DEFEND THE IMPLAUSIBLE: Lexington, Kentucky Bans Smoking

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
I never thought this would ever happen...

A New Leaf in Kentucky: City Bans Indoor Smoking
Wed Apr 28, 7:55 AM ET
By P.J. Huffstutter Times Staff Writer

LEXINGTON, Ky. — Here in the heart of tobacco country, where farmers have nurtured fields of rich burley leaf since the 1700s, Lexington has done the unthinkable: banned smoking.

Karl Evans sat on a stool at Nicholson's Cigar Bar and stared at the clock, grimacing as the minute hand ticked toward 12:01 a.m. Tuesday. Teeth clamped down on a Marlboro cigarette, he took a deep, determined draw.

In just under an hour, he would have to stub it out or be in violation of a new ordinance banning smoking. Lexington's law, which prohibits lighting up in any enclosed public space, marks the first time that smoking has been illegal anywhere in Kentucky.

That means no more smoking in restaurants and bars — or in malls, hotels or office buildings, for that matter.

"It's just ridiculous. We're in Kentucky: We drink Kentucky bourbon, eat Kentucky fried chicken and smoke Kentucky tobacco," said Evans, 41, a truck driver who has lived in Lexington for three decades. "Not being able smoke to in a bar is like not being able to drink bourbon at the Derby."

But the law reflects a new reality in Kentucky: The changing economic landscape has created a workforce that is slowly leaving the tobacco farms to work in industries such as high tech, bioengineering and high finance.

And social attitudes about smoking have begun to bend, even though 30% of adults and 37% of high school students here — compared with 23% of adults and 28% of students nationwide — say they regularly light up, according to a federal study.

"Ten years ago, I would have been laughed out of my job if I even mentioned proposing an antismoking ban," said Dr. Melinda G. Rowe, Fayette County's commissioner of health. It was Rowe's department that in 2002 began a campaign to curtail youth smoking.

That led the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council, the political body for the joint city-county government, to pass an ordinance in early 2003 banning not just smoking, but related items such as ashtrays and matchbooks.

A coalition of restaurant and bar owners filed suit to overturn the law.

On Thursday, the Kentucky Supreme Court, in a 6-1 ruling, upheld the ordinance and said the city had acted appropriately to "promote and safeguard public health." The court struck the language that made ashtrays and matchbooks illegal.

As of Tuesday, business owners became responsible for stopping their customers from smoking, said Stephen F. Harris, the health department's consumer protection director.

"They must tell their customers to not smoke. If the customer continues to smoke, they must tell them to leave," Harris said. "If the customer does not leave, the management needs to call the police and have the customer arrested for trespassing."

Fines for ignoring the law range from $100 for a first offense to $500 for the third and subsequent violations.

Many businesses tried to nudge their customers toward a smoke-free existence by getting rid of their ashtrays and matches in advance, but not without resistance.

"It's just like California," Carl Jackson, a Chicago engineer in town for a convention, complained as he wandered through the lobby bar at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in search of matches. All he found were small notices on each table: "No smoking please."

Whether the Lexington health department can enforce the ban remains to be seen. There are just 15 employees to track complaints about 1,600 sites that sell food and all other public buildings covered by the ordinance.

According to the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation, more than 1,700 municipalities have laws that restrict smoking.

California banned smoking in state buildings in 1993, expanding the law five years later to include gaming clubs and bars. Local governments then added their own restrictions.

To light up in a bar, smokers have to leave California. But in Lexington, they only need to drive 15 minutes to reach the county line.

"It's not that far, even when there's snow and frost on the ground in the winter," said Ann Dills, 26, a graduate student studying social work at the University of Kentucky.

The population of Lexington — at more than a quarter-million residents, it is Kentucky's second-largest city — has grown about 1% annually for the last two decades.

With the influx of new people, local business owners said, came unexpected conflicts over smoking. "We'd have brawls in the dining room between smokers who'd insist it's their God-given right to light up and nonsmokers who'd yell that it's their God-given right to breath clean air," said Bob Ramsay, a former smoker who owns five restaurants in the area.

Some entrepreneurs began instituting smoking bans on their own in an effort to attract nonsmoking customers. Over the last several years, Ramsay made three of his restaurants near the town's suburbs smoke-free.

Although bar business dropped from 20% of his overall revenue to 7% within a week, Ramsay said, he was able to recoup the loss because more customers came in for meals.

