Benefiting From Invasive Legislation

[coyote-1]

Seat belt and helmet laws protect the many from the few??? I'm almost tempted to dismiss you outright for such clearly flawed 'reasoning'. But let's address it anyway. I'm a non-smoker; I do not allow smoking in my house.

But if I manage to get a law passed, based on my own desires, that prevents my neighbor from allowing smoking in HIS house, that law is wrong - no matter how popular it may be.

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.

But you say you favor a complete ban on cigarettes. Tell me, do you favor a complete ban on alcohol? It leads to death, it leads to the deaths of those who are not themselves using.

[wades_keys]

Why not just mandate clean air?

That's what everyone wants and needs - clean air indoors.

Banning cigarettes is so - caveman.

It's 2008 - I can live without my flying car but it's sad that we have fall back on draconian measures when the technology exists to give us all clean indoor air.

Think about it.

[Gary in NJ]

Seat belt and helmet laws protect the many from the few??? I'm almost tempted to dismiss you outright for such clearly flawed 'reasoning'. But let's address it anyway. I'm a non-smoker; I do not allow smoking in my house. But if I manage to get a law passed, based on my own desires, that prevents my neighbor from allowing smoking in HIS house, that law is wrong - no matter how popular it may be. But you say you favor a complete ban on cigarettes. Tell me, do you favor a complete ban on alcohol? It leads to death, it leads to the deaths of those who are not themselves using.

 

 

Many things can lead to death, including complex tasks like driving and simple tasks like plugging-in an appliance. Product safety laws as well as operator's laws exist so everyday tasks can be carried-out without undue exposure to risk.

 

Driving is not addictive. Nor is plugging-in an appliance. Alcohol is not addictive to the vast majority of people that use it. But cigarettes are by DESIGN addictive.

 

I do favor bans on any product that through its use causes the user to behave in a particular manner, outside their control.

[Deeprig9]

When our band plays non-smoking clubs, all the fans of other bands just go hang outside drinking and smoking instead of drinking and smoking in the club watching our band. If they were allowed to smoke inside, it would be great. Everyone would see everyone else's band, perfect.

Secondly, it's certainly not the government's role to tell a private business owner what legal activity he/she can and can't allow in the business, so long as that business isn't using any tax money to operate. I could see a situation where a business is operating as some kind of entity being run on tax money where the government can make up rules for the business, but in general, it's just ridiculous. If you don't like smoke, don't go to the bar. If you don't want to work around smoke, get another job. If you own the business, and you don't want cigarette burns in your carpet or for whatever reason you don't want smoking, fine, ban it in your bar.

A couple years ago Athens went to non-smoking indoors. It started out reasonably, after 11pm or a 21+ establishment, you could light up.

But that wasn't enough! The whiners and weenies got the county to ban it completely indoors at any public place. Even if you are renting it for a private function, or you are closed and work there, and want to smoke in your own business afterhours, can't do it.

There's one place in town that still allows smoking, and they have some relationship with the Chief of Police so whenever a code enforcement officer drops by, noone happens to be smoking at that exact moment.

[ihateyouguys]

The same hypocrites who argue for a smoking ban will be all up in arms when the government tries to ban their favorite things. Guaranteed.

These discussions are a good demonstration that musicians don't understand business, or freedom, but generally think they have greater insight into them than the general public. Which is probably why you see famous musicians make idiots of themselves when they try to get into political or social commentary. It's also why you see musicians on the bad end of business deals - because most know jack squat but think the earnestness of their feelings equals expertise.

BTW, here's a breakdown of musicians in the music business:
1. Learn to play music.
2. Learn little to nothing about business.
3. Try to get into music business.
4. Fail or get screwed through your own lack of business knowledge / experience.
5. Blame "The man / big record companies / the RIAA / ASCAP" for their failures, instead of their own ignorance.

Fudge it. There's really no point in fighting for reason anymore. If any musician wants to know why musicians are making less and less in an ever expanding world economy, look around at other musicians and maybe even in the mirror. You're screwing yourselves, but keep blaming outside forces. That will fix things.

[cephus]

Insert UNAbomber manifesto here

So you don't like smokers or do like smokers?

[BATCAT]

I sort of feel like this "mandate" thing doesn't apply to my state. I mean, we voted for a smoking ban. That's hardly government interference, it's just people in WA making a collective decision.

