Benefiting From Invasive Legislation

[ggm1960]

I'm normally the first guy to jump on the government/legislation hate bus but the smoking ban is a double edged sword.

 

So....they passed the public smoking ban for bars and most other places (with the blatantly political exclusion of casinos) in Iowa.

 

Although the law doesn't take effect until July, the bar we played at last night went ahead and jumped the gun. By the third set I realized how obvious the benefits of a smoke free environment were for me! Normally by that time I'd be on the 3rd or 4th Halls throat drop and still be croaking like a frog but last night my voice never seemed to degrade over the course of the whole night.

 

I attribute some of it to finally getting my monitoring setup "perfected" as well as having a lower stage volume.

 

Last time we played there were easily 300 people all night but this time we had a smaller crowd; it's probably not just because of the non-smoking policy. Our drummer (who lined up our gigs at this venue) arranged to change the date from the normal saturday to friday to coincide with a couple parties that were happening.

Although he made the arrangements to change the date far in advance we were still advertised in the local guide as scheduled for saturday (I didn't need to be psychic to know that would happen).

 

Anyway, since I've been a non-smoker for over 3 years it's hard for me to be hating this new law even though I've never agreed with government legislating private business.

[Gary in NJ]

We've had the smoking ban here in NJ for a decade. I'm a non-smoker, so I love it. We don't play gigs in PA (just 8 miles away) because of the smoke. But that's changing soon, so our choice of venues is about to go up.

 

But you asked a political question, so here's my take. I don't like being forced to act a certain way through legislation, but their are obvious places that it works. For example seat belt laws, helmet laws, driving with a cell phone laws and smoking bans.

 

Sometimes the government has to take a step for the many to protect them from the few.

 

Smoking leads to death. Worse, tobacco is reformulated to be highly addictive. The stuff is evil. Why should my health, and enjoyment, be in jeopardy because Sammy-smoker HAS TO have a cigarette every 3 minutes. Sammy can't help it, he's addicted and can't stop. Thanks Phillip-Morris.

 

I'm my opinion, cigarettes should be outlawed. At the very least, cigarettes should be only allowed to be sold after the nicotine is removed. This way smoking is really a choice, rather then an addiction. It's a friggin' crime that the tobacco companies are allowed to kill addicted citizens every day.

 

I'm ready for your hate mail.

[BlueStrat]

I hate stupid regulations like this, being a libertarian at heart and all. The intent is good, but it starts a slide into intrusive regulation that is insane.

 

Near where I live a community has a law that every person who rides any wheeled vehicle except a car or bus has to have a helmet. Doesn't matter if it's a motorcycle, bicycle, scooter, skateboard, a tricycle, Big Wheel, or a Radio Flyer wagon. California wants a law that allows the government to regulate the thermostats in your home. Raleigh, NC outlawed garbage disposals. The government just mandated that by 2010 or 2012 we all have to have mercury vapor light bulbs. I just read a cleanup procedure for when one breaks: DO NOT vacuum it up; scrape the contents into a baggie, double bag it. Blot the remaining mercury with a damp rag (after donning disposable rubber gloves) and place rag, gloves and baggie into another double bag and take it to a HAZMAT disposal site. If any gets on your carpet, cut out the square of carpet, double bag it, and HAZMAT it. Riiiight. Lets' replace our current light bulbs with poison!

 

We have a booming market for old toilets that used 2.5-3 gallons per flush, because the new ones, by government mandate, only use 1.6 gallons. Problem is, you often have to flush them two or three times when one used to do the trick. Nice going! Start looking for "saving the environment" to be the rationale for all kinds of intrusive restrictions of personal liberty, right along with even more "workplace safety".

 

The government mandates triple insulated electrical cords on job sites where I work, in case one gets damaged. But when one does get a little nick in the outer insulation, which happens all the time on jobs, OSHA makes you get rid of it. So, what was the purpose of spending money on that triple insulation again? They mandate hardhats that won't do squat if anything larger than a bolt falls on your head, and steel toed boots that are pretty much designed to sever rather than merely crush your toes if a heavy weight falls on them, and so on.

 

I don't mind a certain amount of statism, but nanny statism drives me up the wall.

 

 

Having said all that, I do loves me some smoke free bars!

[Kmartphoto]

The bar doesn't belong to you or to the government. It belongs to the bar owner PERIOD. Dictating to a private business what they and their customers can do is the height of ridiculousness.

 

If clubs and restaurants want to be nonsmoking, or smoking for what ever reason it is up to them to decide. It is up to us as customers to choose which of these business we patronize or work for.

