930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: alex on October 30, 2006, 05:04:00 pm
-
So I've been to three shows in a row now that have been non-smoking "per artist's request."
Has this been happening more and more lately, or is this just purely coincidence that Ben Kweller, Alice in Chains and The Decemberists all requested non-smoking nights within a period of two weeks?
-
Originally posted by Alex:
So I've been to three shows in a row now that have been non-smoking "per artist's request."
Has this been happening more and more lately, or is this just purely coincidence that Ben Kweller, Alice in Chains and The Decemberists all requested non-smoking nights within a period of two weeks?
As did Tilly and the Wall at the Cat last week.
-
Probably pure coincedence. I think artists who request non-smoking shows are pretty lame though. They should get over themselves.
-
Also, what is the word on the city-wide smoking ban? When does that start?
I'm so out of the loop these days.
-
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
Probably pure coincedence. I think artists who request non-smoking shows are pretty lame though. They should get over themselves.
Perhaps they are allergic to cigarette smoke? Perhaps they aren't allergic, but it negatively affects their performance?
I think I'd rather put on a show at 100% than please a few people that can't handle going without a cigarette for a few hours.
-
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
Probably pure coincedence. I think artists who request non-smoking shows are pretty lame though. They should get over themselves.
What is there to get over? Living out of a tour bus/van for three weeks, eating fast food all the time, these things aren't bad enough? Of the four bands mentioned, I'm betting two or three of them deal with this lifestyle. After all that, wanting to not play in a closed up cancer dome is hardly ego-driven. Especially considering many do this on little to no health insurance.
-
I think people that smoke inside clubs are f-king selfish. I'm glad about the ban...wish it happened sooner.
-
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
Probably pure coincedence. I think artists who request non-smoking shows are pretty lame though. They should get over themselves.
I think smokers who believe non smokers should just deal with their smoke whenever, wherever need to get over themselves.
-
Originally posted by Alex:
Has this been happening more and more lately, or is this just purely coincidence that Ben Kweller, Alice in Chains and The Decemberists all requested non-smoking nights within a period of two weeks?
The only non-smoking show "per artists request" I've been to is the Wedding Present. This article is over a year old but addresses the issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042800694_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042800694_pf.html)
-
Originally posted by Alex:
Also, what is the word on the city-wide smoking ban? When does that start?
January 2007
-
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
I think artists who request non-smoking shows are pretty lame though. They should get over themselves.
I think people who can't go an hour or two without a cigarette are pretty lame. They should get over their addiction.
-
So many major cities have already gone non-smoking that I think the bands are starting to get used to it and in many cases prefer it. Since we try to be artist friendly we honor these requests for non-smoking shows.
personally I think all the non-smoking shows are a good thing. It gives the fans and employees a chance to get used to the ban before it gets enforced.
-
<obligatory reply>
all of which shows there is no need for government to influence behavior and restrict individuals from making their own choices since its obvious that there is a desire (and market) to have non-smoking shows.
<begin remarks with opposing views>
-
Originally posted by Shadrach:
So many major cities have already gone non-smoking that I think the bands are starting to get used to it and in many cases prefer it. Since we try to be artist friendly we honor these requests for non-smoking shows.
personally I think all the non-smoking shows are a good thing. It gives the fans and employees a chance to get used to the ban before it gets enforced.
So how come the Back Bar has been non-smoking on two of the three occassions I've recently been to? And what's the club's policy going to be come Jan 01? Is it going to be feasible to monitor the in/out traffic for smokers?
-
I think chicks, especially hot ones (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRcWVOfmAew), should be encouraged to smoke more.
<img src="http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2006/7/134539_6b43cca7-d63c-4741-8ace-1561d8b9528a_prod_200_thumb.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
I went to Neko Case back in April and that was non-smoking. Of course she is actually allergic to the smoke and you don't want anything messing with that voice.
