Jump to navigation
Live and Let Get Cancer and Die
R. Alex Whitlock
KFC and Pizza Hut have
announced that they will no longer allow smoking in any of their franchise-owned stores. I can't remember the last time I ate at anything approaching a family restaurant that allowed smoking.
My father and I used to have breakfast together every Saturday morning. Most of the time we would go either to McDonald's or Whataburger in Seabrook. Every time at McDonald's, there was a woman who would be in the corner chain smoking and working on a crossword puzzle. Since she was always there when we were, we figured that she probably spent her entire morning there.
Then, at some point, McDonald's disallowed any smoking at any of its locations. We never saw that woman at McDonald's again. Instead, we saw her at Whataburger, in the corner chain smoking and working on a crossword puzzle. Eventually when Whataburger banned smoking, we'd see her only occasionally working on her crossword sans the cigarette.
It's unfortunate that she had to change up her routine, but if Whataburger and McDonald's intend to be family restaurants, smoking sections just will not do.
Pocatello's culinary pickings are pretty slim after 9pm. We generally rotate between four restaurants: Applebee's, Perkins (cross between Applebee's and Chili's), Butterburr's (more of the same), and Jim's Diner (more of the same, plus greek food). There is a fifth restaurant called Kim's Poppa Paul's, but we never eat there because of the smoke. I've got little problem with smoke (obviously), but it does bother Eel so we just don't go there. Which is a shame because it's the only all-night diner in the area (the other above restaurants close at 10).
We'll pretend that Paul's isn't skirting Idaho's restaurant smoking ban when I say that, despite the inconvenience, this is the way that it should be. If we don't want to smell cigarette smoke, then we should simply not eat at those places that allow smoking. We should not petition Boise or Austin or wherever and inconvenience everyone else just so that we have more selection in restaurants. As the fast food places demonstrated before these laws really got started, when more customers want smoke-free restaurants there will be more smoke free restaurants.
The smoking ban that Paul's is skirting wasn't in effect when we first got up here. All of the other restaurants had banned smoking of their own volition because if they hadn't, they'd lose business to those that had. Even some bars in Houston are on the road to becoming smoke-free (The Mucky Duck, for instance) without being forced by the city. There was a growing niche for such a thing, had the busybodies let people sort it out for themselves. If Houston bans smoking in bars, the Duck would lose its comparative advantage. Likewise, sweeping bans prevent some places from finding that niche in the market that really wants to smoke when they eat. Even when I smoked, I didn't usually smoke at the dinner table so I don't understand the need to smoke and eat concurrently. But that's me. Some people really liked that and I think it's stupid that in cases where the restaurant makes money off of it and the customers enjoy it, they can't do it because someone else doesn't think they should.
Observations
I have a real problem with no smoking laws. I'm a social smoker who likes to have a cigarette with his beer while at a bar, but in theory city anti-smoking ordinances prevent me from being able to exercise my legal right to smoke in the place where one should be most likely to smoke. I say "in theory" because, while Dallas has a smoking ban, it is never enforced. In fact, with untold hours in bars over the past couple of years where everyone smokes, I have only heard of 1 person getting busted.
Ostensibly, cities get around the free market argument by claiming that the ban is to help bar and restaurant employees who don't want to inhale smoke. Look, if they don't want to inhale smoke then they need to work somewhere else and quit ruining my life.
A waitress can pick smoking or non-smoking restaurants to work at. A bartender complaining about smoke is like a sewage worker complaining about 'that strange smell'... agreed, the employee excuse is pretty lame.
Economically, people work where they can get a job.
I can't agree with the "if you can't handle smoke don't work where there is smoking" theory because I've known too many people who worked where they did, not because they really WANTED to work there, but because they were in a situation where it was what they had. You can look for another job all you want, but at the end of the day if you can't find one that's non-smoking (or can't afford to be unemployed while you look) then you are forced into a situation of either (a) working at a smoking place or (b) being homeless.
And that doesn't also take into account the number of people who are bothered by the stuff possibly to the point of asthmatic reactions. While "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections are usually (supposedly) separated, this never works out in practice.
Before the Mucky Duck became smoke-free, I never would have considered going there. I haven't been to a show yet, but that's more a fact of what I do with my nights. I've eaten there a couple times though and it's now a great place to go.