[WynnD]

Colorado has banned indoor smoking in all indoor public places except two bars in the airport. (How can you manage airport security and allow people to go outdoors to smoke.) Finally, my Wife can come and see the band and have a decent drink without hanging her clothes outdoors overnight. (It's a quirk, but it does keep the smell out of our house.)

[Lee Flier]

The same hypocrites who argue for a smoking ban will be all up in arms when the government tries to ban their favorite things. Guaranteed.

 

That doesn't make them hypocrites. If the government tries to ban things that don't hurt anyone else (e.g. legislating morals, dictating the aesthetics of your private residence, etc.), I'm against it. If they try to ban things that are a legitimate public health problem, I'm for it. We may disagree on what does or doesn't constitute a legitimate public health problem, but not agreeing with you doesn't make me ignorant or a hypocrite.

 

These discussions are a good demonstration that musicians don't understand business, or freedom, but generally think they have greater insight into them than the general public. Which is probably why you see famous musicians make idiots of themselves when they try to get into political or social commentary.

 

Translation: "You don't agree with me so shut up." I'm a musician who also happens to be a small business owner, and a huge advocate for civil liberties and personal freedom. I still disagree with you, apparently, on smoking bans. I believe your right to swing your fist ends at my face, and smoking in a public place is definitely not just a personal choice for the smoker, it seriously affects the health of others. So we disagree on this issue - that doesn't mean that I know nothing about business or am making an idiot out of myself by stating my opinion.

 

Fudge it. There's really no point in fighting for reason anymore. If any musician wants to know why musicians are making less and less in an ever expanding world economy, look around at other musicians and maybe even in the mirror. You're screwing yourselves, but keep blaming outside forces. That will fix things.

 

Yes, a lot of musicians do do that... has nothing to do with how any of us may feel about smoking bans, though.

[BlueStrat]

 

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.

 

 

I agree with you. It's just that human nature being what it is, mandating something makes people naturally resistant to it.

 

The city of Denver recently passed a noise ordinance against loud pipes on motorcyles. Seems the brie and chablis crowd didn't like their sidewalk cafe experience being interrupted by loud bikes. Which seems perfectly reasonable to me. But what Denver did was inexcusable, and will almost certainly be overturned in court. Because what they did was make it illegal for any motorcycle to have any aftermarket exhaust of any kind. In short, if you get pulled over and the police discover that your bike's pipes aren't stock, they can write you up, regardless of the noise output. This is government overstepping in it's most blatant form, IMO. As is California wanting control over your thermostats, or Washington state wanting to make it an offense to smoke with a minor in your car, even if the windows are down. Etc etc etc

[BATCAT]

The city of Denver recently passed a noise ordinance against loud pipes on motorcyles. Seems the brie and chablis crowd didn't like their sidewalk cafe experience being interrupted by loud bikes. Which seems perfectly reasonable to me. But what Denver did was inexcusable, and will almost certainly be overturned in court. Because what they did was make it illegal for any motorcycle to have any aftermarket exhaust of any kind. In short, if you get pulled over and the police discover that your bike's pipes aren't stock, they can write you up, regardless of the noise output. This is government overstepping in it's most blatant form, IMO. As is California wanting control over your thermostats, or Washington state wanting to make it an offense to smoke with a minor in your car, even if the windows are down. Etc etc etc

 

 

You're totally right in that many states have ridiculous legislation that way overreaches in a lot of different areas.

 

I do think the zealous anti-smoking ban crowd is missing the overall picture, though. There's a reason such laws are getting passed (often because of public support and/or votes, I might add) everywhere from Seattle to NYC to Paris: smoking indoors is gradually becoming something that's just not socially acceptable anymore. We don't allow people to piss or {censored} in the middle of bars, and most won't let you spit all over the place either, for similar reasons- societal norms have come to mean that spitting or defecating in a bar's floor is offensive.

 

I won't deny that some anti-smoking legislation goes too far. But not lighting up inside a building frequented by the public is, to me, just sort of a baseline that reflects where we now drawing the line. Just like we draw the line at cars that spew insane amounts of exhaust: we have emissions standards.

 

Smoking is on it's way out, that simple. And people that don't smoke don't particularly want to have to be in confined spaces with the annoyance and health risks of other peoples habits. If people who smoke feel that they can't enjoy going out anymore, merely because they're expected to step outside to smoke, then I'm sorry... but if they can't see the other side of it I just think they're being foolish.