I really don't care one way or another if the show is smoking or not, but I can understand why non-smoking musicians would ask not to be exposed to clouds of smoke night after night.
-
Originally posted by xcanuck:
Originally posted by Shadrach:
So many major cities have already gone non-smoking that I think the bands are starting to get used to it and in many cases prefer it. Since we try to be artist friendly we honor these requests for non-smoking shows.
personally I think all the non-smoking shows are a good thing. It gives the fans and employees a chance to get used to the ban before it gets enforced.
So how come the Back Bar has been non-smoking on two of the three occassions I've recently been to? And what's the club's policy going to be come Jan 01? Is it going to be feasible to monitor the in/out traffic for smokers? [/b]
Our policy will be the same as the rest of the city, no smoking. We allow in's and out's for most of our shows now, I don't see why things would change.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
begin remarks with opposing views
Without the lead in California taking a stance as it did 10 years ago (or any other gov for that matter) you know it likely never would have happened with market forces alone. All things are not equal. I'm proud to be part of the example that is spreading across the nation, and the the world for that matter. Nothing the business owners predicted ever happened - profits are not down, people are still going out, and smokers can still go outside to enjoy their addiction. It just stopped affecting me, and it's great!
And yes, I will be voting to increase the cigarette tax 13 cents on each cigarette distributed ($2.60 per pack) in California next week, and I'm not even the slightest bit apologetic for it. Smokers, I'm over you and your so called rights.
-
I am surprised The Decemberists was non smoking considering I am surprised I didnt get a contact high at their portland show, but that is par for the course it seems at Crystal Ballroom shows.
-
That's a whole lotta surprise!
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
I am surprised The Decemberists was non smoking considering I am surprised I didnt get a contact high at their portland show, but that is par for the course it seems at Crystal Ballroom shows.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
And yes, I will be voting to increase the cigarette tax 13 cents on each cigarette distributed ($2.60 per pack) in California next week, and I'm not even the slightest bit apologetic for it. Smokers, I'm over you and your so called rights.
so why are cigarettes singled out, when do the higher taxes on gasoline and fatty foods get implemented
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
[QB] That's a whole lotta surprise!
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
]when do the higher taxes on gasoline...get implemented
I'm voting for that one too, but I'm going to get killed in this election. It's going to take time:
Prop 87 (http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/props/prop87/prop87.html)
As for the fatty foods, as soon as it reaches my ballot, I'll let you know. We can't fix everything out here...
-
Leave the fatty foods alone until we get a true national health care system. I like my unhealthy treats every now and then, and that really doesn't affect anyone but me.
-
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
Probably pure coincedence. I think artists who request non-smoking shows are pretty lame though. They should get over themselves.
I don't think it's just coincidence. I think as more and more cities have gone smoke-free, the appreciation of a smoke free environment has grown with artists as they experience it other places. Makes sense. And the clock is ticking for D.C. anyway. Think of it as being weened.
Personally, I loved it last night for The Decemberists.
-edit-
Hadn't seen Shadrach's reply. Ditto!
-
People who refuse to eat fast food are conceited poseurs. I hate you.
-
Originally posted by Surly Bonds:
People who refuse to eat fast food are conceited poseurs. I hate you.
Who said they don't eat fast food? I surely didn't. All weekend long all I wanted was the Burger King Italian Chicken Sandwich (http://www.bk.com/#menu=2,65,-1) they kept showing the ads for during the football games. Mmm, mmm.
-
I had two Taco Bell cheesy gordita crunches for lunch. For a limited time only.
-
Originally posted by Surly Bonds:
I had two Taco Bell cheesy gordita crunches for lunch. For a limited time only.
That's what I'm having for dinner tonight - can't wait! How was the secret sauce?
-
Always ask for FIRE sauce.
I feel really guilty 'cause I had Little Ceasars pizza for dinner, as well. The wife's outta town you see. No salad for me today.
-
Originally posted by Joe M.:
I think people that smoke inside clubs are f-king selfish. I'm glad about the ban...wish it happened sooner.
