KAYODOT/MINIWATT/TRISTAN DE CUNHA/CAPTAIN HADDOCK pics!
- Thread starter xfer
- Start date
Steve
New Metal Member
what's the deal with that? not in NYC, not in Boston, but everywhere else it's OK. Last time I was at Toad's Place there were four people not smoking, and even one of my friends who doesn't smoke randomly smoked two packs...Josh Seipp said:
avi
W3RK3R
I'm actually glad they banned smoking in clubs. so many of em have such crappy ventilation to begin with. and I used to be a smoker too.
Josh Seipp
Member
I AM a smoker and I'm glad
no stinky clothes
more captain haddock pics http://www.maudlinofthewell.com/josh/obriens/index.html
no stinky clothes
more captain haddock pics http://www.maudlinofthewell.com/josh/obriens/index.html
i guess a ditch bar = dive bar?
steve, CT is poised to go statewide smoking ban, and MA isn't far behind. toad's won't be smokable much longer.
i think it's pretty horrible, morally, that they made a no-smoking-in-bars law, but you know what? it benefits me and i like it. i can't support it and if it came to a vote i'd grudgingly vote to allow smoking in bars, but i really, really like smoke-free bars. going outside if i want a cigarette isn't a big deal, and it's even nice 95% of the time (not when it's bitter cold or raining, admittedly) and even social.
similar to if they made a law which required all black people to give 50% of their paychecks to all white people. i'd benefit! but it would be Wrong and i would vote against it.
steve, CT is poised to go statewide smoking ban, and MA isn't far behind. toad's won't be smokable much longer.
i think it's pretty horrible, morally, that they made a no-smoking-in-bars law, but you know what? it benefits me and i like it. i can't support it and if it came to a vote i'd grudgingly vote to allow smoking in bars, but i really, really like smoke-free bars. going outside if i want a cigarette isn't a big deal, and it's even nice 95% of the time (not when it's bitter cold or raining, admittedly) and even social.
similar to if they made a law which required all black people to give 50% of their paychecks to all white people. i'd benefit! but it would be Wrong and i would vote against it.
FalseTodd
Skirt Wizard
I don't think it's wrong. Career bartenders or waitresses shouldn't have to take on a lifetime of second hand smoke just because people feel like sitting down while they smoke.
avi
W3RK3R
yeah, you have to remember that first and foremost the bills were passed as workplace safety issues, not consumer protections
TheNewChupe
HTML is not allowed.
Josh Seipp
Member
so you don't recognize the concept of risks inherent in a job? or are bartenders and waitresses a special case from every other job?
the only argument along those lines i can see--enlighten me if i'm wrong--is that the effects of secondhand smoke weren't known to be as deadly for thousands of years, while the pay scale and social level of waitresses/bartenders was constructed. so now that the truth has come out, they're lower on the social ladder than they would be if it had been known all along. is that what you mean?
the only argument along those lines i can see--enlighten me if i'm wrong--is that the effects of secondhand smoke weren't known to be as deadly for thousands of years, while the pay scale and social level of waitresses/bartenders was constructed. so now that the truth has come out, they're lower on the social ladder than they would be if it had been known all along. is that what you mean?
FalseTodd
Skirt Wizard
OK but working at a bar / restaraunt you're not at risk to have to deal with second-hand smoke, you're guaranteed to have to deal with it. You're not guaranteed to get cancer or emphysema, but their are plenty of unpleasantries all the same. And yes, secondhand smoke is much better understood as a carcinogen now than it was 20 or whatever years ago.
As to it being an understood occupational hazard, if enough bartenders and waitresses got together and decided to risk some of their business and profits to improve their working conditions, I think that's awesome.
As to it being an understood occupational hazard, if enough bartenders and waitresses got together and decided to risk some of their business and profits to improve their working conditions, I think that's awesome.
secondhand smoke affects risk. it doesn't cause lung cancer 100% of the time. on a construction site, heavy girders being lifted around cause the risk of one being dropped and smushing you. some things are riskier than others, to be sure.
the problem, sam, is that bartenders and waitresses were not the majority force behind this legislation. it was anti-smoking crusaders; generally, the restaurant industry--and not just the big bosses, but the workers--would strenuously oppose smoking bans (the exception: once a smoking ban was passed in Boston, all the Boston bar owners immediately did perfect 180 turns and began supporting a statewide ban; they didn't want to lose business to outside-of-Boston bar owners. and when MA's statewide ban hits, all those opposed will 180 and begin supporting bans in CT, NH, et cetera).