And Centinel, as far as the "quit ruining my life" bit, if your life is "ruined" by not being able to fill the air of people around you with sludgy gray waste product, then you need to sort out your priorities.
You bring up good points for non-smoking venues. I just remain completely unconvinced that the law should force it. The fact that the Mucky Duck is smoke free and that you can enjoy it is great. But they did that of their own free will and they will certainly reap the benefits of doing so. As well they should. So let the Mucky Duck be the Mucky Duck, but let the Firehouse be the Firehouse. Non-smokers (who outnumber smokers 3-1) can vote with their wallets. If you don't like smoky places, don't go to them. But those that like to smoke when they eat or watch bands play and the establishments that would like to serve them ought to be able to do that.
As for the employees, while the bar market is pretty much cornered, more restaurants than not are smoke free as it is. There is also jobs at convenience stores, coffee shops, and so on (and I'm just looking at the entry-level, service-oriented positions, once you get out of that much fewer jobs have smoking environments. Finding a smoke-free work environment is not exactly an insurmountable challenge. Might you not get as sweet a deal financially? Perhaps, but that's a decision that they made. Just as your decision to patronizing the Mucky Duck but not the Firehouse is a decision you made.
In the same way I would have no sympathy for someone that takes a job as a stripper then complains about objectification, I haven't much sympathy for someone that takes a job as a bartender who complains about smoke (or the behavior of drunkards). Waitstaff is a different story, balanced out by the fact that there are a lot more jobs available for waitstaff than for bartenders.
But whether you are a customer or an employee, an establishment should not have to bend itself to please everybody. People who are bothered by smoke or have allurgic reactions should find people that want to make a hospitable environment... not force establishments to serve them at the expense of someone looking for a different kind of experience where they can relax.
As someone who no longer smokes and doesn't want to be tempted engaged to someone that can't stand smoke, my life would be a lot easier and I'd have a lot more options if smoking were not allowed in public. But that doesn't make it right.
RAW,
the underlying problem is about personal habits that affect others, and are a matter of hygeine.
Chewing tobacco is pretty much outlawed everywhere, save for certain seedy establishments or on the streets. Why? Because it's gross.
No restaurant or place that serves food can allow people to enter while not wearing shirt and shoes (which sounds a little ridiculous until you consider that the lack of pants or a skirt will make someone run afoul of public nudity clauses). Again, hygenic.
Smoking is, on the whole, obviously worse for anyone around you than the simple lack of shirt and/or shoes. While the one is odd, a smoker leaves a haze around them. It has always mystified me that walking into an establishment and simply lighting a tube of empty paper is likely to get someone arrested or thrown out, but a tube of paper that happens to have been filled with an overly processed carcinogen is deemed "okay" by the same establishment.
Personal freedoms end where someone else's personal freedoms begin. This is the reason your "freedom" to travel is limited the moment a property owner puts up "no trespassing" signs.
I see no difference between that and the personal freedom of the 3 (likely more than that) nonsmokers in any given place not having to put up with the noxious behavior of the 1 smoker.
Having grown up in the era I have, there are some things that I would undoubtedly enjoy that I *cannot* currently enjoy to the fullest, because no facility exists that fails to allow smoking. Bowling alleys, for instance.
Sorry. If smoking ONLY affected the person who was puffing on the cigarette, then that's one thing. However, it doesn't, and that is the basis for restrictions on when and where it can take place. I wish Houston would hurry up and finish passing these laws so I could actually enjoy the nightlife.
Mike, the "quit ruining my life" bit is actually a ripoff of a radio show I used to listen to on the East Coast. The character in question, Mad Max, would utter it at the end of every soliloquy about things that pissed him off. As such, I feel justified in using it against bar employees who whine about smoke. I would feel the same way about a person with plant allergies who worked in a nursery. There is nothing in law or commonsense that requires a business to make unreasonable changes for its employees. Besides, a disproportionate amount of bartenders and wait staff at bars smoke, anyway.
Your moralizing aside, cigarettes are a legal product, and some bars are meant to be smoky, seedy, slightly dangerous places. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you locate one with no smoking, and perhaps ferns and a good wine catalogue, as is your right, and quit ruining my life.
Centinel,
I would like at this time to cordially offer you, as a token of goodwill, an invitation to bite my shiny metal ass.
