On the Subject of Smoking
posted on january 25, 2003, tag: new york
I haven't written anything about Dictator Bloomberg's NYC smoking ban. I haven't really felt it was necessary, as many other people have put my thoughts into their own words anyway and said basically what I was going to say. That is, until two days ago.
Because I've been commuting from New Jersey again, I've been in close proximity to a lot of the places I spent a great deal of time in during college and high school. One of the places I frequented (more than frequented—I almost lived there) was a diner in Madison called Nautilus. Two days ago, Katia and I decided to visit the diner for some pancakes. We sat in the smoking section and ate our food, talking about my college days and other nonsense. Out of the corner of my eye I noticed a sign over the soda fountain. It read, in short, that as of March 1, 2003, the Nautilus diner would be 100% non-smoking due to the (loose quote) "request of our valued patrons."
Am I not valued? Because I smoke do I somehow register as less important to this diner? Furthermore, do they assign less value to all of the college students from two universities that visit this diner day in and day out? Apparently. I asked one of the staff members why they decided to take this drastic step. He told me, "The boss wants it this way." I asked why and he replied, "I don't know. Doesn't make sense to me." He smokes. I don't know if a non-smoking employee would have said something different, but I doubt it since a majority of the daily income is from the smoking section (midday the non-smoking section is completely empty).
The reason I bring this up is that I feel Bloomberg's mission to rid New York of smokers is now, for some reason, making it acceptable for other places outside the city to do the same. Soon we won't be allowed to smoke on the street, in our cars or in our houses. But, like Dennis Leary says, you can jack the prices sky-high, you can make all black packs with a skull and cross bones on it, call them poison, and we'll still fucking smoke them. You can outlaw smoking in restaurants, and we'll eat quickly and then loiter in front of the building smoking to our hearts' content. You can outlaw smoking in my car and I'll stick my head out the window like Ace Ventura. You can make it illegal to smoke on the planet Earth and I'll steal a fucking spaceship and smoke on the Moon.
Comments
There are 33 comments, comments are closed
michael on 01/25/2003:
that's not new. here in california, thank god they banned smoking from public places. just because you nasty nicotine fucks want to taste and smell like shit, and slowly fuck yourself over... don't push it on us. we are only there to eat a meal that we can smell and enjoy (along with taste) so stick the cig up your ass and go smoke outside.
Garrett on 01/25/2003:
I can taste my food.
Also: I understand you don't like smoking, but does that mean just because you don't like it, I can't do it? Hell no. Don't sit in the smoking section. I don't like it that it somehow became acceptable for non-smokers to be sons of bitches about smoking... it's not. You don't have to smoke, and you don't have to sit near us.
Frankly, I would prefer you didn't (not you specifically, Michael). I'm not smoking to annoy you, I'm doing it because I want to.
monkiboi on 01/26/2003:
ditto what shawn said.
the only thing i'd disagree with is the vanilla connotation (sp?) and thats only because i really like vanilla flavoured things. french coffee and vanilla essence. yum. real custard made with vanilla pods rather than vanilla flavourings. i even fancied a girl because she smelt of vanilla. ok, thats a bit too far but hey, each to their own.
btw. my gf smokes. i don't. it's not a problem.
Shawn on 01/26/2003:
This issue transcends smoking. People today are extremely intolerant. They like their opinion and want it that way. "There should be a law against..." is becoming less and less sarcastic. Lawmakers are listening. One of the trade-offs for living in a free society is that you have to tolerate other people's lifestyles and opinions. There's lots of things that annoy me: strong perfume, walking behind slow people, screaming children. I may get pissed but I don't ask anyone to ban anything. My examples aren't even that absurd. Our society takes yesterday's absurdity and makes it tomorrow's reality. We're going to end up living in one pretty fucking boring plain vanilla society if everyone keeps demanding they have it their way all the time. There's scads of non-smoking restaurants, go eat there. There's something beautiful about being able to choose. As for the Nautilus, it's a damn shame but hey, they can do what they want. At least no one's forcing them.
michael on 01/26/2003:
from sitting in the smoking, or non-smoking sections, i doesn't matter. that smell. that contimnation... drifts. and lingers. nothing worse than walking into a diner to see a layer of smoke hovering from 1-5 feet. nasty.
i have nothing wrong with smokers, but... please, since it is YOUR habit, and not ours... don't make us smell it if we don't want to. more like... common curitisy (sp?)
Linus on 01/26/2003:
"just because you nasty nicotine fucks want to taste and smell like shit, and slowly fuck yourself over..."
Smokers taste like shit?
michael on 01/27/2003:
yeah, ever kissed someone who smokes? nasty.
n3verm0re on 01/27/2003:
Before I post my actual comment, does anyone know whether a customer is allowed to drink alcohol in an establishment that doesn't have a liquor license? I'm aware that they're generally described as "serving" licenses, but is there any legal stipulation that prevents John Doe from walking in with a bottle of vodka and taking a few swigs?
