NH Smoking Ban

jimtyrrell · Post by **jimtyrrell** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:00 pm

On September 17, a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants in New Hampshire goes into effect. What a load of shit.

I'm an ex-smoker. I smoked for eight years or so, and I got up to two packs a day for a while there. I quit 7/3/93, the day I got married. That's a little over fourteen years ago. I have no desire to smoke (except for the occasional fleeting urge, which is easily enough fought off at this point). What's more, I don't care for the reek that it leaves on my clothing and in (what's left of) my hair after playing a show at a smoky bar.

But God damn it, why should the bar be FORCED to make this change? If it's because of all the research into second-hand smoke, then I'm sorry, but it's just not up to snuff (hehe). Joe Jackson's got some stuff to say on this at his web site, if'n you're interested. Suffice it to say I do not believe myself to be at any considerable health risk in a smoky bar. Certainly no more so than if I were in the subway, or working over a stove...

And you know what I could always do if I really thought it was a problem? GO SOMEWHERE ELSE! There's plenty of bars in NH who have WILLINGLY OPTED to go smoke-free. This sort of thing can legislate itself, and to allow the government to impose this kind of crap is bad business. The freedoms we don't mind losing are the ones that make it easier to lose the ones we're far more fond of, I fear.

Anyway, that's what I think.

anti-m · Post by **anti-m** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:28 pm

jimtyrrell wrote:And you know what I could always do if I really thought it was a problem? GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!

I think many of the bans make the case that it's detrimental to the employees' health...and they can't as easily go somewhere else.

Smoking is just too gross, and while I sympathize with smokers' plight... I will always vote for smoking bans. I can't wait until October 2009 when Oregon goes smoke-free.

I will say that I always vote AGAINST cigarette taxes. I don't think the state should have a vested interest in making people sick!

bz£ · Post by **bz£** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:29 pm

Yeah, it's a real drag.

I was kind of surprised when I first heard about this, because it's kind of out-of-character for New Hampshire, but it's a law that has worked out pretty well in a lot of other places. It's not really so bad; you get used to it after a couple of years.

Hoblit · Post by **Hoblit** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:36 pm

bzl wrote:Yeah, it's a real drag.

har.

You can still smoke, you just have to do it outside. (although, thats next; watch) While I don't necessarily agree with smoking bans in general...I simply don't care. I don't smoke, this is not my fight. I'm smoker friendly and you can smoke in my car or even in my apartment. However, if there is a law that says you can't smoke in the same public place that I am located, I couldn't care less.

Shake that tiny fist, but you are only the new guy on a list of places that have already had this law in place for years.

HeuristicsInc · Post by **HeuristicsInc** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm

There are definitely health reasons. My wife has asthma and that is potentially life-threatening. Even me without asthma, I often come out of a smoky bar coughing and having a sore throat for the next day or so. I guess you have to balance both sides. I have not experienced many bars going smoke-free of their own volition. Maybe that's NH-specific. In my experience it has been difficult to find something that is non-smoky. Also, if you want to see a specific band play, you gotta put up with whatever craphole they're playing in, and that may be filled with smoke. So going somewhere else isn't always a good choice.
-bill

Billy's Little Trip · Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:48 pm

I can't wait until October 2009 when Oregon goes smoke-free.

No cigs sold or smoked in all of Oregon?
By the way, Cali is smoke free in bars, restaurants, etc.

erik · Post by **erik** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:54 pm

I don't care enough to vote, but smoking bans piss me off. It's not like we just learned that tobacco smoke in the air is dangerous: people who decide to work in bars and clubs have known this forever. Smoking bans like to pretend that they're about health, but they're really not. They're about nonsmokers thinking their ability to not be bothered (to a rather severe degree for some people, sure) by smoke is more important than a business having the right to make money. When the smoking ban went into effect here in Austin, tons of people had all this research that basically showed that every time there was a smoking ban, there was a drop in income for clubs and bars, for several years.

I mean, I understand that people don't like smoke, or are allergic to it, or what have you. But that shouldn't supercede the authority of a business to say "Here's how our business is, you are welcome to come inside if you can deal with it".

jimtyrrell · Post by **jimtyrrell** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:55 pm

HeuristicsInc wrote:There are definitely health reasons. My wife has asthma and that is potentially life-threatening.

See, that's a good example, and something I hadn't thought of. Some people might actually suffer an immediate negative effect from smoke.