Wow, that felt good.
Anyhow, I stand by my position. Your rights end when mine begin, and your lighting up a cigarette is an activity, unlike most personal habits, that does not affect only you.
I, and the rest of us who value our lung capacity and physical health, hate when one person like you ruins it for the rest of us. And as there are more of us than there are of you, you can go smoke elsewhere just as surely as you can bitch and moan and tell ME to go somewhere else.
I think that laws not allowing the shirtless or shoeless should be repealed.
If there are three agitated customers for every one smoker, then the business ought to take care of its own business.
Your point about bowling alleys is not without merit. I actually didn't realize that they were universally smoking places. That's unfortunate because it means that Camille and I are less likely to smoke in the future unless these bans, which I nonetheless oppose, get passed. Give it time, though, and they'll open up.
How about this:
If a bowling alley wants to allow smoking, it must have smoking and non-smoking alleys in separate buildings. That way a really ambitious alley could set up two next to each other on the same property. I could get behind that. Maybe. Or only allow smoking after 9pm or something.
Heck, I don't really care about bowling alleys. I don't even care about restaurants, really. I'd just about be willing to say that any place that allows people under 18 cannot allow smoking. But once I give in to the "public health" argument over the "consumer choice," I open the door for it to be banned in bars.
So, no. If you don't want to cough on cigarette smoke, then don't go on to someone's property that allows cigarette smoking to take place. And don't work there. Worried about your health? No one is forcing you to do anything. The banners are the ones telling others what to do.
Why is it whenever somebody starts whining about someone else's actions they resort to some sort of vague "rights" argument or some sort of "majority rules" argument (congrats Mike, you hit both).
First, there is no "right" to be free from cigarette smoke. Nor is there any right to be free of car emissions, pollen, radon, or fire ants, just in case you are still confused on the issue.
Second, despite the actions of smiley-faced fascists, we still live in a country that at least pays homage to the free market. The decision of can/can't smoke is no more yours than mine to make, but is the purview of the owner of the property. As such, I would never think about whining about naked women at a strip club, getting wet at a water park, or inhaling smoke at a bar that allows smoking. If every bar owner decided on their own to ban smoking, I would abide by their decisions, but I’m not arrogant enough to demand that the government force everyone to abide by my high-handed moralistic beliefs (if I had any).
It is not smokers that are ruining your health, but you for moronically hanging around where smokers drink. If you have a problem with this, quit being a Safety Nazi and hang out at bars that accommodate your limitations, or you can feel free to walk up to smokers and ask them to stop smoking. But I guarantee you that the latter course of action is less safe than second-hand smoke.
RAW-
Although this doesn't completely fit in with the "no smoking" topic. Ever seen Penn & Teller's Bullshit!? They had an interesting episode covering 2nd hand smoke. Essentially the show states that a lot of the "evidence" about the risks of 2nd hand smoke is false. Although I do know some people would rather not be around it even if it was "harmless."
I was looking at amazon.com and noticed each season (8-10 episodes) costs a little less than $30.
I completely agree with your statement though. Why do we pass laws for such things? If people are unhappy, use your pocket book. Don't purchase things from a company you don't agree with. I always hear people complain about certain companies (for various reasons), yet they still shop there. It obviously doesn't bother them enough I guess.
I know I'm growing more and more libertarian in my "old" age.
Kavey,
As the ONLY thing that can ever cause an asthmatic reaction in me, I can't ever call that "harmless".
And as for "secondhand smoke" being "harmless", the evidence (despite P&T's entirely too cursory examination) is otherwise. If it's harmful when it goes into the smoker's lungs, and we know scientifically that all the pollutants and garbage don't magically stay there when they blow it out, then it's harmful to others as well.
Mike-
Your statement is PRECISELY the exact type of thing they are talking in the shows.
The show is all about 1 thing "Show me the proof." The fact is that although, yes you are taking in toxins via 2nd hand smoke, it's not enough to cause any serious health risks like they are always telling you it does. A smoker takes in a great deal more smoke/toxins directly than you do indirectly.
Although allergies, asthma are serious issues sometimes, you can hardly hold back everyone because of those. I mean should we ban all peanuts because some people are EXTREMELY and deathly allergic? If you think so, then how about taking my brother into the fray. He was tested for allergies and they came back with the results... "Your son is not allergic chicken, chocolate or rice."