I absolutely agree! In fact, based on all of the complaints about the smoke at Sonar, I've intentionally stayed away. There have been too many occassions where I've thrown my guts up the next morning from being around smokers, including at the 9:30 Club which is a bit cleaner than some other venues.
It kills me how it seems that only the rights and money of the smokers are generally taken into consideration. It's time that we non-smokers get a little recognition and respect.
-
when you walk from the floor area of the main stage area and step UP into the bathroom, your head passes through the floating cloud of smoke haze... like a rocky, snow-capped mountaintop peaking through the clouds.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
I think artists who request non-smoking shows are pretty lame though. They should get over themselves.
I think people who can't go an hour or two without a cigarette are pretty lame. They should get over their addiction. [/b]
I don't actually smoke, but I still support people's right to smoke in a rock club.
-
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
I don't actually smoke, but I still support people's right to smoke in a rock club.
<img src="http://www.punknews.org/images/bands/replacements.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
I think artists who request non-smoking shows are pretty lame though. They should get over themselves.
I think people who can't go an hour or two without a cigarette are pretty lame. They should get over their addiction. [/b]
I don't actually smoke, but I still support people's right to smoke in a rock club. [/b]
Not me! I support people's right to breath without being forced to deal with others' addictions. Again, for something like a show where you can't take the show with you if you choose to move on, it should be the addicted who make the choice to leave or not attend. Not those who can't or don't want to tolerate a roomful of smoke. You can leave a bar and select another but for a concert, you don't have that option.
In fact, I might even be able to compromise that bars or clubs without entertainment, smoking if the owner chooses. Bars or clubs with entertainment, no smoking; at least, before and during shows.
-
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
I don't actually smoke, but I still support people's right to smoke in a rock club.
Do you often make up rights that don't exist in any codified form anywhere?
-
jaguar, any rational person definitely understands your complaints, being allergic to smoke would really suck
i think thingsfallaparts' comments were just tied to the fact that we're talking about a RAWK club, not a bridge party ... booze, cigarettes, and a general fuck-all attitude are pretty intricately tied up in RAWKing
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Do you often make up rights that don't exist in any codified form anywhere?
the good people at RJ Reynolds have conveniently codified our rights!
https://mysmokersrights.rjrt.com/ (https://mysmokersrights.rjrt.com/)
-
Originally posted by Maf54:
the good people at RJ Reynolds have conveniently codified our rights!
https://mysmokersrights.rjrt.com/ (https://mysmokersrights.rjrt.com/)
Unless they've changed the Constitution without me noticing, there is nothing on that web site that will convince me that there is a right to smoke in any public place (and I adimantly refuse to sign up for that web site, but feel free to share with me any of the pearls of wisdom brought to you by the good people at RJ Reynolds).
-
Originally posted by Maf54:
jaguar, any rational person definitely understands your complaints, being allergic to smoke would really suck
i think thingsfallaparts' comments were just tied to the fact that we're talking about a RAWK club, not a bridge party ... booze, cigarettes, and a general fuck-all attitude are pretty intricately tied up in RAWKing
And so is toking up at a concert. When you are allowed to pass me that joint at the 9:30 Club, maybe I'll concede my arguement. Maybe.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Unless they've changed the Constitution without me noticing, there is nothing on that web site that will convince me that there is a right to smoke in any public place
a motivated libertarian may argue otherwise ... unfortunately, i'm neither motivated nor a libertarian
-
Jesus rides beside me
He never buys any smokes
Hurry up, hurry up, ain't you had enough of this stuff
Ashtray floors, dirty clothes, and filthy jokes
-
Originally posted by Maf54:
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
I don't actually smoke, but I still support people's right to smoke in a rock club.
<img src="http://www.punknews.org/images/bands/replacements.jpg" alt=" - " /> [/b]
There is no 'right' to smoke.