Of course, there are plenty of places a person can go in NH that have elected to go non-smoking. And I'd like to think (and maybe this is wishful thinking) that if more people take their business to such places, more places would elect to ban smoking on their own.

ALSO: Thanks for posting your opinions on this. I'm pretty opinionated regarding this, and that's when it's usually best for me to say to myself 'uh oh, I better hear the other side of this one from somebody, 'cause I'm not hearing it from me'.

HeuristicsInc · Post by **HeuristicsInc** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:00 pm

I should admit that there is at least one "bar" in MD that went smoke-free before the county it's in also did, and that's our favorite wine bar. But that's not really a normal bar by the usual definition. Also, I can't imagine that people smoking could actually taste the flavors in the wine they're drinking

-bill

Post by **Lunkhead** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:29 pm

They've had the ban in California for a long time, and all the bars and clubs shut down.

Oh wait, no, they didn't. They can still sell booze, so they still make money.

Here's some info from some fringe whackjob pinko Commie outfits who want to take away your "rights":

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter. ... tifier=498
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

Tonamel · Post by **Tonamel** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:47 pm

The way I see it, there are a number of products out there that, if they were invented today, would never receive FDA approval for OTC production. But since they've been around for ages, they sort of got grandfathered into modern society. Tobacco's one. Aspirin's another (A heart-healthy pain killer? Yes, but it can also make your stomach lining bleed, leading to ulcers).

I don't really mind legislation on such products. I don't have anything against them, I just don't support them, either.

jimtyrrell · Post by **jimtyrrell** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:59 pm

Lunkhead wrote:They've had the ban in California for a long time, and all the bars and clubs shut down.

Oh wait, no, they didn't. They can still sell booze, so they still make money.

Here's some info from some fringe whackjob pinko Commie outfits who want to take away your "rights":

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter. ... tifier=498
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

Well, I never said it was bad for business, did I? A good number of NH establishments have actually done better by going non-smoking. But that's all the more reason to let the bars come to this decision themselves. If smoking is weeded out of public places BY the public, then fine.

And I sure never said smoking was good for you. But it's easily enough avoided, as a patron and as an employee. There are companies that won't hire smokers. I'm sure there are people who wouldn't work in a smoking establishment, any more than they'd be willing to work in a coal mine. Again, I don't think this needs to be legislated.

Caravan Ray · Post by **Caravan Ray** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:01 pm

Lunkhead wrote:They've had the ban in California for a long time, and all the bars and clubs shut down.

Oh wait, no, they didn't. They can still sell booze, so they still make money.

Likewise Australia (except the Northern Territory). Everyone thought it would be the end of the world as we knew it - but guess what, it wasn't! Pubs and clubs are having a bit of a renaissance. People who avoided them in the past because they were smokey and smelly - are coming back. Big suburban pubs are changing their focus to being family friendly - improving their restaurants, putting in play areas for kids. The pub/club is once again becoming a bit of a focus for community activity - a place you can go on a Sunday afternoon, have a good meal, let the kids play, see some live music, meet with friends.

Personally, I've always been quite the fan of the dirty, noisy, smelly, smokey pub. It's sort of my natural habitat. I thought the bans were a terrible imposition, and would be a disaster. Turns out I was wrong.

(Though Lunkhead - I must add re. the ban in California - one of the things I most noticed when I was over there last year was that none of the pubs seemed to pay any attention to it! Remember that 'Moe's Bar'-type place across the road from the venue? And I went on a bit of a mini-pub crawl on the Thursday night that I arrived - as far as I could tell, in Santa Cruz anyway, the smoking ban seemed to be fairly vigorously ignored almost everywhere I went!)

anti-m · Post by **anti-m** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:02 pm

erik wrote:"Here's how our business is, you are welcome to come inside if you can deal with it".

Sure, there are many people out there who believe government intervention in business practice should be kept to an absolute minimum.

Personally, I believe that the government SHOULD have some responsibility to set safety standards -- even if such standards might negatively impact business.

Oh, that and I hate being around cigarettes.

I am selfish. I want to see (and perhaps even play) shows without feeling and smelling like crap after standing all night in a smoky bar. Singing in a smoky bar sucks, yes?

In fact, I've met SMOKERS who support a ban, because the effect of being in a poorly ventilated room full of smoke is unpleasant EVEN IF you smoke.

