I will smoke just to be spiteful now
Jun. 6th, 2003 01:18 amI 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?
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?
no subject
Date: 2003-06-05 11:25 pm (UTC)Er.... So I shouldn't tell you its illegal to smoke just about everywhere but private homes in CA?
Re:
Date: 2003-06-05 11:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-05 11:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-05 11:45 pm (UTC)Fuckers.
Re:
Date: 2003-06-06 12:17 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-06-06 12:18 am (UTC)Russian lit must be enjoyed with smoking! How dare you impinge on my right to be a moody Slavic studies person?
no subject
Date: 2003-06-06 07:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-06 07:54 am (UTC)Anyway I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand maybe smokers should have their little havens where they can go out to places they enjoy and smoke. But there's no question that it is a public health concern. And the little haven theory would be okay if it was only places like metro. Because there are plenty of other coffee shops everyone else can go to. But as far as clubs and bars go its inescapable.
russian translation service
Date: 2003-06-06 08:07 am (UTC)Is he being mean about my picture?
I really appreciate your letting me know, but if he is being mean, you don't have to tell me what he is saying. Just let me know if he's being mean.
<3
Another voice
Date: 2003-06-06 08:22 am (UTC)I have allergies and asthma. Usually they do not bother me, but the wrong brand of cigarettes (usually American ones, actually) can put me on my knees coughing and choking. I have passed out on the front steps of a mall, I collapsed wearing a "running around Europe-sized" backpack at an Irish ferry terminal as a guy was smoking right under the "No Smoking" sign.
I think anyone can do whatever "self-chosen self-destructive" activities they want, as long as it does not effect me.
So that is my tuppence.
Ekatarina
no subject
Date: 2003-06-06 09:52 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-06-06 09:55 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-06-06 09:56 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-06-06 10:04 am (UTC)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.
Re: Another voice
Date: 2003-06-06 10:11 am (UTC)I don't mind having seperate spaces for nonsmoking and smoking when dining out and such, I suppose because I've just gotten too used to it. But banning a perfectly legal behaviour bothers me.
Re:
Date: 2003-06-06 10:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-06 10:15 am (UTC)I lit a cigarette in front of an expensive downtown department store awhile ago. Jacob was with me. He hates to be around anyone smoking. When he told me I couldn't smoke there I argued with him because I was convinced he was just being a fuck. Finally, he took my cigarette, put it out, and turned me around by the shoulders. I was leaning against a no-smoking sign.
no subject
Date: 2003-06-06 10:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-06 10:20 am (UTC)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:
Date: 2003-06-06 10:27 am (UTC)We wouldn't be worried about this if we were in Russia. Bah!
no subject
Date: 2003-06-06 10:30 am (UTC)Let's move to Russia. Or Prague.
Re:
Date: 2003-06-06 10:39 am (UTC)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.
Re:
Date: 2003-06-06 10:52 am (UTC)Re: russian translation service
Date: 2003-06-06 10:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-06 11:12 am (UTC)Even as a nonsmoker...
Date: 2003-06-06 11:13 am (UTC)Re: Even as a nonsmoker...
Date: 2003-06-06 12:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-06 12:19 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-06-06 12:24 pm (UTC)Re: russian translation service
Date: 2003-06-06 01:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-06 02:03 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Another voice
Date: 2003-06-06 03:21 pm (UTC)As for reactions in general, if I am going somewhere there is likely to be smoking, I'll drug myself up (expensive, and I get dizzy and see things that aren't always there) or not go (erg). If I am walking down the street and I pass a smoker and cough, choke, spit up blood and pass out (only happened twice but it is sucky) I am going to be annoyed. I can't avoid that sort of contact.
So I don't mind whatever you do, as long as I have the choice of participating or not.
You comments about being adults about the whole thing I also agree with. If everyone was an adult then we'd have far far fewer problems. Unfortunately polite smokers like you are affected by the actions of those who throw lit butts out car windows in gas stations (yes, something *did* explode) littering, or stubbing out butts on a jacket when asked if they would be so kind as to move of stop smoking under the no-smoking sign.
Sigh.
In any case, I'd still love to meet you. I'll stand on the balcony or up-wind. That's perfectly fine by me.
Ekatarina
no subject
no subject
Date: 2003-06-06 04:05 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2003-06-06 04:22 pm (UTC)I have fired away emails today, angry ones, at the lovely folks of the city council...
My plan: rent a house near the Drag, stock it with pool tables, and call it a non-profit snackfood store. Yay, dictation of rights...
Rather, since smokers are the minority, it would be interesting to see whether this minority rises up and claims discrimintation. We should, I think.
no subject
Date: 2003-06-06 05:05 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-06-06 05:16 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2003-06-06 05:20 pm (UTC)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:
Date: 2003-06-06 05:27 pm (UTC)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:
Date: 2003-06-06 06:03 pm (UTC)