-
Originally posted by RatBastard:
There is no 'right' to smoke.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion ... man
<img src="http://cuboidal.org/movies/scenes/biglebowski/images/3-dudeoncouch.jpg" alt=" - " />
one could definitely make a constitutional argument for it, whether it would be accepted (doubtful) is up to a judge, but it wouldn't be much more tenuous than the "penumbra" of implied privacy rights that courts have found
-
Originally posted by HoyaSaxa08:
Originally posted by RatBastard:
There is no 'right' to smoke.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion ... man
<img src="http://cuboidal.org/movies/scenes/biglebowski/images/3-dudeoncouch.jpg" alt=" - " />
one could definitely make a constitutional argument for it, whether it would be accepted (doubtful) is up to a judge, but it wouldn't be much more tenuous than the "penumbra" of implied privacy rights that courts have found [/b]
Its a fact.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
I don't actually smoke, but I still support people's right to smoke in a rock club.
Do you often make up rights that don't exist in any codified form anywhere? [/b]
Cigarettes are legal. Sorry.
And yes, they are making it illegal to smoke in many types of places, but where it's allowed, it's legal. Doesn't that make it a right?
I'm fine with the ban. Luckily I'll probably stop smoking entirely once it goes in to effect (as I only smoke intermittently, based on a combination of booze and folks smoking around me).
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Cigarettes are legal. Sorry.
And yes, they are making it illegal to smoke in many types of places, but where it's allowed, it's legal. Doesn't that make it a right?
Driving a car is legal. Does that mean I can drive anywhere in any direction at any speed and without regard to those around me? Don't I have the right to do so?
-
Originally posted by beetsnotbeats:
Driving a car is legal. Does that mean I can drive anywhere in any direction at any speed and without regard to those around me? Don't I have the right to do so?
well, driving a car is only legal if you have passed the required tests as set up by the state to receive your license to drive, which also is a tacit understanding that you will follow the rules as set up by the state- a compact of sorts. whereas for smoking, the only requirement is that you be 18 years old.
now, that doesn't mean you can't do whatever you want with your car, but i doubt you'd be long for this world, not to mention you'd probably have quite a hefty insurance bill.
-
Originally posted by beetsnotbeats:
[/b]
Driving a car is legal. Does that mean I can drive anywhere in any direction at any speed and without regard to those around me? Don't I have the right to do so? [/QB]
A lot of drivers in this area seem to think so.
-
Originally posted by beetsnotbeats:
Originally posted by Bags:
Cigarettes are legal. Sorry.
And yes, they are making it illegal to smoke in many types of places, but where it's allowed, it's legal. Doesn't that make it a right?
Driving a car is legal. Does that mean I can drive anywhere in any direction at any speed and without regard to those around me? Don't I have the right to do so? [/b]
nifty analogy , but you failed to make a point.
you cant drive your car like that because its NOT legal.
and besides werent we all taught that driving was a privilege, not a right!
-
Originally posted by RatBastard:
Originally posted by Maf54:
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
I don't actually smoke, but I still support people's right to smoke in a rock club.
<img src="http://www.punknews.org/images/bands/replacements.jpg" alt=" - " /> [/b]
There is no 'right' to smoke. [/b]
there is a right to decide whether to allow or ban smoking in your business, isnt there?
no, but there should be!
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Maf54:
the good people at RJ Reynolds have conveniently codified our rights!
https://mysmokersrights.rjrt.com/ (https://mysmokersrights.rjrt.com/)
Unless they've changed the Constitution without me noticing, there is nothing on that web site that will convince me that there is a right to smoke in any public place (and I adimantly refuse to sign up for that web site, but feel free to share with me any of the pearls of wisdom brought to you by the good people at RJ Reynolds). [/b]
dont they ask your permission before changing the constitution smackie? ;)
-
Originally posted by beetsnotbeats:
Originally posted by Bags:
Cigarettes are legal. Sorry.