[Lee Flier]

I agree with you. It's just that human nature being what it is, mandating something makes people naturally resistant to it.

Some people who aren't very mature, maybe. Most just follow the law if it's a reasonable law, though I agree with you that many aren't. In any case, if something is posing a genuine public health or safety problem, surely you don't think we can say "Let's not make a law against this because some people will be naturally resistant to it."

The city of Denver recently passed a noise ordinance against loud pipes on motorcyles. Seems the brie and chablis crowd didn't like their sidewalk cafe experience being interrupted by loud bikes. Which seems perfectly reasonable to me. But what Denver did was inexcusable, and will almost certainly be overturned in court. Because what they did was make it illegal for any motorcycle to have any aftermarket exhaust of any kind. In short, if you get pulled over and the police discover that your bike's pipes aren't stock, they can write you up, regardless of the noise output. This is government overstepping in it's most blatant form, IMO.

Yeah, I agree on that one... that's a very poor law! Limiting noise is understandable, so put the limits on noise, not whether you can buy any kind of exhaust system.

There are zillions of examples of overly zealous laws, like you say. I just don't think "no smoking in a public place" is one of them. Light up outside or in your own home, seems simple enough.

[6StringSling]

Sometimes laws are passed and forgotten when they are not enforced. Or the reason for the law goes out of style and the law is not enforced. Or the enforcers think it's a stupid law and don't bother with enforcement.

 

About 20 years ago some bonehead lawyer in Oregon tried to make a name for himself by trying to have some idiotic law governing the size of a loaf of bread enforced because it had become chic for the yuppies to buy non-standard breads - you know, {censored} like those loaves that are about the diameter of a 50-cent piece and 5-feet long.

 

There are plenty of sites on the Net where you can find weird, obscure and stupid laws that are still technically enforceable but more or less forgotten. Here's a link to one such site: http://www.destincrabisland.com/obscure.html

 

This one is absolutely priceless: California: In Cupertino, it is illegal to count backwards audibly in hexadecimal.

 

Compared to these, a smoking ban is pretty damned reasonable.

[Deeprig9]

That doesn't make them hypocrites. If the government tries to ban things that don't hurt anyone else (e.g. legislating morals, dictating the aesthetics of your private residence, etc.), I'm against it. If they try to ban things that are a legitimate public health problem, I'm for it. We may disagree on what does or doesn't constitute a legitimate public health problem, but not agreeing with you doesn't make me ignorant or a hypocrite. Translation: "You don't agree with me so shut up." I'm a musician who also happens to be a small business owner, and a huge advocate for civil liberties and personal freedom. I still disagree with you, apparently, on smoking bans. I believe your right to swing your fist ends at my face, and smoking in a public place is definitely not just a personal choice for the smoker, it seriously affects the health of others. So we disagree on this issue - that doesn't mean that I know nothing about business or am making an idiot out of myself by stating my opinion. Yes, a lot of musicians do do that... has nothing to do with how any of us may feel about smoking bans, though.

You have your opinion, and your opinion is wrong. If it's your business, ban it. If it isn't your business, STFU. It's the business owner's call. It's an issue of private property rights and the government's role in our personal and business lives. Your analogy of a swinging fist is catchy, but inapplicable. A swirl of smoke is something you can walk away from, and not a willful intent to harm.

If you, as a musician, refuse to play venues that allow smoking, so be it. Bela Fleck and the Flecktones play non-smoking shows at venues that typically allow smoking. As a smoker, I go see them anyway. I love them. They make the rules, or they don't play. You can do the same thing. It's not about smokers vs. nonsmokers, it's not about carcinagens, it's about the line between government say-so and a private proprietor's rights. To hell with what the majority thinks, it's not their business, literally. That's why we have a bill of rights, so the majority can't screw the minority. It's the spirit of the way we live in this country, and it's a spirit I personally enjoy celebrating.

I have a difficult time trying to understand the mentality of people who think the government is a tool to solve your problems, whether it be healthcare or smoking in bars, or gays in their own bedroom or weed smokers on their back porch. The government is a tool to protect your inherent rights, not included in those rights is an imagination that you are befit to sit in a bar without smoke in the air.

