[AZTOY]

Tempe smoking ban goes undercover
Alia Beard Rau
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 18, 2003 12:00 AM

Four undercover officers who otherwise would be catching prostitutes are now prowling Tempe bars for smokers.


The team of officers and a sergeant went undercover into the bars last week at the request of the City Council after repeated reports that some bars are flouting the 7-month-old law banning indoor smoking in public places.

The team has written nine citations, more in the one week than uniformed beat officers made in six months.

Beat officers had responded to 140 complaints but could issue only five citations.

"They would walk in a bar and find a haze of smoke but no one smoking," Police Chief Ralph Tranter said.

This week at Brewski's and the Time Out, undercover officers in the smoky bars watched as patrons yelled, "The cops are here!" when a uniformed officer approached. Bartenders were then cited.

Laura Kelly-Phillips, owner of the Time Out at 3129 S. Mill Ave., said the bar will fight.

"The city has to lay off city employees and the police don't have time to come down here and respond to car robberies, but they are going to pay for four undercover police officers to deal with smokers," she said. "That's ridiculous."

At one busted bar, police said nine of 10 patrons were smoking.

In some bars, even the bartender was smoking.http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0118chiefsmoke.html

[Monkeyleg]

A fine use of taxpayer money.

A couple of years ago they were doing the same thing in San Diego. Two cops to a team: one to make the arrest and the other to protect the arresting officer from the patrons of the bars.

[WYO]

The key words in this article are "at the request of the City Council." I can assure you that the cops don't want to be wasting time enforcing a smoking ban.

[Don45cal]

What a waste of manpower. The idiot who assigned the officers should be fired!

[Fly320s]

...after repeated reports that some bars are flouting the 7-month-old law banning indoor smoking in public places.

I didn't realize that privately owned business is a public place.

Don't the owners have the right to refuse service to anyone?

[Tamara]

Guess they've caught all the real criminals in Tempe already. :rolleyes:

[PigPen]

I didn't realize that privately owned business is a public place.

Don't the owners have the right to refuse service to anyone?

Now being from Mayville Tennessee, you know damn well they don't.......We have been there and done that!

PigPen

[hammer4nc]

This is too funny!

At one busted bar, police said nine of 10 patrons were smoking.

In some bars, even the bartender was smoking

Oooooooh...I'm just shocked!

Watch for:

Separate jury trials demanded by defendants.

The "I did not inhale" defense...followed by "that depends on what your definition of smoking is, your honor..."

Defendants seeking redress under ADA, on the grounds that smoking is a "disease"; requiring publicly-funded residency treatment, at the Pointe, or Canyon Ranch.

[El Tejon]

New Miranda rights in God's Waiting Room:

1. You have the right to remain smelly and short on wind.
2. Any coughing you do can be used against you in your insurance exam.
3. You have the right to El Tejon's tax money to be used to support your habit.
4. Do you understand that the government exists to be your mommy?

[Powderman]

Uh oh!!!

What are the charges?

No doubt, Criminal Consumption of Tobacco, along with Possession of Filtered Cigarettes, 2d Degree.:fire:

Perhaps, Aggravated Cigar Puffing?:fire:

or, perish the thought..........

Chewing of Plug Tobacco with Intent to Spit--with special circumstances!!!!:cuss: :cuss:

Who voted those morons in, anyway?

[hammer4nc]

powderman,

I think the smoking ban was a ballot measure passed by the voters last year...democracy in action?

[Aggie1]

I think the smoking ban was a ballot measure passed by the voters last year...democracy in action?

And that is why democracy is to be feared.

[DeltaElite]

Stupid law. I just don't go to places where people are smoking. Duhhhhhhhhhhh
If they want to kill themselves fine, but I will go to dinner elsewhere. Like someplace that doesn't smell like an ashtray.;)

[PigPen]

As a former smoker (8 yrs now...I believe), I love to see people enjoy themselves. It isn't for me any more but it's a free world. I am also un-convinced that second hand smoke is an independent risk factor for anything besides stinking.

PigPen

[Gila Jorge]

I smoked for 30+ years...quit about 9 years ago.
Doesn't bother me one bit to eat where others are smoking...sort of like it. I quit only because I was working with a fellow at church who was an alcoholic and druggie...one day it hit me: I wanted him to quite booze and nose candy and yet I could not quit smoking...Hypocrite....I quit! Cold turkey...reminded of that fact when others smoke. Basically I'm like an alcoholic...I'm still a smoker, I just do not smoke...! Alienated idiots and axxholes try to infringe on others rights...typical leftist liberal commie crap just like trampling on our right to free speech and rights to keep and bear arms...same group. Which group are you in....?

