Restaurant smoking ban and now more

That's the problem- this has been cast as a "smoker's rights" issue. It isn't, and that's a terrible argument.

With many smokers, it isn't a matter of will, it's just that they like smoking. Not my thing at all, but I have trouble working up any emotion about those poor addicts.

Re: the pregnant smokers, I remember an essay by Larry Miller, where he was talking about seeing some kids loose in a moving SUV. No safety seats, they weren't buckled in. He thought, "What kind of parents would let their kids ride in a car without safety seats or stand up on the back seat?" After thinking about it for a second, he realized, "Well, MY parents. And the parents of every kid I knew growing up." I really don't know much about the epidemiological data on fetal effects of smoking (I'm more up on the second-hand smoke data), but I have to admit that the moms of all of my friends smoked during pregnancy...

With many smokers, it isn't a matter of will, it's just that they like smoking.

No, that's what they say. That's even what they might believe. I used some of those same arguments for years...to justify/rationalize what I wanted to do.

Not my thing at all, but I have trouble working up any emotion about those poor addicts.

Ah, that's just because you're trying to protect your image of a mean, unfeeling scientific libertarian 'let 'em all go to hell' type of guy. And we all know that, beneath your gruff exterior...there's a gruff interior.

but I have to admit that the moms of all of my friends smoked during pregnancy...

Yup, as did my Mom when she was pregnant with me, and when she was pregnant with my two brothers. And until the moment she went into her final coma. And when I was a kid, there were no seat belts included in cars, and no child restraint seats that I knew of. We all rode around loose and fragile...but so did the adults.

And my ex-wife stopped smoking during her pregnancies with our two children....but she smoked up until she found out she was pregnant, and she resumed smoking immediately after she gave birth, and continues to this day, so I don't really know what her temporary cessation gained anyone (except for her tiresomely repeated refrain that it proved she could 'stop anytime she wanted', so she wasn't really addicted to it)

I know you don't care for any government interference in individual decisions, Stuart, but I think you'd be hard pressed to argue vehemently against the government 'interference' of requiring that seat belts/restraint systems be installed in all cars. Wouldn't you? I mean, now that you are a father. And as an educated and intelligent person you are aware that if those mandates weren't imposed the average human would either forget to buckle up or totally disregard the dangers (if any of the car makers bothered including such stuff in their vehicles without being forced), thereby inflicting unimaginable levels of death and maiming on the general population?

That's the problem- this has been cast as a "smoker's rights" issue. It isn't, and that's a terrible argument.

Ya got THAT right.

I have MUCH less of a problem with child restraint laws than adult seatbelt or helmet laws. I'm just putting our worries into context.

if those mandates weren't imposed the average human would either forget to buckle up

Think of it as evolution in action.

I have MUCH less of a problem with child restraint laws than adult seatbelt or helmet laws. I'm just putting our worries into context.

if those mandates weren't imposed the average human would either forget to buckle up

Think of it as evolution in action.

I'd be happy to...if it weren't for the fact that I have to subsidize many of the idiots who are trying to remove themselves from the gene pool (at least they get creds for good intentions for the race) and succeed in lingering as brain-damaged vegetables because they weren't wearing their helmets or didn't buckle up. Seems the guys who don't wear the helmets are usually the guys who don't have the insurance to cover what happens because they are not wearing helmets. See: I can be unfeeling and dismissive too!!!

[James Roscoe]

Why do I find myself agreeing with you two? Hmm? I have to stop reading this thread. It is dangerous to my mental health.

I'd be happy to...if it weren't for the fact that I have to subsidize many of the idiots who are trying to remove themselves from the gene pool (at least they get creds for good intentions for the race) and succeed in lingering as brain-damaged vegetables because they weren't wearing their helmets or didn't buckle up. Seems the guys who don't wear the helmets are usually the guys who don't have the insurance to cover what happens because they are not wearing helmets.

Well, you know my answer for that one... Stop using the public purse to subsidize stupid decisions.

I have MUCH less of a problem with child restraint

I think ALL children should be restrained - and gagged if possible!

And the biggest problems restaurants are going to have with new rules here in BC is stopping their employees (most of whom seem to smoke) from smoking within the allowed 3 m. distance of the restaurant.

I have zero sympathy for cigarette smokers while being a cigar and/or pipe smoker myself. The comparison between the two is like comparing the bottle-in-a-bag Thunderbird drinker to the wine enthusiast pensively tasting an interesting vintage.

It is just too bad that cigar smoking has, like wine, been 'Shankenised' so that all the upwardly mobile twits clamber onto the band wagon, making life more difficult and expensive for those who were enthusiasts long before it became chi-chi to drink wine or smoke cigars.

Damned blighters have even gotten into another of my favourite pursuits, the enjoyment of single malts. And I don't mean these silly $300 aged in 18 kinds of rare wood abortions, I mean real traditional single malt.

I have MUCH less of a problem with child restraint

I think ALL children should be restrained - and gagged if possible!

And the biggest problems restaurants are going to have with new rules here in BC is stopping their employees (most of whom seem to smoke) from smoking within the allowed 3 m. distance of the restaurant.