working at a bar still entails the risk of a drunken customer clobbering you. it's a risk i don't really face at my job here in the library. i hope everyone who gets a job at a bar realises this, and i hope they don't try to make alcohol outlawed at bars because it increases their risk of being clobbered in order to "improve their working conditions".
the problem, sam, is that bartenders and waitresses were not the majority force behind this legislation. it was anti-smoking crusaders; generally, the restaurant industry--and not just the big bosses, but the workers--would strenuously oppose smoking bans (the exception: once a smoking ban was passed in Boston, all the Boston bar owners immediately did perfect 180 turns and began supporting a statewide ban; they didn't want to lose business to outside-of-Boston bar owners. and when MA's statewide ban hits, all those opposed will 180 and begin supporting bans in CT, NH, et cetera).
working at a bar still entails the risk of a drunken customer clobbering you. it's a risk i don't really face at my job here in the library. i hope everyone who gets a job at a bar realises this, and i hope they don't try to make alcohol outlawed at bars because it increases their risk of being clobbered in order to "improve their working conditions".
and virtually across the board i support worker initiatives. this is an ideological initiative disguised as and appropriating the power of worker intiatives.
FalseTodd
Skirt Wizard
Of course there are risks at work, but construction workers (for example) take many precautions to minimize them. If my having to walk 50 ft. to smoke is part of that minimization, great! It's just really not that big of an issue. I wish construction accidents were that easily minimizable (wow, not a word).
"they didn't want to lose business to outside-of-Boston bar owners"
I feel like you're seriously overvaluing the convenience of indoor smoking and its effect on spending decisions. I have been told that the statewide indoor smoking ban in California was largely a worker initiative, that's what I based my statement on...
"they didn't want to lose business to outside-of-Boston bar owners"
I feel like you're seriously overvaluing the convenience of indoor smoking and its effect on spending decisions. I have been told that the statewide indoor smoking ban in California was largely a worker initiative, that's what I based my statement on...
LuminousAether
My name is Distance
Smoking and bars are meant to go together. When I go to a bar and I don't cough from a cloud of smoke, I get pissed. That isn't a bar! That's a pussy drinking place. At least here in Ohio we can still smoke in our bars, and I will continue to do so at my convenience. If they ever get banned (like some anti-smoking nazis want) then I will be p-o'd at the fascism and bullshit I am forced to live with.
sure, and bars and restaurants have ventilation, or, at least, can be required to be law, if precautions matter to your opposition argument.
i think by saying "walk 50 feet to smoke", you're seriously minimizing the array of difficulties this presents a smoker. two i can think of off the bat are that bars arent required to give you re-entry, so i know people who have paid multiple covers to get in and out to smoke (well...had guys pay for them). secondly--and this couldn't be fixed simply by making bars give you handstamps--losing your seat is a big thing. when i'm at a bar with two other people and we all want to smoke, someone always gets left in the cold (figuratively) if we try to do it in shifts; when i'm there with one other person, you're both stranded.
thankfully neither myself nor (most of) my friends are unwilling to go the whole night without a cigarette when these barriers pop up. but that's a personal thing, and that's why i kind of enjoy the smoking ban. someone in a different situation could complain about this being unfair and just plain wrong and they would be absolutely correct.
i think by saying "walk 50 feet to smoke", you're seriously minimizing the array of difficulties this presents a smoker. two i can think of off the bat are that bars arent required to give you re-entry, so i know people who have paid multiple covers to get in and out to smoke (well...had guys pay for them). secondly--and this couldn't be fixed simply by making bars give you handstamps--losing your seat is a big thing. when i'm at a bar with two other people and we all want to smoke, someone always gets left in the cold (figuratively) if we try to do it in shifts; when i'm there with one other person, you're both stranded.
thankfully neither myself nor (most of) my friends are unwilling to go the whole night without a cigarette when these barriers pop up. but that's a personal thing, and that's why i kind of enjoy the smoking ban. someone in a different situation could complain about this being unfair and just plain wrong and they would be absolutely correct.
avi
W3RK3R
sam, i don't know the CA stuff, but spending was enormously crippled in NYC during the first months of the ban, and also in Boston. things will probably edge upward, but i'm not sure they'll return to previous levels, and in any case, it'll be some time before they even get close.
people shouldn't do a lot of things, but the government should not outlaw everything people shouldn't do. adultery?