[Vladimir Berkov]

The key words in this article are "at the request of the City Council." I can assure you that the cops don't want to be wasting time enforcing a smoking ban.

Yeah, they would rather waste their time enforcing a marijuana ban.

[BamBam]

Hmmmm........
Seems to me that if these smokers would quit breaking the LAW, the cops would have more time for other things.

If you oppose the law, have it changed. Otherwise, you are draining the resources of your police.

[bbrins]

This kind of thing bothers even me, and I don't smoke, but being around other people that are smoking doesn't bother me. I mean heck, smoking is just one of the things that people do in bars, I've never been in one with no smoking, ever. Seems like this police department has a little too much free time on it's hands. This is almost as bad as the near smoking ban that the county council in Montgomery County, Maryland tried to pass. Some of them wanted to make it illegal to smoke in your own home if it were to offend your neighbors.

[Master Blaster]

IN Delaware our Big bliss ninny in charge Governor Minner passed such a smoking ban, that prohibits smoking in all public places which includes bars, clubs and taverns.

The small businesses have lost 25-50% of their customers, this will put them out of business in no time. Right now some legislators are gearing up to pass ammendments, and the ninnys on the other side to oppose.

I suggested that our governor who is fat as an Ox, if she was so concerned with heathful lifestyles for delawareans should drop about 100 lbs. I wrote to the local paper and suggested that all restaurants refuse to serve her for her own good, of course they only print the letters from the ninnys who like the ban, and of course dont patronize the bars and taverns that have suffered most , since Pa and MD are a 10 minute drive away.

Fat Ruth Ann should be worring about her own house, and Getting motiva to stop poisoning us with their emmissions from their poorly maintained refinery, that's half owned by the SAUDIS.
But big ninny always finds it easier to put this crapolla on the back of the small business or the working man.

:cuss: :fire:

[Tamara]

3. You have the right to El Tejon's tax money to be used to support your habit.

Must've missed where anybody asked for it.

I'm trying to save you tax money, El T, by dying young with lung cancer instead of lingering on for decades with all kinds of other ailments.

[KMKeller]

Just think, the next time someone blow cigarette smoke in your face, charge them with aggravated assault!

[TheeBadOne]

I didn't realize that privately owned business is a public place.

Don't the owners have the right to refuse service to anyone?

These two topics cause a lot of confusion. A place that any Joe Schmoe can walk into is public place, it's open to the public.

The 'right to refuse service to anyone' is limited. Try to post your bar, "No Blacks Allowed", or your carrier "Blacks sit at the back of the bus". Defend yourself by saying, "I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

[4v50 Gary]

What Monkeyleg says. :mad: There's got to be a better use of police resources. I'd rather have them track down burglars or car theives than busting smokers - and I hate cigarette smoke too (my solution, stay out of bars).

[El Tejon]

Tamara, I salute you, but my tax money is used to raise tobacco and buy votes in the South, to conduct research on finding ways to make Tamara stop smoking, and they ask for this money 4 times a year with another request for the entire year in October (and that's just for me, not to mention the employees).

Everyone out of the wagon and help pull the wagon. Hint: if you put out the peg, you'll have more wind to help pull this wagon (it's friggin' heavy).:)

[Skunkabilly]

There was an LE agency that won't even hire you if you smoke. Forgot which one it was, but sheesh.

[El Tejon]

Skunk, insurance reasons. That's the way smoking (and this fat craze) should be ended via private contract, rather than coppers playing mommy.

Smoke? Overweight? No benefits or paid sick days for you.

[Tamara]

Everyone out of the wagon and help pull the wagon.

It ain't my fault the government tries to extort tax dollars from you in order to help raise tobaccor that they then pay money to try and convince people not to smoke.

Trying to convince everyone that doing something sponsored by tax dollars makes them a tool of the state inevitably winds up with your finger pointing back at yourself. There's something produced by a subsidized industry parked in your driveway, am I right? Do you drive it to gun skul, or do you use another heavily-subsidized form of transport? Out of the wagon, El T. ;)

[David Scott]

WashingDone, DC
January 19th, 2003
Disassociated Press

Administration Links Tempe Underground Group to Arab Terrorists

The Office Of Fatherland Sekuirity announced today that an undercover investigation by police officers in Tempe, Arizona has turned up links to Arab terrorists. The Tempe officers discovered a huge clandestine ring of Al Qaida sympathizers, identified by their habit of smoking in bars and restaurants. "Go into any public place in Afghanistan," said Deputy Director "Reiney" Heydrich, "and everyone's smoking like an Allentown steel mill. Patriotic Americans don't do that sort of thing." The covert police operation siezed dozens of cartons of unfiltered cigarettes and several Zippo incenidary devices. The smokers are being held as "enemy combatants" without bond, lawyers or habeas corpus, at the Military Intelligence facility at Fort Huachuca, AZ.