And yes, BLT, there will still be smoking in Oregon after 2009 -- just not in bars and restaurants... at least not legally. Oregonians ARE rather prone to all manner of illegal activities.

roymond · Post by **roymond** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:10 pm

OK. While we're being opinionated...I watched at close range a good friend die from lung cancer. It ain't pretty. 400,000 PEOPLE DIE FROM SMOKING EVERY YEAR!!!! That's almost two tsunamis. That's 9/11 every three days. And its legal. How many people died from lawn darts before they banned those? I think 3. The thing is, lawn darts warned you about how to use them safely. Those people didn't die from using them the way they were designed. Cigarettes kill you when you use them the way they are designed to be used.

Second hand smoke is a health hazard. Sorry Jim. It's true. I feel for people who can't quit. I feel for kids who see "heros" smoke and decide to try it and find themselves addicted to one of the most hideous personal traits. And how does that smoke make your throat feel when you're singing?

As for bars shutting down...someone mentioned it already. IT'S GOOD FOR BUSINESS. All these smokers who used to light up to satisfy their oral/digit fixation suddenly...smoke less...drink more. Guess what makes bars money? Drinks (alcohol or otherwise). Not cigs. Bars are actually far more social, entertaining and pleasant because you can breath.

As for health costs. All non-smokers subsidize smoker's treatments through the exaggerated insurance rates. Smokers now pay penalties in some cases (if they're honest about it on the applications). Not enough.

As for personal rights...go home and smoke. Go for it. But get it out of my face. Common sense laws like smoking bans don't infringe on your rights. Smokers infringe on mine.

Here I am attempting to eat at a Mexican restaurant with fucking smoke wafting over my food. I hate Mexico.

Let the flames begin....

Caravan Ray · Post by **Caravan Ray** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:14 pm

anti-m wrote:
erik wrote:"Here's how our business is, you are welcome to come inside if you can deal with it".
Sure, there are many people out there who believe government intervention in business practice should be kept to an absolute minimum.

Personally, I believe that the government SHOULD have some responsibility to set safety standards -- even if such standards might negatively impact business.

Absolutely correct. Trying to rely on "market forces" to bring about social change simply doesn't work. There must be government regulation as well. This is very easily observed with respect to environmental issues (my own professional are of interest) - it is known as the Tragedy of the Commons. It is why major polluters refuse to take action on anthropogenic climate change, even though there are clear economic benefits for doing so. But is also equally applicable to health issues.

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:56 pm

Smoking was banned in bars and restaurants in Seattle a couple years ago, as well as within spitting distance of the entrances to all public buildings. Life went on. People complained for about 6 months but it's not like anything shut down as a result, and there quickly became a "black market" in smoker-friendly restaurants and bars which would unofficially stay open past closing time, for those who REALLY needed to smoke indoors for some reason.

It's nice being able to taste your food and not have to put up with smelling like an ashtray for a day just because you wanted to go out to dinner with friends, and one of those friends is an inconsiderate smoker.

jimtyrrell · Post by **jimtyrrell** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:11 pm

Roymond: don't be sorry, man. This is why I brought it up. I wanted people's take on it.

And I'll concur with.. well, several posters here... the bars will be nicer places to hang out (and MUCH nicer to play shows in) once they're all non-smoking. It remains to be seen whether my friends that don't come to my shows because of the smoke will now actually come out.

Smoking is unhealthy, you'll never hear me argue that. But I'm not convinced that the guy smoking next to me is as big a risk to me as some would have me believe. I gotta read more about it though. I'm checking out Lunkhead's links, and I'm interested in other info if anyone's got it.

erik · Post by **erik** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:13 pm

roymond wrote:As for bars shutting down...someone mentioned it already. IT'S GOOD FOR BUSINESS.

I mentioned it being bad for business.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banlinks.html

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:18 pm

The proof that second-hand smoke is hazardous to health is largely fabricated or just doesn't plain fucking exist. No one has died from second-hand smoke. Ever.

erik · Post by **erik** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:27 pm

roymond wrote:As for personal rights...go home and smoke. Go for it. But get it out of my face. Common sense laws like smoking bans don't infringe on your rights. Smokers infringe on mine.

Go home and don't smoke. It's out of your face there. There's no "right to smoke in public", but there's no "right to be free of stuff that I don't like in public", either.

fluffy · Post by **fluffy** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:39 pm

If a business closes because people can't smoke there anymore, it's because it was a bad business that had no other redeeming values. It's not like smokers can just go somewhere else to smoke instead. It's not a free-market issue.

NH Smoking Ban

NH Smoking Ban

Re: NH Smoking Ban