And yes, they are making it illegal to smoke in many types of places, but where it's allowed, it's legal. Doesn't that make it a right?
Driving a car is legal. Does that mean I can drive anywhere in any direction at any speed and without regard to those around me? Don't I have the right to do so? [/b]
Precisely. Which is why I do NOT oppose the ban. I never said I had a right to smoke anywhere I want at anytime. But where it is allowed (like the 9:30 Club and Black Cat), it is allowed, and I will do so if I like.
As is common, you mixed apples and oranges based on my statement.
-
A right is usually something granted by the Constitution. There are certain other Human Rights we are afforded by our admission to the United Nations.
Statutes grant privileges, and those prvilieges cannot infringe on any rights granted by a Constitution.
The Constitution says nothing about your ability to smoke, and neither Due Process nor Equal Protection are afforded to smokers as smokers are not considered a protected class. If anything protects smokers, it's, ironically, the right to privacy, and that is not being infringed on here - you have the right to smoke in your home if you so choose.
The same statute that once granted smokers the priviledge to smoke in public places has been revoked in some areas. If smokers want to be granted that priviledge again, go through the processes and change the laws, but stop arguing that smokers have a right to smoke in public, because they do not.
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
dont they ask your permission before changing the constitution smackie? ;)
They certainly do, every two years, first Tuesday in November.
-
Originally posted by Maf54:
jaguar, any rational person definitely understands your complaints, being allergic to smoke would really suck
i think thingsfallaparts' comments were just tied to the fact that we're talking about a RAWK club, not a bridge party ... booze, cigarettes, and a general fuck-all attitude are pretty intricately tied up in RAWKing
Thank you.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
I only smoke intermittently, based on a combination of booze and folks smoking around me).
Are you hot?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
A right is usually something granted by the Constitution. There are certain other Human Rights we are afforded by our admission to the United Nations.
Statutes grant privileges, and those prvilieges cannot infringe on any rights granted by a Constitution.
The Constitution says nothing about your ability to smoke, and neither Due Process nor Equal Protection are afforded to smokers as smokers are not considered a protected class. If anything protects smokers, it's, ironically, the right to privacy, and that is not being infringed on here - you have the right to smoke in your home if you so choose.
The same statute that once granted smokers the priviledge to smoke in public places has been revoked in some areas. If smokers want to be granted that priviledge again, go through the processes and change the laws, but stop arguing that smokers have a right to smoke in public, because they do not.
Haha I'd like to know where you received your law degree from.
-
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
Haha I'd like to know where you received your law degree from.
Wikipedia, why? It doesn't require a law degree to understand the basic knowledge of what constitutes a right in the United States.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
Haha I'd like to know where you received your law degree from.
Wikipedia, why? It doesn't require a law degree to understand the basic knowledge of what constitutes a right in the United States. [/b]
True. But I think it's worth noting that, on a strictly technical level, rights in this country are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments to the Constitution, not from the actual Constitution itself, which is essentially a blueprint for the layout of our government. The point is, right now it is legal to smoke in the 9:30--therefore I have the right to smoke there. Anyone, at this point in time, who would tell me to put out my cigarette (well not mine, but those of patrons who do smoke) would be infringing on my rights.
-
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
The point is, right now it is legal to smoke in the 9:30--therefore I have the right to smoke there. Anyone, at this point in time, who would tell me to put out my cigarette (well not mine, but those of patrons who do smoke) would be infringing on my rights.
Really?
The 9:30 Club grants you that priviledge based on DC law, and if they choose to take away that priviledge, even for one night at the request of the artist, that's their perogative. If it truly were a right, the 9:30 Club could not infringe on it. That's precisely what the Constitution and it's enumerated rights are for.
The 9:30 Club cannot exclude African-Americans for one night because they have a right to be there, but they sure as hell can suspend your priviledge of smoking for one night. Do you know why? Because it's not a right. It's a priviledge.