[El Tejon]

Tamara, been out of it for quite some time.

Yes, it is your fault, as well as mine, that the government extorts money from me to give to Southern tobaccy farmers. There is nothing in my driveway or garages that is subsidized by anyone.

Not supporting bothering the oldsters out there just because they abuse my tax money. Just pointing out the obvious in alleged humorous form.:D

[Tamara]

There is nothing in my driveway or garages that is subsidized by anyone.

Don't consume dairy, beef, or grain products, either?

Come on, El T, out of the wagon! ;) :D

(Last I checked, my tax dollars have propped up: American-made cars I don't drive, American-made BMW's I do drive, Indiana roads I don't traverse, and American airlines I don't fly on....)

[Hkmp5sd]

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN JAN 19, 2003 10:35:25 ET XXXXX

NEW YORK CITY MAYOR FUMED OVER 'SMOKING' ON STAGE AT STONES CONCERT; BAND RACED OUT OF GARDEN AVOIDING COPS

**Exclusive**

New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg is fuming mad over Rolling Stones members smoking on stage at Madison Square Garden during an nationally televised concert this weekend, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"The mayor sent cops to issue summonses," one stage source told the DRUDGE REPORT late Saturday. "But the cops watched the show, off stage, by a monitor, instead of stopping the concert."

HBO cameras captured band members Keith Richards and Ron Wood smoking cigarettes while performing.

"The band raced out of the Garden after they finished their last number, avoiding the police," an insider said. "The music had not even finished playing; and they were in cars already, spinning away. The did not even go to their dressing rooms!"

In December, ex-smoker Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed a strict smoking ban in New York City.

Bloomberg is also trying to get smoking banned in Central Park.

[tyme]

As bad as it might be for Liberty, I'll turn a blind eye toward "civil liberties violations" affecting only smoking in indoor public buildings or in privately owned public establishments. As soon as it expands beyond that, I'll complain just as loudly as the smokers. I doubt it ever will. (edit - CA and NYC excepted)

[El Tejon]

Come on, Tamara, you know I don't eat that filth. Unless, of course, you count good American beer, but that's hard to find.

BTW, no your tax dollars do not come to build my roads. In fact, my money goes elsewhere to buy votes in larger electoral markets.

Smokers, like everyone it seems, seem to be entitled to stick their hand in my pocket. I want that to stop, nothing more. Maybe I should just run away from them? They'll never, cough, cough, Sarah, catch me!:D

[Tamara]

BTW, no your tax dollars do not come to build my roads. In fact, my money goes elsewhere to buy votes in larger electoral markets.

Really? Indiana takes no federal highway funds? Wanna take a bet on that?

Come on, Tamara, you know I don't eat that filth. Unless, of course, you count good American beer, but that's hard to find.

Brewed with subsidized American grain, no doubt.

OUT OF THE WAGON AND HELP PUSH, KSFREEMAN!!!!

Beef. It's what's for dinner. :D

[El Tejon]

Tamara, yep, we pay the freight for others. We pay out far more than we get back. You know or should know that the federal excise tax on gasoline is used to buy votes.

Eat as you wish. Smoke what you wish. Just don't use my money. What's so upsetting about that?:cool:

[Tamara]

Eat as you wish. Smoke what you wish. Just don't use my money. What's so upsetting about that?

Well, that'd be the ideal, now wouldn't it?

Every time you eat beef, grain or a dairy product. Every time you drink American beer. Every time you drive on a road or fly on an airline, you use my tax dollars.

Let's pull the log from our own eyes before we search for the splinter in our brothers, okay?

*puff, puff*

Tam

:D

[hammer4nc]

My, how quickly times change...

Who can possibly forget the scene from the movie "Basic Instinct"; when Sharon Stone is being questioned at police headquarters...

CORRIGAN (Wayne Knight, in the scene that later got him the role of "Newman", on Seinfeld) :

There is no smoking in this
building, Ms. Tramell.

CATHERINE (Sharon Stone):
What are you going to do? Charge
me with smoking?

The line was pure hyperbole, at the time. Life imitates art, as they say. Will Homeland Security stake out the next stop in the Rolling Stones tour (smoking violations)? Stranger things have happened.

[DeltaElite]

Sharon was smoking in that scene?
As I recall, I was too busy looking a bit lower. :evil:

[Blackhawk]

:fire:

How utterly moronic and wasteful of tax bux!