I have zero sympathy for cigarette smokers while being a cigar and/or pipe smoker myself. The comparison between the two is like comparing the bottle-in-a-bag Thunderbird drinker to the wine enthusiast pensively tasting an interesting vintage.

It is just too bad that cigar smoking has, like wine, been 'Shankenised' so that all the upwardly mobile twits clamber onto the band wagon, making life more difficult and expensive for those who were enthusiasts long before it became chi-chi to drink wine or smoke cigars.

Damned blighters have even gotten into another of my favourite pursuits, the enjoyment of single malts. And I don't mean these silly $300 aged in 18 kinds of rare wood abortions, I mean real traditional single malt.

Pomposity and silliness incarnate. Just because *you* cannot appreciate the subtleties of various types of cigarette tobaccos does not mean others cannot.

I've probably been smoking cigars, drinking scotch and smoking cigarettes *much* longer than you have and would *never* presume to castigate a category of homo sapiens with such a simplistic sweep of the nicotine-stained hand. You, sir, strike me as a pompous ass.

Pomposity and silliness incarnate. Just because *you* cannot appreciate the subtleties of various types of cigarette tobaccos does not mean others cannot.

I've probably been smoking cigars, drinking scotch and smoking cigarettes *much* longer than you have and would *never* presume to castigate a category of homo sapiens with such a simplistic sweep of the nicotine-stained hand. You, sir, strike me as a pompous ass.

Oh give us a break. People smoke cigarettes because they thought at one point they were a cool thing to do and now they smoke them because they can't give them up, not because they like the taste.

You sir, strike me as an ostrich, with your head in the sand if you think cigarette smoking is anything else for the vast majority of people that smoke them.

Not sure what relevance just how long you have smoked cigars or drunk scotch has to do with anything.

If you are a cigarette smoker yourself, I don't look to get any logical discussion about them from you. Habituated smokers can rationalise absolutely anything, even hacking away taking puffs between sessions with the oxygen mask as they lie dying (and yes, I have seen that more than once).

I am sure that there may be some people that smoke cigarettes and are not habituated. I expect a few do distinguish taste. But for the vast majority, I stand by my statements.

FWIW, I have smoking friends who claim that they really do love to do it. Now maybe Hoke's right and they're rationalizing or lying. But they strike me as being honest, and they do have very strong preferences in their poison. Read a little Fran Liebowitz.

Me, I don't get it- smoking tobacco doesn't get you high and it kills your lungs. But I'm hesitant to project my attitude to others. Maybe they sense something I don't.

But I'm hesitant to project my attitude to others.

Stuart,
I suspect we'd all be better off and the world a more peaceful place if more folks followed this humble advice.
Bill

FWIW, I have smoking friends who claim that they really do love to do it. Now maybe Hoke's right and they're rationalizing or lying. But they strike me as being honest, and they do have very strong preferences in their poison. Read a little Fran Liebowitz.

Stuart, I think you have to separate the reason people do it from how they prefer to do it. Of course cigarette smokers will have a preference as to what brand/taste they like. But the reason they do it, is no longer because they like the taste, although they may happen to enjoy it, it is because they can't stop. The nicotine addiction is a tough one and very hard to beat.

Once they have the chemical dependence, all of the "I only do this for the taste - I can stop any time" is just so much....smoke.

Well, maybe you're better at looking into other people's souls than I am. I'd make a lousy lawyer.

Well, maybe you're better at looking into other people's souls than I am. I'd make a lousy lawyer.

I get a lot closer than most when I have to go to the terminal cancer ward to help them do their will and they are asking for cigarettes.

Well, maybe you're better at looking into other people's souls than I am. I'd make a lousy lawyer.

I get a lot closer than most when I have to go to the terminal cancer ward to help them do their will and they are asking for cigarettes.

Ah, that explains a lot! It's my feeling that Cade's man, Dick was not far off the mark...

Ah, that explains a lot! It's my feeling that Cade's man, Dick was not far off the mark...

Thank you - very flattering.

I assume that you mean that the way Shakespeare did, praising lawyers as the source of political stability, standing between the government and a revolution, and not the converse, as is often believed by the ignorant

(and yes, I know there are varying interpretations of that passage)

Perhaps you should read the play.

(These are Seth Finkelstein's comments, not mine. He's an "ignorant" MIT grad.)

The argument of this remark as in fact being favorable to lawyers is a marvel of sophistry, twisting of the meaning of words in unfamiliar source, disregard of the evident intent of the original author and ad hominem attack. Whoever first came up with this interpretation surely must have been a lawyer.

The line is actually uttered by a character "Dick The Butcher". While he's a killer as evil as his name implies, he often makes highly comedic and amusing statements. The wisecracking villain is not an invention of modern action movies, it dates back to Shakespeare and beyond.

The setup for the "kill the lawyers" statement is the ending portion of a comedic relief part of a scene in Henry VI, part 2. Dick and another henchman, Smith are members of the gang of Jack Cade, a pretender to the throne. The built-up is long portion where Cade make vain boasts, which are cut down by sarcastic replies from the others. For example:

JACK CADE.
Valiant I am.

