Today, I will post two articles. I understand the last post about the smoking ban has a lot of basic, almost knee-jerk arguments that a third grader with a plastic spork could poke holes in. It also contributes very little new or interesting to the debate. I present it however as a contextual reference for the real issue which I present now.
I want to have fun.
I want to have fun.
Frankly I am not that concerned about bar owners losing money, waitresses getting lung cancer, rising health care costs or any of the issues typically brought up. The real result of this ban is that everyone (and I mean everyone) will have just a little less fun. Most people don’t smoke. Most people in a given bar on a Friday night don’t smoke. But these non-smokers choose to go to these smoke-filled bars for a reason. That reason is fun. Smokers are more fun. They drink more, stay later, tip bigger, buy more rounds for strangers and are generally the loose cannons of our society. We like that about them. But when you hear: “I think the smoking ban is good because we have the right to breathe clean air” what they really mean is: “I want to go out and have fun like them but don’t like the consequences of smelling bad.” Sorry kids, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Yes, you may smell better when you get home at 10:00pm from that “wild” Saturday night at Bennigan’s, but I promise that you also had less fun, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.
Bars are places we go to be naughty. Yes, drinking and smoking are bad for us—that’s the fucking point. I want to be able to go to a strip club and get a lap dance and drink straight whiskey while smoking a cigar and a cigarette at the same time as I am eating a steak the size of my head.
This isn’t a public health issue or a private property issue as much as it is the opening salvo of a new kind of class war. This is a group of people who don’t like something and then use the force of the State to inflict their lifestyles onto others because seeing others have more fun than them makes them angry and regretful. Ask ten people in favor of this ban why and look them in the eyes when they tell you’re their “legitimate” reasons. I guaran-god-damn-tee you that eight of them won’t look you back in they eye when spew out their reasons… all of which rhyme with, and are, bullshit.
12 comments:
Smokers are more fun. You're right. You've convinced me.
I still hate breathing smoke though, and I applaud the ban. Sorry.
No need to be sorry. I am just surprised to hear that you think smokers are more fun. Usually this is the one issue where I get the most fervent rebuttals. People hate being thought of as not as much fun as the other guy. So thanks.
But I must say, I suspect this is like many other statements I hear from your side: "Yeah OK, I see that what you're saying makes sense. But I still don't like it personally so screw you and everyone else as long as I get my way."
I think I am implying that you must be logical and reasonable. You don't. You can have an opinion based on whatever you want. My only beef is that people tend to try to justify their gut level, emotional response with a steaming pile of bullshit. That I cannot abide. If you just don't like smoke and that's your reason... then fine.
hm. I don't have any bullshit justifications. I like to drink, in bars, but I don't like breathing the smoke. It's a selfish viewpoint.
Since the majority rules--i.e., makes the rules--I applaud the ban.
At the same time, I have a lot of friends who smoke. People who are mostly younger than I am, who are smart and fun but blindly stupid about smoking. Blind about what they're doing to their health (yadda yadda, that's what everyone says), but also blind about how smoke affects those around them (or, more specifically, affects me).
The solution--imposed by the majority (perhaps unfairly to the minority)--makes sense to me. Have the smokers smoke outside. Everyone wins. I can still drink. They can still smoke (and be forced to be more conscientious toward others). And everyone has fun (although the smokers have a little less). I really don't see what the big deal is. The law is, in my view, a thing of beauty.
I get it. Where we diverge is the idea that "majority rules" is a good thing". It's not. Let me put it this way, if you are the majority shareholder and own 51% of the stock at a bar (your private property), would it bother you that 1 million people who combined own 10% of the stock forced you to do something you didn't want to do and you thought would be bad for your business? It doesn't matter what most people want. It matters what you, as the owner of a business, thinks how best to run his business. If consumers don't want it, it will fail. If they do, let the man be succesfull.
Perhaps I was too confrontational. I suppose personal preference and a desire to get what you want in the way you want it isn't "bullshit". But as you admit, It is selfish. And I would argue, a bit tyranical.
Hm. You're conflating a couple of concepts here, and I think you've lost me. Majority business ownership and decision-making is different majority rule and law-making. In civilized society, laws are made weighing the benefit to the majority v. the freedoms of the individuals. Or to put it another way: "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" (Spock in the Wrath of Kahn).
I don't mean to be glib here. I recognize the right of humans to entertain themselves as they see fit (within certain legal limits). I just think the compromise here is good. Smokers, out with you. We'll see you back at the bar in six minutes.