:cuss:

[JPM70535]

Really, such a fuss about such a trivial subject. The law banning smoking in bars makes no sense. I smoked for over 20 years and one thing I know, SMOKING and DRINKING go hand in hand. Even after25 years of not smoking, when I am at a bar drinking, I still want a cigarette.

When I go out to dinner at a restaurant, I wholeheartedly endorse a ban on Smoking, (No non-smoker, myself included) wants their dinner ruined by having to breathe second hand smoke. I believe that if you can't get through a meal without having a cigarette,that you have a real problem.

A bar however is a different matter. If you don't like the smoky atmosphere in a bar, then just don't go. Let the Smokers have at least one haven from harrassment.

One last observation. Since if you smoke your chances of contracting Lung Cancer, which leads to a slow painful demise, the treatment of which costs millions (conservatively) in taxpayer dollars, I propose the following.

In return for the repeal of any and all laws baning Smoking in bars, that smokers sign a waiver of the rights to publicly financed medical care. Then when you contract Lung Cancer, at least I and other taxpayers won't have to pay for it.



SMOKE, SMOKE, SMOKE THAT CIGARETTE,
SMOKE, SMOKE, SMOKE, UNTIL YOU SMOKE YOURSELF TO DEATH

old time country song

[El Tejon]

Tamara, maybe it's just where one draws the line. I know I am being a bad host by objecting to the leeches on my wallet. Everyone wants someone else to pay for their fun or habits, whether hunting or tobacco, except me, of course. Somebody has to pay the freight.:banghead:

[Tamara]

Your pardon, El T, but I'm still trying to figure out why me smoking subsidized tobaccy makes me a leech on your wallet, but you eating subsidized grain doesn't make you a leech on mine, especially when we both think subsidies of all kinds should go away? Why are you supposedly pushing the wagon while I'm supposedly in it? How are wheat/corn/beef/milk/asphalt/wool/local po-po/rice subsidies different from terbaccy ones?

Help?

[El Tejon]

You know they are not.

[NewShooter78]

Well El T, we smokers do pay a hefty tax as well on our own habbit. And I don't know about your state, but none of the money from the big tobacco lawsuit has seen its way into the public healthcare system here. It goes to a lot of different places, but not where it was supposed to. I don't believe in forcing my habit on anyone, nor do I believe in all these gov't subsidies either. But we all use products that recieve some sort of money from joe shmoe taxpayer. That aside, this is really the dumbest use of police power I have seen in a really long time.

[Quartus]

Just think, the next time someone blow cigarette smoke in your face, charge them with aggravated assault!



I fully expect that to become reality, and I don't think it will be very long, either. In fact, I see no reason it couldn't become a civil suit right now. And I would expect the 'assaulted' person to win. (Depending on the jurisdiction, of course.)


I hate smoking, but this is ridiculous!

[pax]

I wonder...

Anyone got the figures to show whether the amount of money paid out to the tobacco farmers in subsidies is <,=, or > to the amount of money paid in by smokers via high taxes on cigarettes?

I'm willing to bet that the one just about balances the other -- plus or minus the cost of a couple bureaucrats' salaries.

pax

Special interest politics is a simple game. A hundred people sit in a circle, each with his pocket full of pennies. A politician walks around the outside of the circle, taking a penny from each person. No one minds; who cares about a penny? When he has gotten all the way around the circle, the politician throws fifty cents down on front of one person, who is overjoyed at the unexpected windfall. The process is repeated, ending with a different person. After a hundred rounds everyone is a hundred cents poorer, fifty cents richer, and happy. -- David Friedman

[EOD Guy]

I didn't realize that privately owned business is a public place.

Don't the owners have the right to refuse service to anyone?

Under Arizona law, if an individual presents ID showing he, or she, is of age and they are not under the influence, the establishment must serve them.

[TallPine]

I am so glad to know that the police in Tempe are finally doing something to protect their citizens.

It's about time that they quit wasting taxpayer money chasing murderers, rapists, and thieves.

[DeltaElite]

Tempe is a college town, their idea of crime is raiding a frat party.
So this is big time Le to them. :rolleyes:
Stupid law, stupid citizens, stupid city council, stupid to be a cop in that liberal rat hole. :D

[EOD Guy]

My son runs a bar in Tempe and he says this law has cut his business in half. Tempe is part of the Phoenix metropolitan area and consists of several different cities. All the smokers have to do is go 2 blocks down the street to another city where the law doesn't apply.

[krept]

For some reason I'm not surprised that this is going on in Tempe. I don't even want to get started about A-Mountain and Town Lake.