[Deeprig9]

As a follow-up, I have many non-smoking friends that have a love-hate relationship with the non-smoking law here. On the one hand, they like being at a bar and not having any smoke in the air. On the other hand, they just end up hanging outside because their friends smoke, and that's where their friends are, and the smoke is there anyway. The idea that a government, be it a county seat or the feds, can just write down a law and fall under the wand of agrandizement and change the world. People that go to bars usually smoke. I can tell you right now, for a fact, every single bar in Athens GA that doesn't have an outdoor seating area has gone out of business since this law went into effect. Every, last, single one. No exception.

 

Thanks government. Thanks for looking out for us. Thanks for knowing better. Thanks for your ink and paper and guns and such. Don't know what we'd do without you.

[6StringSling]

 

You have your opinion, and your opinion is wrong. If it's your business, ban it. If it isn't your business, STFU. It's the business owner's call. It's an issue of private property rights and the government's role in our personal and business lives. Your analogy of a swinging fist is catchy, but inapplicable. A swirl of smoke is something you can walk away from, and not a willful intent to harm. If you, as a musician, refuse to play venues that allow smoking, so be it. Bela Fleck and the Flecktones play non-smoking shows at venues that typically allow smoking. As a smoker, I go see them anyway. I love them. They make the rules, or they don't play. You can do the same thing. It's not about smokers vs. nonsmokers, it's not about carcinagens, it's about the line between government say-so and a private proprietor's rights. To hell with what the majority thinks, it's not their business, literally. That's why we have a bill of rights, so the majority can't screw the minority. It's the spirit of the way we live in this country, and it's a spirit I personally enjoy celebrating. I have a difficult time trying to understand the mentality of people who think the government is a tool to solve your problems, whether it be healthcare or smoking in bars, or gays in their own bedroom or weed smokers on their back porch. The government is a tool to protect your inherent rights, not included in those rights is an imagination that you are befit to sit in a bar without smoke in the air.

 

What a load of crap! There has never been a single time EVER that I have not been OUTSIDE with someone smoking, even if it's 10 feet away, and not have their smoke blow over me; I personally think most smokers subconsciously stand outside in the spots that WILL blow smoke on others out of spite for smoking restrictions.

 

Just because property and/or a business is "private" doesn't mean that "anything goes" either. And at some point the government HAS to step in because there have to be consequences for harmful behavior, to others and to yourself.

 

You seem to be forgetting (or ignoring!) the fact that freedom has boundaries and carries responsibilities.

[6StringSling]

 

I can tell you right now, for a fact, every single bar in Athens GA that doesn't have an outdoor seating area has gone out of business since this law went into effect. Every, last, single one. No exception.

 

I've emailed the Athens, GA Chamber of Commerce to verify that statement.

[Deeprig9]

Please post the response. I doubt you'll get one, they are an extremely political organization, you'll probably get a reply about how great the town is and you should come visit and experience all that Athens has to offer.

[BATCAT]

I can tell you right now, for a fact, every single bar in Athens GA that doesn't have an outdoor seating area has gone out of business since this law went into effect. Every, last, single one. No exception.

 

 

We voted for (in other words, we can't blame "government"; we enacted it) a smoking ban here in Seattle, and I haven't heard the closure of a single club attributed to the smoking ban here. And I assure you many don't have outdoor seating. (the weather sucks much of the year)

 

Assuming this is true, which I kind of doubt, this would be a truly massive disparity. To what do you think the difference would be attributable? It's not like we don't have smokers here.

[Deeprig9]

What a load of crap! There has never been a single time EVER that I have not been OUTSIDE with someone smoking, even if it's 10 feet away, and not have their smoke blow over me; I personally think most smokers subconsciously stand outside in the spots that WILL blow smoke on others out of spite for smoking restrictions. Just because property and/or a business is "private" doesn't mean that "anything goes" either. And at some point the government HAS to step in because there have to be consequences for harmful behavior, to others and to yourself. You seem to be forgetting (or ignoring!) the fact that freedom has boundaries and carries responsibilities.

 

 

You seem to be under the impression that you have a right to not be bothered by smoke. You don't have that right. You do, however, have a right to move or go somewhere else, you also have a right to ask the smoker to relocate, he/she may tell you to sit on it and spin, but you do have a right to complain.