-
seeing as the 9:30 club is a private establishment they not any laws are allowing people to smoke inside... so it's a privilege granted by the club which could be taken away either by the them or by regulation.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
A right is usually something granted by the Constitution.
......
If anything protects smokers, it's, ironically, the right to privacy, and that is not being infringed on here - you have the right to smoke in your home if you so choose.
please point me to the "right to privacy" section in the constitution. last time i checked, i didn't find that one there. . .it must be close to the "separation of church and state" section, cause i can't find that one either.
that being said, i don't think people have a "right to smoke," rather, in the absence of laws outlawing such actions, we have the priviledge of doing things not against the law. in other words, since the law does not ban smoking, per se, people can decide whether or not they want to smoke.
edited to add- smackie made my overall point much more eloquently and clearer, and i refer to his post above.
-
Fair enough, I can admit defeat.
I still think it's lame for artists to request non-smoking shows at rock clubs, and that's a right to freedom of expression that you can't argue with ;)
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
please point me to the "right to privacy" section in the constitution. last time i checked, i didn't find that one there. . .
I knew that was coming.
And I knew it would be from you.
And I have the hand surgeon appointment right now (thankfully) which will prohibit me from answering your question. But if you wish to take this up offline, we can meet at Yancy's for happy hour, where I will dance around this issue not nearly as eloquently as the 5-4 court did in Rowe v. Wade.
-
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
I still think it's lame for artists to request non-smoking shows at rock clubs, and that's a right to freedom of expression that you can't argue with ;)
i don't think that's a right to freedom of expression. rather, the band is providing the consumer with a good, and has the ability to market its good however it wants. you as the consumer have the ability to decide if you want to buy the product or not, knowing the limitations upon the product.
so, if you want to smoke, but know that you can't smoke, you can choose not to go, and not spend your money or go and not smoke (or smoke within the rules established by the club, i.e., outside). the 930 club can, if they want, not book the band either if it decides that the loss of pro-smoking customers would not make the show cost-effective. as it is, there are enough people who are either a) willing to not smoke for 3 hours and enjoy the show or b) enough non-smokers to outweigh the loss of smokers to make the show cost-effective.
-
I love all of the legal arguments on the bboard. Only in DC.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
please point me to the "right to privacy" section in the constitution. last time i checked, i didn't find that one there. . .
You're such a strict constructionist.
Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas (writing for the majority) ruled that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" of other constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to defend the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause.
nicked from Vansmack U. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut)
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
please point me to the "right to privacy" section in the constitution. last time i checked, i didn't find that one there.
i've only taken a few constitutional law classes, but rights are discerned or recognized by our judicial system through the interpretation of the constitution ... finding the "right to privacy" was an especially convoluted process ... but the key is that the constitution only means what the courts determine it means
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
I still think it's lame for artists to request non-smoking shows at rock clubs, and that's a right to freedom of expression that you can't argue with :)
-
It's arguments like these that make me wish I lived anywhere on Earth than fucking DC.
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
it's a privilege granted by the club which could be taken away either by the them or by regulation.
But not by other patrons in the club, which is where I felt some of the debate was going.
-
i often enforce a "no smoking within my arms' reach" rule. i've found it to be fairly effective. most people learn quickly not to smoke around me, whether they have the right to or not, after i snatch a couple of cigarettes out of their mouths. i always inform them of my rule and give them time to vacate my arms' reach first, of course.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
]when do the higher taxes on gasoline...get implemented
I'm voting for that one too, but I'm going to get killed in this election. It's going to take time:
Prop 87 (http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/props/prop87/prop87.html)
As for the fatty foods, as soon as it reaches my ballot, I'll let you know. We can't fix everything out here... [/b]
NYC is working on the trans fat free issue. Its getting rather interesting as KFC and BK are all working on new recipes that will be safe in NYC. So whats next that they will ban. Soon all fast food will be banned. damn if i wanna kill myself eating this junk, let me.
heres an interesting article from NPR.