The point is that legislation about this is just plain dumb. Allow the establishment to make a decision about what they want, and then pay the price if customers don't come. Why should it come down to law? If you don't like it, don't go there.
I haven't seen the P&T thinger, though I used it to try to sell Showtime was I was taking calls for the satellite company.
I did ultimately surmise that the links between second-hand smoke and lung cancer were, at the least, seriously exagerrated. That was not what the professor was hoping to impart on me - and since I was not a smoker and disdained smoking and smokers at the time - but that was the result.
That said, cigarette smoke is poison. It doesn't take a doctor to tell me that (which is one of the problems I have with the lawsuits, it's not as though smoking does not exhibit real and apparent symptoms of being unhealthy). As such, it does strike me as logical that long-term exposure is not healthy.
I guess I would liken it to a car exhaust. You're going to die if you suck it from a tailpipe for three hours a day, but "second-hand" car exhaust, while perhaps unhealthy in the long term, is worlds apart from sucking the stuff in to your lungs. To the extent that there is a lung cancer link, I think there's likely another component to it (an unresponsive immune system, for instance, or something genetic).
But the athsma problem is clear and apparent. Someone that has trouble breating anyway is going to have more trouble in a smoky room. Of course, such people are also likely to have problems with car exhausts and (even moreso) natural "pollutants" like pollen.
And from a personal standpoint, the number of people that have an "allergic reaction" is littered with people that find it unpleasent and uncomfortable, but find the only way to get some smokers to put the cigarette out is to say they are allergic.
I should add, though, that at least in the company of friends and acquaintances, it should not require someone actually be allergic or have to pretend to be to get someone to put their cigarette out. As a matter of politeness, smokers should not smoke in the company of people that object to it. However, I view that politeness as contingent on smokers being allowed to do so in the company of fellow smokers (or non-smokers that don't mind) at establishments that allow it.
Kavey,
Two different things.
Peanuts are not tossed into the air, forcing anyone who is in their vicinity to inhale them whether they desire to or not. Cigarette smoke IS.
As for your "if you don't like it, don't go there" option, well, I've done that for 25 years of my life. As a result, there are a number of things that I've never gotten to do on a regular basis (like bowling) that, on the occasions I have gotten to do them, I really enjoyed.
Smoking is unlike any other personal habit. When you drink alcohol, you are not forcing the person next to you to also drink the same alcohol. When you choose what to wear, you are not forcing anyone else to wear it.
In fact, smoking is the ONLY personal habit that I am aware of that you necessarily force others to partake in whether they desire to or not.
Sorry. It needs to go. "Personal freedoms" don't enter into it because it's not just your personal freedom you're exercising.
No one is forcing you to go to an establishment that allows smoking. You may have to endure smoking to take advantage of certain establishments, but neither the smoker nor the government are making that decision for you.
That argument flies with smoking in city buildings or even on the sidewalk, but not for a private establishment or any private place of recreation, such as a bar or restaurant.
I'm sorry that you don't get to go bowling, but for you to get your pleasure, someone else is denied theirs. You have no more inherent right to your pleasures than they do theirs. But only one side is trying to use the government to force their preferred pleasures on others.
Someone should really consider opening a smoke-free bowling alley, though. I'd imagine that there's some real money to be made there.
Mike-
"Peanuts are not tossed into the air, forcing anyone who is in their vicinity to inhale them whether they desire to or not. Cigarette smoke IS."
I guess you don't know how serious the peanut allergy can be. I've been to establishments that post LARGE warning signs about the use of peanut based products because the air itself may contain dust from peanuts and fumes of the peanut oils that people are allergic to. As a matter of fact I may have a picture of such a sign from my last vacation. But then if you had such an allergy, you wouldn't visit such a place, as with cigarette smoke. This allergy is quite serious, and there are public schools that have banned the use of any peanut products anywhere in the school because 1 child was deathly allergic to it. I'm sure you could do some news artcile searching and find such reports.
RAW-
Exactly.
To Anyone Who Cares-
And for the record, I am an ex-smoker that will deal with cigarette smoke if I have to, but would rather not have cigarette smoke in my face while I eat, if I can avoid it.
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
