Jump to content

Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Stop the smoking?


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Edendude:



I'll reply to your post by simply quoting Surfmonkey, he seems to have an understanding of the issue which completely eludes you...


"It is your personal freedom to own a car. If you wish to drive it you must follow certain rules and laws in consideration and safety of others. The fact that you own a car does not give you the right to drive on the wrong side of the road, or do donuts in my front yard. Guns...You need a permit to own a gun. The fact that you own a gun, does not give you the right to shoot it wherever you please. So, why is it that restrictions can't be placed on smoking? It's common sense to me."

With apologies to all for my delay in posting, I must respond.

1. This statement, while both valid ( except for the part about owning a car being a personal freedom. It is actually a societally allowed right. Unlike smoking, which has not been until recently.) and responsible, neither addresses the points I raised, or speaks directly to the crux of the biscuit, as FZ would say.

While I agree that posession of a car or a gun is not a license to be an idiot, both of these objects are outwardly much more of a threat than smoking. This is true in that cars are meant to be driven on roads, directly threatening other drivers (for the most part), while guns are such a threat that all are affected, regardless of running ability. (And I am not anti- gun, either.)

But smoking affects the smoker primarily, especially when second hand smoke is only a factor to those not able to move from the area. When last I looked up the stastistics, it seemed that cigarette smoke moved slower than either cars or bullets, so moving away is definitely more of a possibility. And those who do not like the environment are free to find another. Hence, freedom.

I am not opposed to restrictions on smoking, I just think that those restrictions should be dictated by business owners and the involved local populace, i.e. a businesses's actual customers, rather that the whims and rulings of those who may have other interests at heart than rights and freedoms.

So, again, my question:

In what way are safety rules and considerations to others diminished or impinged when we each have an informed choice, the ability to make our own responsible decision, and a multitude of options from which to choose?


2. Sweet Willie has great taste in basses.


3. Someone wake DCR, we're almost there.






I'm a lot more like I am now than I was when I got here.






Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I have yet to post on this topic because I have little time and little acess to a computer. I you want to smoke you have the "freedom" to do so, however, I have to "right" to breath in a clean and safe environement. Social rights cannot be overiden by social freedoms, they are to very different things. Due to time restrains I will only use wraub's post to further my point.


Originally posted by wraub:

But smoking affects the smoker primarily

There is a clear and undeniable "secondary" threat to those who inhale second-hand smoke.


Originally posted by wraub:

When last I looked up the stastistics, it seemed that cigarette smoke moved slower than either cars or bullets, so moving away is definitely more of a possibility. And those who do not like the environment are free to find another. Hence, freedom.

Say I sit at a table at a restaraunt, and I am in the middle of my meal when a few meters away someone sits down and begins to smoke. To spare myself the smell, clingy odor, and hazardous air I should have to get up and move?


Originally posted by wraub:

For some people to call others "dickheads" merely because they labor under the delusion that they have the "right" or "freedom" to do as they please to their own bodies.

We all have the "right" or "freedom" to do what we wish to our bodies (to a certain extent), but your freedom to smoke should not impede or threaten my rigth to not breath unfiltered carcionegenic (sp?) smoke.


Originally posted by wraub:

with smoking (neither societally unsafe or outwardly threatening).

There are several cases of (non-smoking) people develloping cancer due to second hand smoke, and countless cases of people (especially minors) taking up somking due to the exposure.


Smoking is a hazard and a nucance to everyone who breathes the product. We should not have to face any concequences for those who choose to make un-helthy decisions. Stop being selfish.

These words, are sledgehammers of truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been hesitant to contribute to this thread, but here goes.


As to the original point -- it's silly that they want to "erase" the ciggy in Paul's hand in the photograph. Those marketers need to relax and not rewrite history. Folks used to smoke -- a lot -- and now fewer folks smoke. It used to be very socially acceptable, now it's not. The photo comes from a time when smoking was somewhat more acceptable than it is today. So what? If Ray Brown lit up a stogie, whoop-de-doo. It was a good picture and looked good on the BP cover. One of my most prized wall hangings is a fantastic photograph poster of a young and dapper Miles Davis with trumpet in one hand, while smoking a cigarette. I am not worried that my kids will become smokers because of that photo hanging on my wall -- but they might choose to pick up an instrument because they hear Miles playing on the home stereo and see his photo on the wall.


As to all the other gibberish flying around, I am most in agreement, probably, with dcr ... :bor::bor::bor: . I don't smoke, never have, never will, and think it's pretty disgusting. I don't like the smell of smoke and I hate coming home from a night out stinking of tobacco. It probably bothers me most when I'm eating in restaurants.


I think if a club owner or restaurant owner wants to ban smoking in their establishment, that's great. I will prefer to go to their spot than one where smoking is allowed. I think I could support a ban on smoking in restaurants, since the smoke does affect the flavor and aroma of the food -- the primary reason why I'd be at a restaurant. At a bar or club? I'm not as sure. If a local politico proposed such a ban, I wouldn't protest against it, but I wouldn't have been at his/her office lobbying for it in the first place. And while I would certainly be happier playing a gig or hanging out at an establishment where smoking was verboten, there are other causes I care more about at the moment, and that's where my political energies are better directed.


(Sidenote: I'm more concerned about the drunk drivers or aggressive drunk pedestrians leaving clubs than I am about smokers arriving there.)


IMHO, the various attempted analogies to automobile exhaust, firearms, etc. are for the most part not worth debating. I don't mean any personal offense to any who have laid out those arguments, but I don't find them particularly analagous or convincing in making cases for or against smoking bans (no, we aren't forced to wrap out lips around exhaust pipes, but more of us could walk, bike, carpool, or take public transportation to work...). And before we bash "those d@mn smokers," let's remember that smoking is an addiction. While I think smokers have to be responsible for becoming addicted and should be respectful of non-smokers' opinions and desires, it's not so simple to just quit. I'm always amazed at how much money smokers spend on cigarettes and other tobacco products -- and how high the financial cost of smoking is to smokers (in an immediate sense, not even in terms of the eventual healthcare expense)! Yikes! Save some of that cash, and you could be playing a Sadowsky by year's end (or a Seismic once they're in production ;) )! Wow, if it were as simple as just saying, "No," once I were addicted, the cash drain alone would get me to quit! Increase energies and efforts to prevent folks from smoking in the first place (and I really think some of these efforts have been working -- I definitely see fewer smokers now than I did 15-20 yrs ago).


And, as performers, those of us who can't stand smoking could make the bold move to request of the audience that smokers remove themselves from the room when they're smoking. :idea: At a wedding gig? No, probably not. But at some bar/club gigs that might be possible. (NOT the ones where you're playing behind chicken wire!) I've actually been to a couple of gigs where that request has been made (for example, I think Vic W made that request at a Chicago club where I saw him play). When I've seen it done, it was done courteously with an explanation of how the smoke affected the performers' ability to sing and to see, and not with a political statement about the horrors of smoking. It also gave non-smokers in the audience a little more authority to ask a smoking neighbor to step outside or into the next room for a minute to have that drag.


Wow. I wrote a lot more than I expected to and have prolonged a thread that I was really ready to see die on the vine. Oh well. :rolleyes:


Peace, y'all.




Fanboy? Why, yes! Nordstrand Pickups and Guitars.

Messiaen knew how to parlay the funk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...