 

But there is no right for you to be comfortable everywhere you go. I sit outdoors at bars and the stools are uncomfortable and make my back hurt after 15 minutes. Since it's a right that I shall be comfortable at a bar, then I suppose I ought to petition my representatives to mandate every bar in town to install ergonomic seating for people like myself.

[6StringSling]

 

You seem to be under the impression that you have a right to not be bothered by smoke. You don't have that right.

 

Incorrect - I do have that right. It's the responsibility of the smoker to see that I am not bothered by it.

 

You seem to think that harmful behavior is a right and that those who dislike it should either move on or put up with it. That's just plain ignorant. Why do you think there are noise ordinances? Are you telling me that I should have to pay fines to break my lease and move if the neighbors are being unreasonably noisy? That if I choose not spend the thousands of dollars it would take to break my lease and move that I should just shut the {censored} up and suffer?

 

In a quarter of a century I have received exactly 2 complaints about me playing my guitar too loud. One was legit - I was playing at 3am. The other was a joke since I was playing an unplugged electric. That's because I have a responsibility to my neighbors to not disturb their peace, something they have a RIGHT to.

[Deeprig9]

We voted for (in other words, we can't blame "government"; we enacted it) a smoking ban here in Seattle, and I haven't heard the closure of a single club attributed to the smoking ban here. And I assure you many don't have outdoor seating. (the weather sucks much of the year) Assuming this is true, which I kind of doubt, this would be a truly massive disparity. To what do you think the difference would be attributable? It's not like we don't have smokers here.

 

 

I surmise the difference would be the weather, like you stated. Chilly and drizzly vs. sunny and comfortable.

 

My gf lived in Chicago for a couple years, no smoking in bars. Brutal weather. If you were a smoker, you were simply {censored}ed. Either freeze your ass off or don't smoke. Pretty simple.

 

I can only assume that Seattle would work similarly. If the weather is so {censored}ty that the option of smoking outside is a de facto total smoking ban, then the social instincts and addiction of alcohol override the nicotine fix.

 

In a town with nice weather most of the year, like Athens, you ban indoor smoking, then all the bars without patios are finished.

 

That's my theoretical answer to your question.

[BATCAT]

I surmise the difference would be the weather, like you stated. Chilly and drizzly vs. sunny and comfortable. My gf lived in Chicago for a couple years, no smoking in bars. Brutal weather. If you were a smoker, you were simply {censored}ed. Either freeze your ass off or don't smoke. Pretty simple. I can only assume that Seattle would work similarly. If the weather is so {censored}ty that the option of smoking outside is a de facto total smoking ban, then the social instincts and addiction of alcohol override the nicotine fix. In a town with nice weather most of the year, like Athens, you ban indoor smoking, then all the bars without patios are finished. That's my theoretical answer to your question.

 

 

Actually, people just stand outside and smoke as quickly as possible when the weather sucks. Nicotine is a pretty powerful drug. Trust me, you see tons of people huddled outside the bars on a Saturday night, puffing away.

[Deeprig9]

 

Incorrect - I do have that right. It's the responsibility of the smoker to see that I am not bothered by it. You seem to think that harmful behavior is a right and that those who dislike it should either move on or put up with it. That's just plain ignorant. Why do you think there are noise ordinances? Are you telling me that I should have to pay fines to break my lease and move if the neighbors are being unreasonably noisy? That if I choose not spend the thousands of dollars it would take to break my lease and move that I should just shut the {censored} up and suffer? In a quarter of a century I have received exactly 2 complaints about me playing my guitar too loud. One was legit - I was playing at 3am. The other was a joke since I was playing an unplugged electric. That's because I have a responsibility to my neighbors to not disturb their peace, something they have a RIGHT to.

 

 

 

It doesn't cost thousands of dollars to move to another table, or ask the smoker to relocate if you were there first. I'm a smoker. If I go somewhere and start smoking, and someone asks me to move, and they were there first, it's totally reasonable. But if I was there first, with my ashtray and my pack of smokes, and they sat there, it's their responsibility to move.

 

Moving out of your house is not an applicable analogy. Just like Lee Flier's flying fist analogy, it's easy for you to make your whine in bull{censored} barrels. That's a metaphor and a pun.

[BATCAT]

I always find the fieryness of the discussions about this on this forum to be a surprise, as EVERY SINGLE ONE of friends who SMOKE agree with the ban.