But the bars at his downtown locations — popular among office workers and students at the University of Kentucky — remained smoke-filled.

"The smoking gene is connected to the drinking gene," Ramsay said. "The City Council is telling me that I won't see any lost sales because of the ban? That's just a lie."

Tobacco consumption in Kentucky has in fact dropped slightly in recent years, said Ferrel Gilroy, a expert on the South at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. But a bigger blow to the industry has been American cigarette companies' increasing reliance on overseas suppliers.

"Tobacco is cheaper elsewhere," said state Rep. Stephen R. Nunn, a Republican who represents the state's largest tobacco-producing county. "Tobacco's no longer king of Kentucky."

The spike in cigarette taxes also has hurt the tobacco industry. In an effort to cut their budget deficits, at least 20 states have increased tobacco taxes in recent years.

The levy in Tennessee, a leading tobacco producer, jumped from 13 cents in 2002 to 20 cents last year. The state is considering whether to raise it even more. In Kentucky, the cigarette tax has stayed at 3 cents a pack since 1970. But lawmakers recently proposed raising it to 29 cents.

And then there are the smoking bans. Although Lexington is the first Kentucky city to pass such an ordinance, others may follow. Lawmakers in Louisville, the largest city, say they are considering a similar move and are watching to see what happens in Lexington.

So are businesses throughout the state. At least one Lexington establishment, Nicholson's Cigar Bar, expects to shut down because of the ban. For the last eight years, fans of fine bourbon and high-end cigars have flocked to this cozy spot.

"We're going to try to become a smokeless cigar bar, but realistically that's not going to work for long," said Dave Young, the company's vice president. "People come here to do one thing: Smoke."

On Monday night, customers settled into the oversized leather chairs that are tucked throughout the mahogany-trimmed room with the roaring fireplace. They had shown up to get in one last legal puff, glumly counting down the seconds before grinding out their cigars at midnight.

As the minutes passed, however, people began to relight their cigars. The bartender, Gary Works, issued a warning to each lawbreaker.

The customers ignored him.

Works walked behind the dark oak bar and began taking drink orders.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 14:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm actually not against it, but I'm sure my cousins who grow tobacco are pissed.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 14:48 (twenty-two years ago)

where is Nick?

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 15:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Smoking-ban fans need a cigarette in the eye. Fuckers.

adam (adam), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 15:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I dunno, I was ambivalent about the ban in NYC until I went on tour last summer. If you've gotta be in a smoky bar every night of the week, it's hell on your lungs/throat.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 15:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't smoke and I still find smoking bans appalling. Over-regulation of private businesses courtesy of The Government, and all that jazz.

mouse, Wednesday, 28 April 2004 15:56 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm glad to not have smoking in public places - but I never thoght I'd see a ban in Kentucky. But then, look at Bushco and you'll see that hell is currently freezing over.

dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 16:06 (twenty-two years ago)

"Not being able smoke to in a bar is like not being able to drink bourbon at the Derby."

heh

Ayup, Wednesday, 28 April 2004 16:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Another article about the ban:

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/8537085.htm

Every person I know is pretty indignant about the ban. It seems ludicris to believe that this ban won't have an effect on bar and restaurant business in a state with the highest smoking rate in the nation. Kentuckians be smoking, etc.

Yesterday I went out for a bit and not being able to smoke gave me the psychological equivalent of phantom lungs.

Dale the Titled (cprek), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 16:24 (twenty-two years ago)

You were imagining imaginary lungs jumping out from behind doors and tables that shouted "BOO!"?

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 16:25 (twenty-two years ago)

where is emilyv?

kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 16:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes. The ghost of smoking past.

Dale the Titled (cprek), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 16:25 (twenty-two years ago)

xpost. Emily has no access to the magic box anymore.

Dale the Titled (cprek), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 16:26 (twenty-two years ago)

I love to smoke, but I think smoking bans fuckin' rock. Another person's right to breathe free of interference trumps my right to smoke. Simple courtesy.

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 16:27 (twenty-two years ago)

I personally benefit from smoke-free environs, but I am also ambivalent about how far the gov't should be prying into folks' lives with this line of regulation. People are free to attend or not attend shows at clubs, or to drink at certain bars, or even work at these places, if they are really averse to smoke. The wholesale banning of this sort of thing everywhere, even in venues where the proprietors and patrons alike agree that smoking is OK, just seems a bit overreaching.

Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 16:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Well yeah Baked but I sorta wish there were more of a leaning toward sensitivity here - "you wanted to see Jon Spencer? well, he's playin' at a place that's thick with smoke, you asthma-sufferin' weakling: DEAL with it!" Having to go outside to smoke is kind of a drag, but even back in Iowa it's not a MAJOR hardship - certainly the smoker suffers less for having to leave the building than the non-smoker does for having to breathe smoke all night.

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 16:48 (twenty-two years ago)

I sure wish all of us nicotine-addicted lepers could have a consensually acceptable indoor place to congregate.

Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 16:52 (twenty-two years ago)

You do; it's called "the monster-truck show".

Wow, I am an ass.

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 16:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Michael pls. to note that the FIRST thing I said on this thread is "I love to smoke." I just don't think my problem gives me any right to infringe on somebody else's right to breathe freely.

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 16:53 (twenty-two years ago)

People are free to attend or not attend shows at clubs...

Not if they're artists, or tour managers, or t-shirt dudes, or guitar techs, or bartenders, or soundmen, or bouncers, or waitresses, or...

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 17:03 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't smoke anymore, but I sorta wish these smoking bans weren't so blanketing. Wouldn't it make sense for a few bars and restaurants to remain smoke-friendly, and then people could make a decision as to whether they wanted to patronize a smoking or a non-smoking establishment? (Although I guess this doesn't work as well with live music venues, which aren't as interchangeable as bars, if what you're going for is, say, a band that only tours once a year, rather than a PBR that you could get anywhere.)

jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 17:04 (twenty-two years ago)

(Yeah, so I guess I didn't really read the thread! I agree with BBT.)

jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 17:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I never thought I'd see a Republican governor in my home state, either.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 17:08 (twenty-two years ago)

"The smoking gene is connected to the drinking gene," Ramsay said.

I wonder if this guy went to Tates Creek or Henry Clay.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 17:18 (twenty-two years ago)

in california, there are still NUMEROUS establishments which turn the other way in terms of smoking tolerance. it def. depends on the venue and your mileage may vary.

gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 17:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Not if they're artists, or tour managers, or t-shirt dudes, or guitar techs, or bartenders, or soundmen, or bouncers, or waitresses, or...

Stence, I'm devils advocating here, since I definitely see your side, but don't all of the above positions involve a proactive choice to perform these duties for work? If I were really averse to ciggie smoke, I prolly wouldn't want to work as a roadie or bouncer, since that sort of work would probably entail a lot of exposure.

Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 17:26 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, why don't those deadbeat roadies just get other jobs?

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 17:27 (twenty-two years ago)

and those good-for-nothing bartenders, too!

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 17:28 (twenty-two years ago)

okay, I'll stop being sarcastic and just say that in my situation, I didn't take the tour manager job just because it was "cool" or something, but because I'd just been laid off and really needed the money. To just request that people up and leave jobs that don't pay well or crappy is pretty ridiculous even in a good labor market, which we clearly haven't had since 2000.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 17:30 (twenty-two years ago)

"The smoking gene is connected to the drinking gene," Ramsay said.

I wonder if this guy went to Tates Creek or Henry Clay.

Henry Clay. Tates Creek hadn't been built yet.

Dale the Titled (cprek), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 17:35 (twenty-two years ago)

"It's just ridiculous. We're in Kentucky: We drink Kentucky bourbon, eat Kentucky fried chicken and smoke Kentucky tobacco," said Evans, 41...

I hear this argument a lot. The thing I don't think people who argue this are taking into consideration is that innocent bystanders cannot get cancer from a whiff of friend chicken smellfumes or a blast of somebody's bourbon breath. Well, not that we know of, anyway.

When Mr. Teh Moonting Goots said "...certainly the smoker suffers less for having to leave the building than the non-smoker does for having to breathe smoke all night" he summed up perfectly why I am in support of this piece of legislation (beyond the obvious me-not-smoker-yay-can-go-places-and-not-get-the-death aspect); that, even in a society supposedly based on "majority rule", the minority's right (in this case the right to not be subjected to death-cancer-causing second-hand smoke) should not be trampled on.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 17:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Has the Momus "no smoking" idea been replicated elsewhere? I think his show at the Empty Bottle in '98 or '99 was the only time I've seen that enforced.

Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 17:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Plus, in relation to this piece of legislation, the LFUCG will soon be making bars/pubs/clubs open until 2:30 am rather than 1:00 am, which I am certainly in favor of, as a A) drinker, and B) vampire.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 17:45 (twenty-two years ago)

the only other time I've been to a non-smoking club concert like that was Milford Graves at the Empty Bottle, a few LAMPO things at 6ODUM, and a Mose Allison show I booked back in college.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 17:45 (twenty-two years ago)

For a moment I thought this might signify a shift in KY's legislation away from favoring business owner's rights and towards the rights of the individual citizen. Considering almost every other piece of legislation that's being passed this session though has gone against that notion, I'm not really holding much hope for any sort of lawmaking paradigm shift. Lobbyists be lobbyin', etc.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 17:49 (twenty-two years ago)

this is a Lexington-only ban though, I don't think the Legislature passed it (or ever would pass a state-wide ban).

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 17:50 (twenty-two years ago)

The Blonde Redhead show I went to a couple of weeks ago here in Chicago was a no-smoking show (at Abbey Pub), and I didn't see anyone defying it.

NA (Nick A.), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 17:51 (twenty-two years ago)

I find it interesting that the city council is worried about cancer causing smoke in bars when at the same time the state government is allowing more lead to be put into the smoke from power plants. I suppose it evens out the cancer in the end.

earlnash, Wednesday, 28 April 2004 17:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm glad to not have smoking in public places

I am fine w/banning smoking in public places, but bars, clubs, resturants, etc. are not public places in my mind. Yes the 'public' goes there, but they are generally owned by someone. Why don't they decide whether or not folks can smoke inside? There are a lot of places that have banned smoking w/out any law telling them they had to.

earlnash otm. and maybe while they are at it subsidies to tobacco farmers should be stopped (although I'd imagine the subsidies are set off by all the taxes on cigarettes, etc).

christhamrin (christhamrin), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh yeah, Stence is right, this isn't related to the state legislature. The smoking ban hasn't done anything to reduce the amount of CRACK I smoke, apparently.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:11 (twenty-two years ago)

I wouldn't like to equate the two entirely, but this argument:

Yes the 'public' goes there, but they are generally owned by someone.

is exactly the same one that allowed restaurants to be segregated.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Why don't they decide whether or not folks can smoke inside?

In the case of California, it is the employees' rights. Some bars still offer smoking refuge where the owner is the sole employee. But like I said upthread, more than a few bars pretend the law doesn't exist.

gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:12 (twenty-two years ago)

The state legislature be doing ALL KINDS of crazy shit, even apart from the marriage amendment thing. They've given up so much towards the energy industry with regards to environmental protection, I really won't be surprised when the sky turns black.

...more than a few bars pretend the law doesn't exist.

I already foresee this happening in a few establishments.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:15 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah I read about the marriage amendment when I was home two weeks ago. That motherfucking sucks. I hate fucking Kentucky politics.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:16 (twenty-two years ago)

P.S. more than a few Kentucky counties were on that recent list of most polluted in the U.S., right?

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes the 'public' goes there, but they are generally owned by someone.

is exactly the same one that allowed restaurants to be segregated.

Yes. I don't think that should be illegal either. *I will run away and hide soon* I don't think segregated resturants would do to well and all the food would probably cost quite a bit more according to what I know about supply and demand. And if it kept the rednecks away, thats just fine. In fact, if a resturant owner was racist I'd rather they say so w/a sign so that I would know not to frequent the establishment.

christhamrin (christhamrin), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:16 (twenty-two years ago)

I wouldn't like to equate the two entirely, but this argument:
Yes the 'public' goes there, but they are generally owned by someone.

is exactly the same one that allowed restaurants to be segregated.

Wow, now that's a bullshit argument.

NA (Nick A.), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:17 (twenty-two years ago)

clarify please, NA?

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:18 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think segregated resturants would do to well and all the food would probably cost quite a bit more according to what I know about supply and demand.

maybe not now, but they did pretty well back in the day (obviously).

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Times have changed a bit haven't they?

christhamrin (christhamrin), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:19 (twenty-two years ago)

KY as of today, has low taxation on Cigs and booze. That is why half of Cinci goes to Newport to buy Cigs, booze and lottery tickets. Gov. Boyscout is wanting to change this mind you and drop his taxes at the same time.