[Monkeyleg]

Last time I checked, the price a cig manufacturer charged the distributor was 34 cents. Let's be generous and assume that the retailer is paying four times that price, or $1.36. A carton of name-brand cigs costs nearly $40. The $2.64 difference is tax.

Then there's the subsidies. The federal government buys excess tobacco from the farmers and sells it to other countries at a loss.

Our state budget was balanced last year by the use of tobacco lawsuit funds. 75% of the budget was from those funds.

To say that tobacco users aren't paying their way is a bit disingenuous.

And it's too bad that Blumberg's cops didn't bust Richards and Wood for smoking onstage. I was watching that concert, as were millions of people all over the world. It would have set NYC's image back 25 years.

[Quartus]

Stupid law, stupid citizens, stupid city council, stupid to be a cop in that liberal rat hole.

So, Delta, tell us how you really feel!

:D

[Don Gwinn]

Tamara, you're missing El Tejon's point. He already told you he "doesn't eat that filth."

He does not smoke. He does not drive a car. And he absolutely, positively, does not eat meat, fruit, or vegetables raised by farmers.

[madmike]

At the same time, I invite any of you smoking in a place where it is prohibited to cough up the money for my wife's medical treatment when she keels over from an asthma attack.

On the one hand, a property owner does have the right to decide whether or not their property is a smoking or non-smoking site.

On the other hand, the "if it bothers you, don't go there" means Gail can never go to a concert, never go in a club or bar, and must avoid most restaurants.

It used to be that smokers were polite, and would refrain if asked. Now, they act as if they're being dragged to a concentration camp if you tell them "no."

I smoked for five years--Camel non-filters, pack a day. If you can't go three hours without a smoke, you're a wuss with no self-control and should seek therapy. If you can't handle the discipline of not smoking, you sure as hell don't have the discipline to handle a gun.

And as to the "I'm handicapped and the ADA should let me smoke!"

Whine where I can't see you, you pathetic loser.

And if you smoke where the law and common sense says not to--like at a gun show next to my wife and my kids--I'll have your *** ticketed myself. If you don't like it being a non-smoking venue, don't go there. Tit for tat.

And I personally don't care if you don't believe in secondary smoke effects, gravity or evolution. The world doesn't run on what you believe.

[Monkeyleg]

"If you can't handle the discipline of not smoking, you sure as hell don't have the discipline to handle a gun."

Gee. I seem to remember some tortured soul from TFL making the same "macho" statements. You wouldn't be that same Macho Man, would you? (All sing in harmony with
The Village People: "Macho, macho man...I've gotta be a Macho Man. :rolleyes: )

Sorta like having someone say you're a gunowner because of a small appendage.

"Whine where I can't see you, you pathetic loser."

Are you the guy in the sailor suit, the one in the cop uniform, or the one in the leather S&M restraints?

And, if you're this hot-headed when meeting people for the first time on the internet, how in the world can we trust you to carry a gun responsibly in real life?

BTW, El Tejon: you now have madmike in your corner. Is that a liability or an asset? Let me guess: you'd spell "asset" with two fewer letters. ;)

[madmike]

Monkeyleg proves my point exactly.

Thanks.

[Monkeyleg]

Madmike, you mistakenly assume that you had a point to begin with.

[Tamara]

Good thing it's tobacco smoke and not diesel exhaust that sets off the ol' wife's asthma, huh? Harder to point and yell at a bus exhaust pipe than at a... hmmm... what was the term? Oh, yes: "pathetic loser".

Obviously a Dale Carnegie grad, from the "How To Lose Friends And Alienate People" course...

Way to steer the High Road....

[Quartus]

It used to be that smokers were polite, and would refrain if asked.


That sure hasn't been my experience. In fact, I think it is the almost universal rudeness of smokers that has brought about all the bans. If they HAD been considerate, there wouldn't have been as much steam in the "Ban 'EM!" engine.


I don't like this nonsense in Tempe, but smokers have no room to gripe as far as I can see. They brought this on themselves.

[madmike]

Diesel exhaust IS a problem for her, Tamara. That's why we don't live in Gary or near an industrial area.

Nice attitudes. "Well, she'd have problems anyway, so screw her."

If you can't refrain from smoking for the duration of a concert or your stay in a bar, YOU are the one who needs help. If you drank a beer every five minutes and couldn't stop, you'd admit it was a problem. Or would you?

But I'm not going to argue the point. A number of the posts here prove that:

Smokers don't give a #$%^& if anyone suffers from their lack of self control.

They think they have a RIGHT to make people suffer.

That anyone who might suffer should lock themselves inside their home and stay away (odd that they feel utterly indignant when asked to stay away themselves, or rather, to moderate their behavior).