Shawn on 01/27/2003:
I went to a restaurant a few months ago that didn't have a liquor licence, but you could bring your own, or they would call the local liquor store and have them deliver whatever you wanted, so long as you directly paid the delivery guy and no money passed through the hands of the restaurant employees.
Garrett on 01/27/2003:
Yes, most places that lack a liquor license still allow you to bring your own. BYOB... most of this area of New Jersey is that way, actually.
Steve on 01/28/2003:
Well this isn't segregation. I was saying my solution was. This is outlawing in its own small way. I agree, it's painful and I'll add outrageous.
"this anti-smoking movement is not a world-wide thing"
Uh... It is a worldwide thing.
It doesn't come down to a "we're better than you" issue. You might perceive it as such, but it comes down to a bigger, scarier issue. It's a total control issue. Fuck free will and free will of choice. Bloomberg's "saving everyone" is a nice idea (to opponents of smoking), but it is just political banter that covers up the real problem.
There are 2 sides to the issue, both believing that there is no room for the other. Non-smokers want to ban smoking. Smokers want to keep it as it is, oblivious to the fact that there is a problem. So where do we go? I think there is enough room for both sides to get what they want, just in separate places. I think in our capitalist country both non-smoking and all-smoking establishments can flourish.
Garrett on 01/28/2003:
Those world-wide statistics sent me into a deep-deep-deep-depressive state. I want to hang myself now.
Steve on 01/28/2003:
Did I just say:
Fuck free will and free will of choice.
Woops.
Steve on 01/28/2003:
Yeah, what's going on in the world leads me back to my fears on the legal status of it. Are we on our way out? Will our kids compare us to the potheads and crack addicts of our generation?
If so, and you agree with me, what is wrong with the drug laws of today? It's not about "gateway drugs" or "overdoses" or "against society".. its about control. Society doesn't want us, so we just have no place to go.
Steve on 01/28/2003:
I am kind of pissed at stuff people said like Michael. So I want to comment towards that shit.
Whether we smell, taste, or even look like we smoke is none of your damn business, you fucking Nazi. People like that forget, as Shawn said, that we live in a free country.
I'm sorry if you had to kiss a girl that tasted like smoke. I will make sure to cry for you. Why are you kissing girls who smoke when you don't like it? There is not a law that could be passed to protect you from your own stupidity.
Personally I think that people after they exercise smell like BO. So let's ban exercising. At the same time let's ban free choice. Hell, if we go that far let's ban free thinking. We'll stick all those "free thinkers" into concentration camps.
Sound better?
As to the issue (oh, there was one?) I feel that it is the right of everyone to be able to go to a r&b and enjoy their meal however they like it. There should be smoking places and non-smoking places, but not all one or the other.
My dad has serious asthma and can have an attack from just one drag blown directly into his face. Many times in the past when I'm home and we go out to eat our enjoyment of the meal is seriously compromised due to smoking. He sits there, and since he is not a complainer he won't say much, but I can see it in his eyes that he is having problems. I'm a smoker but I can see the serious flaw of "sections" because they don't work. The smoke does drift. So does this mean my dad should never have the right to go out to eat? Luckily a few places have turned non-smoking back home and we can go there without having to worry about my dad. But, at the same time there are still places I could go with friends who smoke and enjoy smoking. That is how it should be.
Garrett on 01/28/2003:
At first I felt your comments were 100% pro smoking, and by the end of your post, your comments almost felt 80% anti-smoking. Don't know exactly what you were going for there.
I don't think there should be two different places (some all smoking some all non-smoking). That's ridiculous. What is this, segregation? Are we going to have smoking bathrooms and non-smoking bathrooms? Are we going to have to ride different buses and go to different schools too? Absolutely crazy.
The necessity is for building contractors and designers to just put a little more thought into their layouts, and for them to invest in better ventilation systems.
I just think of 15 years ago, when the whole world smoked and you could smoke on planes and in bars in LA and in theaters. If you had complained about it back then, you might have just been beated to death by smokers...
Steve on 01/28/2003:
I knew someone would take it as that. Are you with or against us? Why do I have to be so clear cut as to choose sides? I'm 50-50 because I think both sides are crazy in their ideology. To even have sides is wrong.
I'm 100% against this law, if that is what you want to hear. I think it's a law to control. I'm sacred it is a first law that will lead to more laws that eventually lead to the loss of legal status to smoke. You might think I'm going a little too far, but look at other drugs like cannabis, cocaine, heroin, and amphetamines. You can't even use those in your house. You might say those are the "bad" drugs that kill people, but cigarettes kill more people a year that all those drugs. I do not want to make this into an anti-drug law issue, I just wanted to point to my fears.