McConnell is trying to get the local laws changed as he is going to move a bunch of power plants in on the river. If the laws are flexible, it will be cheap for companies to put their power plant and pollution here and then ship the power to lines where the laws aren't as friendly. The power companies get more power, the coal companies don't have to ship as far and people in KY get more cancer.

earlnash, Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:20 (twenty-two years ago)

haha - "times have changed"

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:21 (twenty-two years ago)

they are a changin', these times

christhamrin (christhamrin), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:22 (twenty-two years ago)

I am glad the government desegregated restaurants. I am happy that I don't smell like total shit when I go see a show in NYC. I also am thankful for the 8 hour work day, paid vacations, and that I wasn't put to work in a coal mine at the age of 6.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, as a simple statement of fact, it's true, but by equating them at all, you seem to be saying that smoking bans are on some level as bad as segregation, as far as preventing people from going where they want to go and making one group of people unequal with another. But whereas segregation says that certain people can't go certain places under any circumstance, smoking bans don't restrict anyone from going anywhere, they just restrict people from smoking in certain places. In other words, if a smoker wants to go to a nonsmoking restaurant, they can, as long as they don't smoke there. But since you were previously arguing the pro-smoking-ban side, I'm sure I'm just misreading something as usual.

NA (Nick A.), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:23 (twenty-two years ago)

they're about to pass something like this in athens (if something doesn't pass statewide first); i've yet to see a good rebuttal to the 'employess rights' argument, unless ye olde extreme capitalist 'the market shall determine what rights the worker has' counts as "good".

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, if it weren't for the government we'd all be working in coal mines as children!

christhamrin (christhamrin), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:26 (twenty-two years ago)

I wasn't equating them in terms of severity, but the "government don't regulate or interfere" argument is EXACTLY THE SAME.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:26 (twenty-two years ago)

But, um, so what?

NA (Nick A.), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:27 (twenty-two years ago)

The employee rights argument is the best one, but I'd still imagine there are employees who would be willing or even happy to work under the conditions.

christhamrin (christhamrin), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:28 (twenty-two years ago)

yes, chris, we probably would. Read some fucking labor history, for chrissakes.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Sorry if I'm being dense.

NA (Nick A.), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:28 (twenty-two years ago)

But, um, so what?

so, laissez-faire capitalists are fucking jerks who make poor arguments, that's what!

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:29 (twenty-two years ago)

No it isn't. Not in any real way. There are a lot of things that the government does interfere with and a lot of things that it does. The question is whether the government should be interfereing on this particular issue. And this particular issue is not at all analagous to segregation.

x-post

mouse, Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:29 (twenty-two years ago)

amazing that people will jump on Vice for being "objectivist" but when it comes to their precious tobacco it's "YOU'LL PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!"

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:31 (twenty-two years ago)

show me how it isn't exactly the same as any other osha issue though

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:31 (twenty-two years ago)

The question is whether the government should be interfereing on this particular issue. And this particular issue is not at all analagous to segregation.

Government already regulates tobacco production, distribution and consumption at various levels. A smoking ban in restaurants is just one more aspect of that.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Because those are deemed public health issues. I'm not sure how this one is a public issue at all. Unless you go the worker's rights route.

mouse, Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:34 (twenty-two years ago)

governments subsidize tobacco production BECAUSE of public health? Nope.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I also am thankful for the 8 hour work day, paid vacations, and that I wasn't put to work in a coal mine at the age of 6.

see, now, I harbor a deep & lasting resentment that my parents didn't send me work in the coal mine when I was 6

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:36 (twenty-two years ago)

But, umm, yeah, I don't really care, except in principle. I already live in NYC (hurray smoking bans) and don't smoke anyway. Oh, and I [heart] Vice too. ;-)

mouse, Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:36 (twenty-two years ago)

J0hn does this mean you'll be doing Lee Dorsey covers in the near future?

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:38 (twenty-two years ago)

grr who killed the x-post thingy? I meant that they regulate production of tobacco for the same reason that they regulate the production of other goods (yay FDA)--because it is deemed that to not do so would be to put everyone in danger. I don't really see how smoking in bars puts EVERYONE in danger.

mouse, Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:38 (twenty-two years ago)

the FDA refused to regulate tobacco.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:40 (twenty-two years ago)

mouse how is this different from ANY other osha issue?

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:41 (twenty-two years ago)

i mean if this thing ever goes federal, that's who'll handle it

cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:42 (twenty-two years ago)

the FDA declined to classify nicotine as a drug, and OSHA doesn't do a good job of regulating the workplace anyway (see Pulitzer-winning NY Times series). This is why local municipalities are stepping into this issue.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh interesting, hstencil. I did not realize that. They used to though didn't they? I seem to recall court cases to that effect.