They'll whine about being poor widdle addicts who need an ADA exemption if anyone suggests they should wait five minutes to suck a fag (sorry, English term for smoking, no epithet intended) (and not feel like the whining wusses they are for claiming that).

So...I retract my offer above that businesses should be allowed to decide whether or not they allow smoking. I apologize for offering a compromise. You want to smoke, go outside and stuff it up your nose. Lit end first.

[Monkeyleg]

"They brought this on themselves."

Damnit, I thought this argument had all but petered itself out over on TFL. Or did I just get tired of it?

Quartus, how many acts of rude behavior do you experience every day? Not just from smokers, but from SUV drivers, bus drivers, morally and environmentally superior Yugo drivers, obnoxious kids, people with poor range manners, people with bad hygiene, those who would try to cover said bad hygiene with perfumes, those who talk loud, those who use cell phones where it disturbs others, people with small yippy dogs, people who still think they're "yippies," tone-deaf people who think they can sing, people who can sing but think that "People Who Need People" is a song, weirdos who open their car doors at stoplights to spit on the street, super-weirdos who yell out the car window "hey baby, wanna ride?", idiots who skip in line at the grocery store, grocery store clerks with more tattoos than brains...

Sure, you could nuke them all. But then you'd be left doing the one-handed tango with an old copy of National Geographic in the other hand.

Back on The Firing Line, there was a really good debate about public smoking. It probably didn't resolve anything between the two or three sides, but Nualle, Pax, Blackhawk, Pendragon and others really distinguished themselves by the quality and tenor of the debate. (Madmike, check the thread out. There's much to be learned. Especially self-restraint, an important part of a gun-carrier's character).

Here's the link: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=146166&highlight=peanut+oil

[SteelyDan]

Whoa! I'm a little late to this thread, but boy do we need a reality check here!

First things first. I smoke. Not at work, it's been prohibited, but even before the ban I only had two cigarettes in my office in six years, because I knew it would probably bother others. (Trust me, I really did need those two cigarettes, though.:) ) At home, I only smoke in the basement with the windows open. Right now it's -2 degrees outside, and I've got two windows open and two space heaters going. You should see my winter bills...

There's a point to this drivel. Even though I smoke, don't assume I'm insensitive to the rights and desires of non-smokers. I am not.

There are, in my opinion, two kinds of people who oppose smoking: (1) "normal" people who are aware it's not a healthy thing to do, and who are annoyed, to one degree or another, by breathing other peoples' smoke, and (2) "zealots" who, when all is said and done, are primarily motivated by their desire to impose their will (and their lifestyle) on everyone else. I'll address each of those two separately.

1. The "Normal" People: These are the folks I can respect, because their beliefs are genuine and they are able to keep things in perspective. They ask you not to smoke in their home, or they'll ask you to move your ashtray in a bar if the smoke is going in their faces, and, in my experience, 99% of smokers have no problem complying. (Now, if you cop an attitude in the bar, in making your request, you may encounter some resistance, but if you're a "normal" person that won't be an issue.) I think these people implicitly understand that part of living in societies, as we do, means that everyone is not alike and that part of our social contract is that sometimes we have to accept things we may not like. These are people who understand the trade-offs and the realities of modern life.

2. The "Zealots": These are the people who drive me up the wall. If your behavior doesn't conform to their beliefs, they will not rest until they persuade the government to ban your behavior. They don't care about the facts, they don't care about mutual respect, they care only about imposing their beliefs on everyone else. On the smoking front, they argue that smokers cost the public (i.e., taxpayers, or insurance company policy holders) lots of money. That is a complete joke. Here's a challenge: pay me $295/hour to do the research (my standard rate), and I will prove that smokers pay in more than they pay out, in terms of health care, taxes, everything. If I can't prove it, I will pay you back five times your investment. (Look, I've seen the figures, I've seen the research, and I know what I'm talking about. I did some legal work for some tobacco companies a few years back, and I've read a number of other studies that, guess what, got quashed because they didn't come up with the politically correct answer.) I will escrow my end of the funds, and I will keep it current with my time, times five. I just have better things to do than to do the research for free.

If cities and states decided to establish a two-tier license system, under which new restaurants and bars were limited to "non-smoking" and "smoking" on a 60-40 basis (or whatever), I would have no problem with that. Most "normal" people wouldn't, either, recognizing that, over time, 60% of bars and restaurants would become non-smoking. But do you think the "zealots" could abide such a system? Nope--they have to impose their will on everyone else. Give me a frigging break...