[blue2blue]

My state has ordinances that do allow some completely owner run businesses which have no other employees to allow smoking -- the thinking being that no one is then being coerced (by the necessity of employment) to work in a smokey environment. (The patrons, of course, are free to leave at any time.)

 

It's been a tricky law to enforce and, at first, there were a LOT of small scofflaw bars. But it's HARD to run a bar with just Ma and Pa and, these days, I see a lot of crusty old drunks standing outside their favorite watering holes, cigarette in hand.

 

 

I had been leaning toward neutrality on the issue -- I still smoked, myself, but wouldn't smoke in my own house (I'd quit when my dad died of lung and esophogeal cancer after a lifetime of smoking, started with those free Camels in WWII -- but then, I dunno, death wish or something, I started back up again) -- but after the law had been in effect about a year or two (and after I'd quit smoking again) I drove out to Las Vegas for a wedding and when I walked into the restaurant where the reception was being held I just about died. Or felt like it. The smoke was so thick and acrid. It didn't look like it -- and I had hung out in some places that got so smokey you could barely see across them -- but it really hit me. And this was a Mexican restaurant, not a casino or bar. But the next day my sinuses felt like someone poured lead into them [i'd quit drinking years before so that was not a factor] and all my clothes stank so bad I just threw them straight into the wash and sent my sport coat to the dry cleaner.

 

 

I don't believe in government trying to proscribe private, personal behavior -- I think smokers should have the right to do what they want -- as long as they're not affecting me or others who don't want to be afflicted with their bad habits.

[Kmartphoto]

 

My state has ordinances that do allow some completely owner run businesses which have no other employees to allow smoking -- the thinking being that no one is then being coerced (by the necessity of employment) to work in a smokey environment.

 

 

 

You have a weird definition of coercion.I guess they don't have help wanted adds where you live. No one is forced to work anywhere.

 

 

(The patrons, of course, are free to leave at any time.)

 

 

DUHHH

 

 

I don't believe in government trying to proscribe private, personal behavior --

 

 

what are they trying to do then?

 

 

I think smokers should have the right to do what they want -- as long as they're not affecting me or others who don't want to be afflicted with their bad habits.

 

 

You and the smokers are free to go where you are comfortable ... problem solved without more government.

[Telestrastic]

 

The bar doesn't belong to you or to the government. It belongs to the bar owner PERIOD. Dictating to a private business what they and their customers can do is the height of ridiculousness. If clubs and restaurants want to be nonsmoking, or smoking for what ever reason it is up to them to decide. It is up to us as customers to choose which of these business we patronize or work for.

 

 

The government is imposing laws to protect the employees. And I completely agree with it. Image being at work for 8+ hours sucking in toxic smoke. That would drive me crazy. It was bad enough before they placed the ban and playing a show for 4 hours and end up feeling like {censored} the next day, cant image how bartenders and servers could do it.

[Kmartphoto]

 

The government is imposing laws to protect the employees. And I completely agree with it.

 

 

yeah because people cant decide for themselves where to work.

 

 

Image being at work for 8+ hours sucking in toxic smoke. That would drive me crazy.

 

 

Imagine getting a new job.

[Telestrastic]

I'm my opinion, cigarettes should be outlawed. At the very least, cigarettes should be only allowed to be sold after the nicotine is removed. This way smoking is really a choice, rather then an addiction. It's a friggin' crime that the

+1

 

:thu:

[Kmartphoto]

 

I'm my opinion, double cheeze burgers and fat people should be outlawed. At the very least, lard asses should be only allowed to come out of the house to exercize .

 

 

 

Fixed Your Post

[Telestrastic]

 

Fixed Your Post

 

 

I would agree with that too.

[BlueStrat]

 

Actually the Mythbusters proved that is a myth and you wont loose you toes!

 

I'll tell that to the guy I worked with last year on the condo project who had a truss fall on his foot and the steel in his boot cut off two of his toes (well, technically, they were sliced clear through diagonally and had to be amputated). I'm sure he'll feel better that Mythbusters said it couldn't happen.

[ggm1960]

 

I don't mind a certain amount of statism, but nanny statism drives me up the wall. Having said all that, I do loves me some smoke free bars!

 

 

I'm right there with your whole post. We're really gonna get walloped soon by the whole environmental/global warming legislation that's guaranteed to be coming down the pike soon. Yeah sure, we've seen some, but only the tip of the iceberg (so to speak).

 

I'm not only distrustful of the powers that be, I also question their motivations most of the time. As cynical as it may seem I don't really think my local senator, congressman or even mayor gives a rat's ass about my well being.