All Things Considered, October 30, 2006 ยท The New York City Health Board holds a public hearing on its plan to ban anything more than tiny amounts of trans fats at the city's 20,000 restaurants. New York would become the first large American city to strictly limit trans fats, although Chicago is considering a smaller plan. The final New York board vote is in December.
the full article is here: NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6407186&ft=1&f=2)
-
Originally posted by thatguy:
i often enforce a "no smoking within my arms' reach" rule. i've found it to be fairly effective. most people learn quickly not to smoke around me, whether they have the right to or not, after i snatch a couple of cigarettes out of their mouths. i always inform them of my rule and give them time to vacate my arms' reach first, of course.
I'm glad that works for you, but you project a menacing, hostile image, as shown in your glowering photo in the Post and your style when you're working. Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing you -- a big part of your job is enforcing security, and you're always on the ball. But a smiley 5'6 guy in a beige cardigan is not going to get the same respect that you do.
Besides, if we do what you do at a show, a fight will break out, and then you'll kick us out, right?
-
Originally posted by thatguy:
i often enforce a "no smoking within my arms' reach" rule. i've found it to be fairly effective. most people learn quickly not to smoke around me, whether they have the right to or not, after i snatch a couple of cigarettes out of their mouths. i always inform them of my rule and give them time to vacate my arms' reach first, of course.
I like this ThatGuy. =)
I harmlessly tower above most folks, so people who think that blowing the smoke up makes a difference are basically blowing that crap right up my nose.
I don't think I could get away with snatching cigarettes from strangers though...is it OK if I hang out by you at the door? Or more my style would be to snatch and then run to you for protection. ;)
Counting down the days until the ban...
-
I usually try The Chewlie's Gum Rep's speech to see how hostile the smoker is, then decide from there.
-
Just a few thoughts to add:
1) It's not illegal to walk around barefoot or shirtless outside, but you don't have the "right" to do that in most places of business. Or eat at nice restaurants without proper dress. House rules are everywhere.
2) Wearing seatbelts used to be a choice, too, until "they" realized not doing so was killing people.
and
3) Remember when there used to be lighters in cars? And smoking on airplanes and in movie theaters? This is just the natural progression. 40 years from now we'll be boring young'uns with, "Back in my day, we used to be able to smoke in clubs! And you could even buy cigarettes there!"
I initially was against smoking bans because I don't like the idea of government mothering its citizens, and nonsmoking restaurants and such were becoming more popular on their own. (I also saw a huge drop in business at the bar I worked at, regardless of what stats say.)
But, unlike the absurd idea of regulating trans fat, smoke does negatively affect -- immediately, I'm not talking long-term here -- a fair share of people.
Unless they start catapulting smokers to Australia, I think this is something everyone will eventually accept as the norm.
-
Originally posted by tmalicia:
Unless they start catapulting smokers to Australia, I think this is something everyone will eventually accept as the norm.
just like speed cameras, red-light cameras, taking your shoes off at the airport....the land of the free!!! remember that?
-
Originally posted by Relaxer:
Besides, if we do what you do at a show, a fight will break out, and then you'll kick us out, right?
i wouldn't suggest using the method i described, but a polite request to a smoker to move a few feet away might work.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
I think artists who request non-smoking shows are pretty lame though. They should get over themselves.
I think people who can't go an hour or two without a cigarette are pretty lame. They should get over their addiction. [/b]
I think people who are 400lbs should get over their food addiction and stop eating.
-
Originally posted by Mumrat:
I think people who are 400lbs should get over their food addiction and stop eating.
Really?
You signed up, dug up a thread from nearly a month ago and provided us with that insight as your first post?
Welcome to the board! You'll fit in just fine...
-
indeed - only thing missing is his dissing of a talented band that happened to sell more than 10,000 copies of their latest release (sell outs!)
-
Whatever happened to the occasional street-teamer?