[Sodbuster]

Smoking and prostitution. Guess I'd never make it on the vice squad. I have too little ambition for making the world perfect. That is what's called a task for Sisyphus. I believe. A world history thousands of years old and we still haven't eradicated those nasty human passions?

BTW A non-smoker and a non-frequenter of, uh... :D

[Quartus]

Even though I smoke, don't assume I'm insensitive to the rights and desires of non-smokers.


I don't assume it about you Dan. You are an individual, and the behaviour of the mass of smokers is not useful for predicting the behaviour of an individual. But many will, because you are the exception, Dan. The vast majority of smokers don't share your attitude. If all smokers (or even a noticeable majority) were like you, I don't think we'd have all these laws - they wouldn't be needed. Would that it were so!


But monkeyleg, you illustrate the problem very well. You equate smoking with a list of bad behaviours and assume that they all have equal annoyance value. In other words, you are insensitive to the problem that smokers create for most non-smokers. Cigarette smoke is far more than a bad odor to most non-smokers. (Personally, I'd far rather be downwind of a skunk than a smoker. And that's not hyperbole. I mean that literally.)

And some of those "bad behaviours" (B.O. for example) are things of which we may all be guilty from time to time. Ooops! Overslept and didn't have time to shower! Slap on some aftershave! Ooops! Was daydreaming and cut that car off! But smoking is entirely optional. Nobody HAS to smoke, and some of us have NEVER smoked. Anyone here want to swear that they have NEVER made a bad lane change or went out of the house with less than perfect personal hygiene? And some of those behaviours (bad driving) are already illegal and will get you ticketed if caught.

So your argument is a non-starter. You are comparing apples to oranges, and in the process illustrating the problem with most smokers. They don't understand how bad smoking is to non-smokers. And most don't care.

I certainly don't support using undercover cops to bust smokers in bars. I don't even support banning smoking in bars. But the fact is that smoking is a habit that automatically forces itself on everyone in the area, whether they like it or not. Since smokers have not restrained themselves, the rest of society has found it necessary to restrain them.

That's how it works.

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

Cops got better things to do with their time than generate revenue off of bar patrons. Whom-ever's setting policy in this case needs to be replaced. Ok, on with the heavy stuff...


Primus: I am a non-smoker. Tobacco is not for me. I utterly fail to understand it's appeal.

BUT...

Secundus: I do not think, I KNOW, that cigarettes are Wonderful. Too many people truly enjoy them for it to be otherwise, although smokers tend to disagree with that when I mention it. :rolleyes:

Therefore...

If you're in my car, crack the window and light up!

If you're in my house, sit down, relax on the couch, here's an ashtray. You're a guest! Be comfortable.

Fundamentally, smoking doesn't bother me a whit, really. As long as you're not blowing smoke straight in my face, I don't mind it at all. I appreciate the Importance of Tobacco, you see.

Additionally, I think that smokers got horribly screwed by the application of the ridiculous smoking laws that are so prevalent. The complete abrogation of personal responsibility to the tune of billions of dollars brought about by the machinations of greedy lawyers REALLY makes me mad. :fire: The whole package was an evil plot to rob legitimate business enterprises of rightfully earned revenue. Deceptive marketing that is criminalized AFTER THE FACT does not outweigh the fact that smoking is a CHOICE, with consequences that can be avoided simply by quitting. Warnings of the negative health effects have been written in plain english on the sides of the packs since 1965. If smokers enjoy health problems, they are of their own making. We are STILL reeling from the idiotic consequences of THAT decision, in the form of Obesity lawsuits as it's most extreme expression.

They don't understand how bad smoking is to non-smokers. And most don't care.

That I have to disagree with as a callous generalization. Here in Kaliforny, at least, common courtesy has not broken down to this degree. I know of no smokers who won't instantly ostracize themselves without the slightest hesitation before smoking. The new social paradigm regarding smoking has been universally adopted by everyone in my experience, to the point of loud surprise when I tell people I don't mind.

I do admit that perhaps I am the exception when it comes to smoke tolerance. Heck, I'm downright friggin' odd by most standards, I readily concede. But to my mind, the burden imposed by putting up with smoke that doesn't bother me is at least equal in weight to the imposition demanded of smokers to remove themselves from my immediate environs.

It just strikes me as arrogantly rude to impose my will on another's simple pleasure without at least asking them. And in my experience, smokers now find themselves automatically convicted of irritating people before the fact, a concept I find nothing less than infuriating when applied to me. I forgive people their mild incompatibility with my universe. That is what I regard as civilized behavior, and I should hope that others might be willing to extend me the same courtesy. We are not all the same person, with the same standards.

Extending a small amount of accomodation to the differences of others is what we call society. Changing those courtesies because of the simple greed on the part of some unscrupulous lawyers is disingenous to us as a people. I want no part of that.