Cinniblount, I don't think that it is different.

mouse, Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:44 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, wasn't the FDA declining to classify nicotine as a drug a big deal during the second Clinton administration? Y'know, when we used to have things like that to worry about instead of war, terrorism, etc.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:45 (twenty-two years ago)

the FDA declined to classify nicotine as a drug

yeah but that was a strictly political decision

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I personally benefit from smoke-free environs, but I am also ambivalent about how far the gov't should be prying into folks' lives with this line of regulation. People are free to attend or not attend shows at clubs, or to drink at certain bars, or even work at these places, if they are really averse to smoke.

Not if they're artists, or tour managers, or t-shirt dudes, or guitar techs, or bartenders, or soundmen, or bouncers, or waitresses, or...
Stence, I'm devils advocating here, since I definitely see your side, but don't all of the above positions involve a proactive choice to perform these duties for work? If I were really averse to ciggie smoke, I prolly wouldn't want to work as a roadie or bouncer, since that sort of work would probably entail a lot of exposure.

You can't force someone to buy a second item as a condition of buying the thing they want.

dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:54 (twenty-two years ago)

yes, chris, we probably would [be mining coal as 6 year old children to this day].

I have a very hard time buying this. Surely we have machines that do this more effectively than grubby little wretches.

Read some fucking labor history, for chrissakes.

I cannot see how reading labor history would decide the point one way or another. It might blind someone who has read a bit too much and bought into all the rhetoric and extrapolated it w/absurd results (the same way someone will surely point out I am blinded by Milton Freidman or someone). I think you might need a crystal ball or a time machine to know one way or the other.

But, c'mon! You really think kids would be mining coal if it weren't for the labor movement that happened 70 odd years ago? Would history have just completely stood still if it weren't for the labor movement? I mean, c'mon. Surely you are bitter about my distaste for Azita stencil!

christhamrin (christhamrin), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:56 (twenty-two years ago)

you're naive to think that companies won't do WHATEVER is most expedient, cost-wise. If 6 year-old kiddies digging coal was still legal and cheaper than using machines, l'il Chrissy would be getting black lung by now, damn straight.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:58 (twenty-two years ago)

The social implications of the ban are quite interesting.

I gave up a month or so ago, but I'm constantly jealous of people outside smoking. I keep wondering is it really good fun out there, with people all socialising and meeting each other in a new environment.

Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 19:00 (twenty-two years ago)

and yes, many workplace benefits that you and I currently enjoy are a DIRECT RESULT of labor movement actions 70 years ago.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 19:00 (twenty-two years ago)

you're naive to think that companies won't do WHATEVER is most expedient, cost-wise

I am naive, but I completely agree w/you there companies will do what ever they think is most expedient costwise. I just don't see how this would possibly be expedient costwise.

(also it might not be expedient cost-wise even if kids were cheaper than machinery because people in the US would surely protest a company that worked 6 year old children from the US in coal mines).

christhamrin (christhamrin), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 19:06 (twenty-two years ago)

(also it might not be expedient cost-wise even if kids were cheaper than machinery because people in the US would surely protest a company that worked 6 year old children from the US in coal mines).

but see they would protest now as a result of our standards now.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 19:14 (twenty-two years ago)

I will try to wind things down because these type of discussions don't ever seem to lead anywhere productive (I should probably just keep these types of opinions to myself on ile).

One thing as far as I can see there is no telling if everyone would be better off with or without any certain kind of law or regulation. There are too many things at play. Too many unintended consequences. Too many alternate possibilities. Etc. Unless you want to assume because for instance something like child labor laws weren't enacted absolutely nothing happened instead.

and yes, many workplace benefits that you and I currently enjoy are a DIRECT RESULT of labor movement actions 70 years ago.

There is no telling what would have happened had the labor movement (which I am not opposed to necessarily) had turned out different. Say instead of forcing goverment regulation they started worker-owned cooperatives we just might be better off today.

It is even conceivable (unlikely, granted, but I would argue for it) we might be better off if there were never any unions to begin with. I can't say for sure. My ideology does not make me a seer.

christhamrin (christhamrin), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 19:17 (twenty-two years ago)

This all reminds me (and I hope it's not too forward of me to ask) but how's the quitting effort going, J0hn?

Kevin Erickson, Thursday, 29 April 2004 09:52 (twenty-two years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.