know their clientele wants separate floors, and they make the move to accommodate them.

Look, clubs are businesses. If they have any serious reason to think a lot of people aren't coming to their club because it doesn't have a two-floors policy, they'll institute a two-floors policy. They're not going to need legislation in order to do something that will get them more business. And if one club owner is stupid enough not to adopt that policy, some other club owner will adopt it, and take all that business away from the first one. That's how the free market works.

Re:

[sammka.livejournal.com]

By the way, there don't seem to be any DC laws forcing clubs to have separate non-smoking and smoking floors, since I just remembered one that doesn't. So there must not be any such legislation. But the Black Cat, as I remember, does have the two-floors policy. So I feel pretty safe thinking that was just an idea they came up on their own, that happened to work out.