Just my well-considered opinion. And yes, I'm a fairly odd duck.

[Oleg Volk]

FWIW, none of the THR smokers ever lit up in my home and they even asked if it was OK on the porch.

[Monkeyleg]

Quartus: "In other words, you are insensitive to the problem that smokers create for most non-smokers."

Not by a long shot. If you did indeed go back and read the thread on TFL, you'd know that I go far out of my way to keep my smoke away from others. I don't even smoke in a smoking section of a restaurant if someone else is eating, because that's something that annoys me.

These smoking threads become tedious because the tolerant will always be tolerant, the intolerant likewise, and nobody's mind ever really gets changed. They're much like the "Kimber vs. Springfield" threads.

Sorry if you've had experiences with insensitive smokers.

[Quartus]

That I have to disagree with as a callous generalization.

It's a generalization based on many years of experience, most of it in *Kalifornia. (Orange and L.A. counties, for the most part.) Sans laws or signs to the contrary (or even with such, hence this thread) , most smokers will light up without ever thinking about asking, and if reprimanded, will show all the maturity and consideration of spoiled 4 year old. They will also dump their butts (usually still burning) anywhere they happen to feel like it, and their ashtrays, too.

monkeyleg, you continue to illustrate the problem. You speak of the "tolerant" and "intolerant" as though smoking or not were merely a preference, and those who don't "tolerate" it have the problem.

If I were to throw raw sewage in your face, I imagine I'd see some "intolerance" from you pretty quick. And if a whole group of people were in the habit of doing that, I don't think there'd be much debate about outlawing the habit in public.


Cigarette smoke is exactly that bad to many, if not most, non smokers.


I know that there are some considerate smokers, but they are in the minority. Also, many a person who would ask if in your home, would light up without a second thought in public.



*And from all I have seen, Kalifornia, as you point out, is not as bad as many other parts of the country. I agree, it's much less worse!

[Monkeyleg]

Oh, for Christ's sake, Quartus. If I'm so insensitive to your reaction to smoke that you get that mad, then deck me. Let some :cuss: lawyers sort it out.

And, if you throw raw sewage in my face, expect to get decked by me. Bring on the :cuss: lawyers.

Of course, we could happen upon each other in a park, and I'd say "mind if I light up?" To which you'd probably reply in the negative, and I wouldn't light up. That's called Common Courtesy. (Of course, anything referred to as "common" these days is not).

Just recognize that pretty much the same people (ultra-leftist groups, shameless trial lawyers, do-gooders, life-starved nannystaters, shrivelled-up feminists, and fat, bald hippies) who got the anti-tobacco movement going are the same ones who are on the anti-gun wagon. Likewise the anti-McDonald's movement. And the anti-SUV bandwagon (the lawsuits against those are coming very, very soon).

Watch the company you keep.

Let's hope we find a thread where we're in agreement on somthing. I suspect we'll find many.

Til then, I'm signing off on this circle-jerk.

[TheeBadOne]

I don't smoke, never have, though I did chew tobacco for quite a few years before quiting. I'd put myself in the average Joe camp. I could care less if you smoke, I just don't want to have to smell it when I'm eating, watching a movie, etc. I've met both types of smokers, rude & considerate and have both in my immediate family. I'm somewhat torn on the issue. There is a local smoking ordinace that has gone through a few revisions. The city council passes the ordinance, and the cops are charged with the responsibility of enforcing it. The cops told the council they have better things to do and eventually the ordinace was amended to have the establishment responsible for enforcing the ban and having a fine if they don't. Seems to be working out ok, no rumbling since the redraft. I'm torn on the issue of rights, but also have had my share of rude smoker experiances. I also seem to be bothered more by smoke the older I get (developed an allergy or two also, could be something there). I admit I have really enjoyed the smoke free dining establishements and have avoided the ones that still have smoking. Is it worth it? I really don't know but I'm enjoying it as long as it lasts. Seems both camps have found ways to work it out around here. The ordinace doesn't ban smoking everywhere, but does have guidelines which results in both smoking and non-smoking places. It'll be interesting to see where this takes us in 10 years.

[Quartus]

Thank you monkeyleg, for continuing to illustrate my point better than I can.

[Monkeyleg]

I hadn't planned on returning to this thread until someone pointed out to me that one of my previous posts was rude to El Tejon and madmike.

The subject of smoking raises a lot of hackles on both sides, and I sometimes get too worked up about it. If I insulted either of you, El Tejon or madmike, please accept my sincere apologies. This site is called "The High Road" for a reason, and I didn't take that road in that post.