response 51 of 155:

Apr 13 19:56 UTC 2002

Re: 30 - what the hell difference does it make to you or anyone else except
the smokers how many smoking dens there are in the market?  Why would you feel
the need to weild the coercive force of government licensing to control that
number when freedom would work just as well?

response 53 of 155:

Apr 13 22:07 UTC 2002

What the anti-smoking absolutists always point to is the workers in the 
smoking establishments.  The solution is a comprehensive law against 
smoking by anyone, anywhere, I guess.  I'm sure it would work as well 
as the current drug laws.

response 55 of 155:

Apr 13 22:37 UTC 2002

Re 30/51 - I was making a joke about licensing smoking dens.  I don't
understand why the government set up such a lucrative trade in alcohol
licenses.
Jep's suggestions sound reasonable - make the whole place either non-smoking
or for people who do not mind smoke and post the sign prominently near the
door.  But I would also not mind if a place were both, as long as the two
sections were hermetically sealed from each other.

I would like to make smoking on public sidewalks illegal as the rest of us
also have to breathe while using them.  

'Something wrong with you' is a good description of an allergy or simply an
inability to detoxify certain substances.  Smokers probably have more of the
enzymes needed to detoxify the poisons in tobacco smoke, just like alcohol
drinkers build up a tolerance to alcohol over time.

response 59 of 155:

Apr 14 04:38 UTC 2002

>i also get annoyed when people litter. cigarette butts too. but when i used
>to have to step out for a cigarette since i can't smoke in the office, there
>was no place to put it. if i put it out and carried it back inside, that
would smell too. this one guys used to smoke in the bathroom of another pffice
which was right off the hallway, and that actually annoyed me. i certainly
do not think smoking should be okay everywhere - especially if there's poor
air circulation. i think if bars automatically banned smoking, people would
either ignore it, or people would stop going to the bars. i would be more
likely to have friends over for drinks more often. since bars are pretty much
the only smoky places where i live, i feel that the non smokers have it pretty
good - especially when you look back at history. i also find it hard to
believe that second hand smoke on sidewalks is more prominent that car
exhaust. people have been protesting bus exhaust here since there are so many
buses that leave a very thick black cloud of fumes wherever they go.

there are also bars have don;t generally have as much smoke. due to the more
mature crowd which doesn't chain smoke, and due to the bar's adequate air
circulation. we all know this is a market economy, and it's sadly true that
the person who spends 10$ a month going out isn't really a concern for most
places. if you never go to bars, your opinion is not valuable.

response 61 of 155:

Apr 14 04:59 UTC 2002

when i drove, i alwys used the ashtray. if you dont like the smell, dont smoke
in your car, or empty your ashtray!

response 63 of 155:

Apr 14 14:19 UTC 2002

Usually there seem to be containers for the butts near doors where people
smoke.  Smokers could bring their own, or get together a collection for them
with other smokers.  I don't see why the business owners should have to pay
extra to have smokers work for them (the cost of the containers).
Oval seems to be a reasonably considerate smoker - it is the inconsiderate
ones who cause the problems.
I have found a use for one of these sand-in-concrete type things near the back
door of my bank.  It is the only object provided anywhere near that that I
can lock my bike to.  For some reason the bank could afford concrete ashtrays
for its employees, but not a metal loop in the wall (in a spot not being used
for anything else) for its employees who bike to work and who, I have been
told, end up bringing their bikes inside instead.  Probably the sand-thing
was so that incoming smokers would not dirty up the walk by the door, which
is more important to the bank than bike parking.

response 65 of 155:

Apr 14 14:54 UTC 2002

re60:  yeah...and then they'd give you a beating, hero.

response 67 of 155:

Apr 14 19:34 UTC 2002

*shrug* I dont thing the issue is if second hand smoke is good for one 
or not. Obviously it isnt. I think the issue is if the public good of 
banning smoking from certain places outweighs the costs associated with 
such a ban. For instance, banning smoking on airplanes has a huge 
public good associated with it. I am frankly surprised that the market 
didnt favor this anyways. I cant imagine a worse hell than being 
trapped in an airplane with people who are smoking except possibly 
being in an airplane with a bunch of people who use too much perfume 
(certain perfumes give me headaches). 

One thing I have noticed in this argument is how most people will say 
why it effects them personally and they dont address the bigger issues. 
I just cant feel sympathetic when someone says that smoking should be 
banned because they personally get headaches, allergies, etc. Geez, I 
am allergic to all kinds of things and I cant imagine myself on a 
campaign to ban them from public areas. I am much more moved my 
arguements like "Smoking should be banned from the workplace because it 
is a public health issue" and "We should include bars and restaurants 
in workplace smoking ban because restaurant employees are valuable too" 
or even "most people want everything to be non-smoking but the market 
supports the status quo" I am also not very sympathetic to arguments 
like "smoking shouldnt be banned in public because I want to be able to 
smoke anywhere, anytime" but am more moved by things like "if smoking 
in bars is banned altogether, people who want to smoke will have no 
place to go except their homes. They will be more likely to stay at 
home and invite friends over which would be a great thing for the local 
party store but could put the bars out of business."


In this particular issue, I think banning smoking in bars and 
restaurants in Washtenaw county could be a public good in Ann Arbor but 
I am not so sure about Ypsilanti. A lot of people smoke in Ypsilanti 
and most folks I know who live in Ypsilanti arent particularly bothered 
by second hand smoke even if they dont smoke themselves. Ypsilanti isnt 
far from the county line. A ban on smoking would hurt some of the bars 
and restaurants as the smokers would simply drive over to Wayne county 
were the bars still allow smoking. If Ann Arborites want a smoking ban 
in bars and restaurants so much, why not make it a city thing? I dont 
think a smoking ban would hurt Ann Arbor at all. Arent a lot of places 
there already all non smoking. I almost never get asked anymore if I 
want to sit in the smoking section and just automatically get seated in 
an area that is obviously non smoking. *shrug* I dont think it is ok 
for a really rich community to impose economic hardship on their poorer 
neighbor unless they are also planning on somehow compensating for that 
hardship. Perhaps if such a ban takes place, more county tax dollars 
can be funnelled towards Ypsi to be used for economic development?


 

response 69 of 155:

Apr 14 21:49 UTC 2002

Re #61:  I thanks you too, oval.  (I do NOT thank the person who
tossed a butt out the window of their car and through the window
of mine, where it burned a hole in the back seat.)

response 71 of 155:

Apr 15 01:59 UTC 2002

The reason there are so few no-smoking bars is that a very high percentage
of alcoholics smoke.  And alcoholics are economically important to bars. 

There is a saying that, in order for a neighborhood bar to stay in
business, it needs eleven alcoholics to pay the rent.  The barkeeper is
advised by this folklore to take good care of the eleven alcoholics. 
Presumably that means letting them smoke.

response 73 of 155:

Apr 15 02:09 UTC 2002

Re #68:  If I'm driving home from a bar, I usually limit myself
to two drinks at most (usually just one).  I seldom drink at bars
anyway; I order food a lot more often than I order alcohol.