Well you're right about me conflating concepts. I was posting that after a few cocktails. So let me clarify. Don't look at this from a patron's perspective, look at this from an owner's perspective. You seem to think that socially engineering the desired outcome is fine as long it benefits the majority. This idea that a “majority faction” is somehow a good thing terrifies me as much as it did Thomas Jefferson. This is why we do not have a democracy but rather a republic. At one time, the majority thought women shouldn't vote and slavery was just fine. As then, the majority in this case is wrong. It is not OK, to strip a restaurant owner of the right to use a legal product in his private property. Here's another Star Trek Quote for you: "When one person's freedom is trodden upon, we're all damaged." Do I like hearing the KKK chant racist slogans as they march down the street? No. Should we outlaw them and send them to jail? You may say yes. I would not.
It is not a matter of inconvenience to the smoker or a compromise. We have no right to force such a compromise. In fact, the notion of forcing the decision by the power of government negates the very concept of a compromise. It's not a compromise at all. Total and complete victory for one side over the other through the use of force is not a compromise.
Let me tie this back to the fun factor though. Here’s how this goes down in practice. I get up and take my coat off the back of my bar stool to go outside for a smoke. At that point someone immediately takes my seat. In the meantime, the bartender, not seeing me or my coat and a new customer in my seat, takes my beer and dumps it out. So there I am, having my ID checked for the fifth time trying to get back inside and to my seat and my beer... neither of which are mine any more. One other thing most people don't realize is that I (like many) don't like to smoke AND drink... I like to smoke WHILE I drink. I don't enjoy a cigarette at all without a beverage of some kind in my hand. Since most bars won't let me bring my drink outside with me I simply won't enjoy it at all. I may not even bother coming back inside. This is too bad for you, because I’m a fun guy to hang out with. Less fun for me and you. The bar owner is less profitable. The good waitresses have quit because their tips are so bad they are better off going back to paralegal school, leaving only lousy wait staff providing miserable service reducing the fun factor for everyone.
This is a lose-lose no matter how you slice it. The only winners here are (as Lyne36 points out) “the people who venture out of their town homes once a month for a glass of house wine and a chicken caesar salad. “ In other words… the minority of bar patrons.
I'd save your seat.
And I'd make sure you had a fresh drink waiting for you when you came back. Mixed exactly the way you like it.
And I'd be sure the servers were well tipped, as I always do. Hell, they're the life blood.
Thanks! I'll just interpret that to be your committment to joining me at the bar every time I go. ;-)
As far as tippng the servers, if you tip well for every drink, it would still take 3 or 4 of you to make up for my absence.
Cheers.
Ok. I have to weigh on this a bit. I was recently talking to a business owner in favor of the smoking ban in their restaurant. The idea goes something like this.
The business owner doesn't like the smoke filled restaurant. It's smelly. It makes the walls dingy. Etc.
The business owner felt (and I think rightfully so) that if they banned smoking in their restaurant themselves, they would lose business.
By leaving the decision to the state, the business owner feels (and I think rightfully so) that they won't lose business and furthermore they won't have to be the bad guy.
I found this interesting because it seems to be a case, and I am sure there are many like it, where by giving up certain rights and freedoms as a business owner, the owner is actually making a solid business decision. Ignore the slippery slope here, but I'm wondering what you think about cases like this.
Well this business owner is then using the government to force his competitors into a relative competitive position that benefits him and his desire to go smoke free at the expense of his competitors. If going smoke free was a smart business decision in the first place he could have done it on his own. If it's only smart in the context of forcing all others to play by the rules he wants, then who's really the "bad guy" here?
I think there is a perfect compromise that no one can contest here. Have a completely seperated smoking section, I mean, tall plexiglass walls, smoke-eater machines, server yourself from the bar with no wait staff (unless they themselves smoke and agree) and then everyone's happy. But here's the clincher, if such a room to exist in a bar where would everyone be?
You are fooling yourself if you don't think 50 people are wall to wall in the smoking room laughing their asses off and having a grand old time while 4 random out of town work people and two young date couple who go out once a month are in the other room.
The fact here is that people want to smoke when they drink, if they didn't every bar would be non-smoking. If they didn't every bar would have already had a non-smoking section for them. Better yet, done what some places in Oregon have done and put in an army of smoke-eating ventilation systems and now smokers and non-smokers happily have a smoke-free environment.
But you know what? A bunch of religious lobby groups decided to spend oodles of their tax-payer written-off tithing and donations on lobbying the Oregon goverment to the tune of forcing a vote with their little sheople voting clans and now I have to smoke outside in January, but you know what? We are fighting back! We've already protested enough to get "cigar bars and cigar rooms" in bars and when people are in small local establishments, they are just going to smoke anyway. So fuck em. Take your bible out of my god damn bar and stop oppressing me!
Post a Comment