SMITH [aside].
'A must needs; for beggary is valiant.

JACK CADE.
I am able to endure much.

DICK [aside].
No question of that; for I have seen him whipp'd three market-days together.

JACK CADE.
I fear neither sword nor fire.

SMITH [aside].
He need not fear the sword; for his coat is of proof.

DICK [aside].
But methinks he should stand in fear of fire, being burnt i' th'hand for stealing of sheep.

You can almost hear the rim-shot after everything Dick or Smith say here.

Cade proceeds to go more and more over the top, and begins to describe his absurd ideal world:

JACK CADE.
Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven half-penny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hoop'd pot shall have ten hoops; and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king,- as king I will be,-

ALL.
God save your majesty!

Appreciated and encouraged, he continues on in this vein:

JACK CADE.
I thank you, good people:- there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.

And here is where Dick speaks the famous line.

DICK.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

The audience must have doubled over in laughter at this. Far from "eliminating those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution" or portraying lawyers as "guardians of independent thinking", it's offered as the best feature imagined of yet for utopia. It's hilarious. A very rough and simplistic modern translation would be "When I'm the King, there'll be two cars in every garage, and a chicken in every pot" "AND NO LAWYERS". It's a clearly lawyer-bashing joke. This is further supported by the dialogue just afterwards (which is actually quite funny even now, and must have been hilarious when the idiom was contemporary):

Startling display of ability with Google, Cheffie, (unecessary had you paid attention to the smiley in my post), but I'm not going to waste any more time responding to your pro-cigarette smoking position. As I said, one rarely gets any sensible dialectic from the addict trying to support his habit.

Good luck with your habit - maybe you won't be one of the ones that winds up needing a visit from one of my brethren in the terminal ward.

Feel free to rant on as long as it pleases you, for answer there shall be none, at least from this quarter.

Bye, Bye, Billie.

Bill, if I understand the chef's position (which appears to be the same as mine), it has nothing whatever to do with pro-smoking, it's a matter of upholding the rights of the property owner to make that choice as long as patrons are not held by force. There is a strong belief among certain classes that the Besserwissers should be able to determine the esthetics, preferences, and lifestyles of their inferiors, with the inferiors bearing the costs, risks, and restrictions decided on by others, but not everyone agrees with that notion.

"Perhaps you should read the play."

Chef, just for the record, I disagree with Finkelstein's reading of the play. Not simply because I'm a lawyer, but because I spent two years studying Shakespeare many years ago, and continue to do so with great pleasure even now.

Regards, Bob

Bill, this is the first post in this thread that really makes a lot of sense to me. Back when Lexington went smoke free (couple years now) I thought (and still think) that it would be a simple thing to put a sign in the window pro and con, we allow, or we do not allow. Those who want to smoke could know where to go and those who don't want to smoke also would know where to go, or not go. Seems a no brainer to me. Now that we have had a couple years and few establishments are out of business I would bet that the no smoking places would out number those who do. I really think that we have WAY too much of Big Brother ruling our everyday lives as it is. Now if they outlaw smoking in open public places I will work to oust every governmental official who did it. After saying all this, I must say that I quit smoking on Dec 31 1972, so It "ain't" sour grapes coming from me.

Ok, so I am replying to myself here. I just thought that in my reply to Redwinger could be confusing as to which of his replies I am replying to. (that makes a lot os sense doesn't it?) it is in actuality a reply to his post on page one. The one and only thing we had on the NS board that I wish we had here is the post numbering system. Otherwise that board can fall off the edge of the world and not be missed by me. I would not be surprised if this sentiment makes me a curmudgeon.

Bill, this is the first post in this thread that really makes a lot of sense to me. Back when Lexington went smoke free (couple years now) I thought (and still think) that it would be a simple thing to put a sign in the window pro and con, we allow, or we do not allow. Those who want to smoke could know where to go and those who don't want to smoke also would know where to go, or not go. Seems a no brainer to me. Now that we have had a couple years and few establishments are out of business I would bet that the no smoking places would out number those who do. I really think that we have WAY too much of Big Brother ruling our everyday lives as it is. Now if they outlaw smoking in open public places I will work to oust every governmental official who did it. After saying all this, I must say that I quit smoking on Dec 31 1972, so It "ain't" sour grapes coming from me.

Bob, I couldn't agree with you more on this. I am also an ex-smoker (been completely cigarette-free for over 6 yrs now), so it's not sour grapes on my part either...but I think your method of allowing the establishment to determine, and just letting the consumer know about it is so much better. Yes, I like a smoke-free restaurant (still think they should have a choice about it though), but I really think banning smoking in bars is a little ridiculous. We had a lovely cigar bar a few blocks away from me that is now full of cigarette smoke since it's the only place a smoker can go to enjoy a drink and a smoke. Heck...they are BARS...where people are drinking and flirting and whatever else! the next thing you know, they will be banning alcohol everywhere but wine bars...and then I will have to tolerate jello shots and keg stands while trying to enjoy my glass of vino! But seriously, I think they should let the establishment decide on whether or not to allow smoking...JMHO.