 

They'll normally dance to the beat of the drummers waving the biggest pile of green in their face, namely insurance companies.

[Kmartphoto]

 

I'm right there with your whole post. We're really gonna get walloped soon by the whole environmental/global warming legislation that's guaranteed to be coming down the pike soon. Yeah sure, we've seen some, but only the tip of the iceberg (so to speak). I'm not only distrustful of the powers that be, I also question their motivations most of the time. As cynical as it may seem I don't really think my local senator, congressman or even mayor gives a rat's ass about my well being. They'll normally dance to the beat of the drummers waving the biggest pile of green in their face, namely insurance companies.

 

 

ggm

 

the whole point is not the smoking ban. It is government overstepping its bounds. we have to tell these scum bags no, even if it does make the air nice in bars. Freedom, real freedom not just sloganeering is about allowing everyone even smokers, fat chicks, and Brittany Spears fans to live life as they see fit.

[6StringSling]

 

ggm the whole point is not the smoking ban. It is government overstepping its bounds. we have to tell these scum bags no, even if it does make the air nice in bars. Freedom, real freedom not just sloganeering is about allowing everyone even smokers, fat chicks, and Brittany Spears fans to live life as they see fit.

 

That's idiotic. Real freedom, as you call it, doesn't include the allowance of harm to innocents through idiocy, negligence, intent, etc.

 

People don't like legislation such as seat belt laws or helmet laws. But in the long run, they save enough lives to remove a burden from the rest of society.

 

Here's an example: Supposed dad drives without a seatbelt, gets hit by a truck and dies. His family now has to deal with the tragedy. How they deal with it can become a burden on society several different ways. Plus there would be insurance claims, lawsuits, etc. If a seatbelt would have saved his life, there would be far less of a societal burden.

 

The real problem is where you draw the line. In 1988 lawn darts were banned in the US. Why? Because idiots and morons got killed by them. In effect, because some people were morons, I can't play a game that I grew up playing with my family.

 

How many deaths each day are attributed to tobacco and alcohol? Yet both are legal. Eating is legal but like many Americans, I am overweight and I'm pretty certain that I have some health issues that are directly related to it. So these self-inflicted health issues are another example of a burden on society, or would be, if I were in the habit of seeing doctors which I am not.

 

It's almost impossible, in today's world, for you to live a reasonable life and yet not adversely affect your life, your family's, your neighbor's, your coworkers, etc.

 

Legislating morality have never been proven to be effective or to work. Legislating health & safety has been proven to be effective and to work. Not in every case certainly, but overall.

 

So based upon what works and what doesn't. I have to side with continuing to legislate health & safety no matter how many stupid examples of it crop up from time to time. But I also keep in mind that the FDA actually has a standard for the amount of rat {censored} that is allowable in certain food products and, yes, it is a percentage great than zero. With that in mind, I would think that we still have a long {censored}ing way to go in legislating health & safety in a reasonable and sane manner.

[6StringSling]

 

I'll tell that to the guy I worked with last year on the condo project who had a truss fall on his foot and the steel in his boot cut off two of his toes (well, technically, they were sliced clear through diagonally and had to be amputated). I'm sure he'll feel better that Mythbusters said it couldn't happen.

 

I saw the episode and it was pretty obvious that enough weight falling from enough height with enough force will sever toes in steel-toed boots.

[RupertB]

I like playing in non-smoking venues. Here in NC, most places are still able to set policy for themselves, provided "restaurant" areas are NS while smoking at the bar is fine. As you can imagine, this has created some ridiculous situations at smaller pub-type venues: "You can't smoke there. Take three steps to your left."

 

NC has laws stipulating that a pub or restaurant must sell at least X% food vs. alcohol; otherwise the venue must be a private club. I think smoking bans or limitations for public restaurants are a good idea. Private clubs should make their own rules. Don't like it, don't join the club.

[Janx]

 

I'll tell that to the guy I worked with last year on the condo project who had a truss fall on his foot and the steel in his boot cut off two of his toes (well, technically, they were sliced clear through diagonally and had to be amputated). I'm sure he'll feel better that Mythbusters said it couldn't happen.

 

 

Actually, if I recall the episode, the steel toe will protect to a certain level. In the scenario where it fails, no steel toe results in jellied toes, the result is the same, lost toes.

 

So, your buddy wouldn't have had a free amputation, he'd have toe jam dangling at the end of his feet.

 

I see the argument of "wearing safety gear is more dangerous than not wearing it" citing examples where the gear failed to protect as fallacious.

 

Barring a design or manufacturing flaw, a piece of safety gear that is properly designed and used will protect more than not wearing it. In an incident where said gear fails, not having that gear isn't going to result in a better experience because any event that can bypass safety gear and cause injury is always going to cause injury. The point of the gear is to offer protection in the zone where no gear + event causes injury, gear+event yields no injury. Maybe it's not a big zone, it depends on the danger I guess.

 

Case in point, a buddy of mine was called for jury duty. The interview phase had the attourneys explaining the basic scenario. Guy was working on something tall on the roof. Rules said he had to tie down before climbing up something. He didn't. He fell and got hurt. Now he's suing. My buddy got off by pointing out the fact that if he broke the safety rule and got hurt directly because of it, it's his own fault.

 

Anyway, the point of such laws and rules is because most people are stupid. The don't act safely, and then they try to sue when they get hurt. This is why congress tries to legislate behavior. We get dumb laws, because congress is made of people, who like all people, a large % of are stupid.

 

The reality is, we need SOME laws legislating business and people behavior. I don't want an extreme set. However, both business and people have demonstrated that they do not self-regulate well. Consider the polygamyst whackos in texas and the lending industry's current state.

[BlueStrat]

 

Private clubs should make their own rules. Don't like it, don't join the club.

 

 

 

I think it should extend to private businesses open to the pulic. Don't like it? Don't go to the bar, restaurant, etc.

 

I have lots of friends who go to casinos because they can smoke there. I choose not to go for the same reason. Simple, isn't it? Let the market decide.

[newmaxnew]

They bars cried that a smoking ban would put them out of business in Washington state when they passed the ban. After several years of this ban I haven't seen any places that closed due to a smoking band.

 

The bars are doing just fine. Gas and food prices are having a much bigger effect than the smoking ban did.

 

Max

[BlueStrat]

 

Anyway, the point of such laws and rules is because most people are stupid. The don't act safely, and then they try to sue when they get hurt. This is why congress tries to legislate behavior. We get dumb laws, because congress is made of people, who like all people, a large % of are stupid. .

 

 

What's wrong with a little social Darwinism?

[newmaxnew]

 

yeah because people cant decide for themselves where to work. Imagine getting a new job.

 

 

The problem with that argument is there were almost no non-smoking places for these people to work. So by default they were being forced to put up with the smoke.

 

Max

[Lee Flier]

 

We have a booming market for old toilets that used 2.5-3 gallons per flush, because the new ones, by government mandate, only use 1.6 gallons. Problem is, you often have to flush them two or three times when one used to do the trick. Nice going!

 

 

Like anything else, there are well designed low water toilets and there are those that aren't so well designed. Just read reviews before buying. I have a 1.6 gallon Toto toilet that I've had to flush twice just once in the couple of years that I've owned it - a WAY better track record than my old American Standard. There are a couple of other brands that also scored high marks from comparison reviews in that department.

 

 

Start looking for "saving the environment" to be the rationale for all kinds of intrusive restrictions of personal liberty, right along with even more "workplace safety".

 

 

I honestly don't know what pisses me off more - government regulations that mandate the wrong solution to a problem and are too intrusive, or people who say that therefore we shouldn't conserve and shouldn't do a damned thing about the environment.

[Lee Flier]

 

You have a weird definition of coercion.I guess they don't have help wanted adds where you live. No one is forced to work anywhere.

 

 

By that logic, we might as well just do away with worker health laws... let the factories expose their employees to radiation, formaldehyde and other dangers all they want to - they can just go work somewhere else if they don't like it.

 

That logic has never worked - if you want proof, go back to the turn of the 20th century and see living proof of why worker safety laws were put into place in the first place. Businesses won't lift a finger for their employees' safety if it costs them money. People need to put bread on the table and many will take any job they can get and/or are unaware of the health hazards of their workplace. Or, they can't find a job anywhere else because ALL the businesses have followed suit and quit caring about employee safety so they can cut costs and keep up with the competition.

 

Ergo, we have laws to protect employees. I don't consider breathing someone else's cigarette smoke any differently than any other contaminants in the workplace that can lead to long term health problems.

 

Philosophically, I'm a libertarian. Pragmatically, I know pure libertarianism doesn't work, and never will. I don't trust the government to deal with these issues perfectly, but I don't trust the businesses to do so either, so at least there are some checks and balances if they are always in a power struggle with each other.

[cephus]

I was hugely against this when it came up in ohio, mostly because the people pushing for it were douchebags. However, after playing for over a year in smoke free bars, It really sucks ass to play in bars out in the sticks where you can still smoke. Never bothered me before, but now I really don't like that smell of day old marlboro light funk in my speakers and cases and clothes.