Someone I talked to hinted to the same idea of segregation in my philosophy. Your damn right its segregation, but don't be fooled into thinking that "sections" are not already a type of segregation. Also don't try to compare it to the segregation of people based on skin color. You have jumped logic into believing that segregation is a bad word.
The segregation of old was based on a choice that nobody made; skin color. You could not change that, you did not have a choice. It was based on what you were and not your choices. That is what made it wrong.
Segregation is all around us. If you're on an airplane you can choose to be segregated from the coach class people by paying a little more money. That's a choice. If you live in a state with HOV lanes you get your own lane, if you choose to carpool. If you commit a crime you are segregated from the rest of the free world and put in prison. Once again, that is your choice.
Segregation is not something to fear; in this case it separates people to the benefit of both sides. You could even have segregated buses if enough people wanted to smoke on the bus ride to work.
You are right about pointing out to building design and ventilation. But you were also the one to point out no business owner is going to invest $200,000+ to do so. Also, in New York City most places are not built anymore, they are just re-inhabited.
Yes, you can look back all you want to old days where you could smoke everywhere, blah blah blah. You could also look back to the time when Coca-Cola had real cocaine in it. Things change and in the past 30 years people have had a complete reversal of logic when it comes to smoking. That, partly, is due to scientific research telling us it kills us. When my grandma started smoking everyone thought it was good for you. Now she is in the final stages of emphysema and the doctors say she will be lucky to live one more year.
Garrett on 01/28/2003:
First of all, I wasn't asking which side you were on. I could care less, I was just curious what your real point was because of the back-and-forth.
Second, segregation is almost never good when you're the one on the painful end. In this case, we (the smokers) now are. It's not a good thing. It's not a choice.
Third, this anti-smoking movement is not a world-wide thing. This is purely an American thing. Everyone else knows smoking kills too, they just don't force stupid anti-smoking rules upon their citizens.
I think it comes more from the asshole "We're better than you" movement in non-smokers. The elitist attitude gets really old. I remember when Bloomberg said this ban will save countless lives and finally allow all the bar & restaurant workers to work without smoke. Meanwhile, bar & restaurant owners on the news being interviewed were saying that their employees smoked 10 times more than the customers. Who is this "saving?"
Garrett on 01/28/2003:
Wait, now we're just like crack-addicts? I mean, I remember in school when we were young how we were taught that cigarettes and alcohol were "drugs" just like heroin... but let's get serious here... cigarettes are not a gateway to anything. I'm not anxious to smoke crack. I won't ever be.
Shawn on 01/28/2003:
I think something that steve was getting at, and I agree, is that this debate does not need the terms "nazi" or "you nasty nicotine fucks" used on either side. There's a lot of hate coursing through this debate, on both sides. Whether you smoke, or not, there's something you do that someone else doesn't like. Let's not be hypocrites. However This whole debate is realy irrelevant because our choice is gone. It's fun to come up with creative solutions, but the problem has already been "solved." Point being though, that non-smokers should not be rejoicing and smokers shouldn't just be flipping the middle finger. We should all be pissed and all feel threatened. Anyone who celebrates smokings bans is not seeing the full scope of this issue.
So, given our current situation in NY, what can we do?
Garrett on 01/28/2003:
I say we go and smoke cigarettes near babies.
Steve on 01/28/2003:
If you use simple deduction, cigarettes are a gateway drug. Most cannabis users start by smoking cigarettes. Since our country has decided marijuana is a gateway drug to harder drugs, you can trace it back to nicotine, I guess. I'm sure they will use that in the commercials of the future.
Truth is nothing is a gateway drug. The reason marijuana is mislabeled so is not because of the drug, but of the illegal status. Just as with cigarettes, when you smoke weed it does not tell you to use crack. Maybe some people are just going to go as hard as they can, using it along the way. Maybe some are introduced to harder drugs through their dealer; cocaine is much more profitable and addictive, rendering them better customers.
By saying that thing about our kids, I was referencing common stereotypes about drug users. You might think whatever about a crack addict you want, but isn't it their choice to do whatever they want to themselves? You want to use that reason for you to smoke, but not to anyone else?
What is so wrong about any drug anyway? They kill? They cause social problems? They addict people and put them into tunnel thinking?
So do cigarettes and alcohol. We can live with the lung cancer, drunk driving, & alcoholic abuse statistics, but not the overdose rate of heroin users? People use drugs for their own reasons. Just because their goals and objective in life are not the same as yours, doesn't mean they do not have the right to do it.
I am very pro-drug. It doesn't mean I'm going out tomorrow and shooting up heroin. But I will defend any drug because I like to use my drug of choice; Nicotine.
Side note: Shawn, I was not calling him a "Nazi" because I was mad and coming up with a bad word to call him. I was referencing his train of thought was very close to that of a Nazi. Nazi's believed in creating the perfect race, and when you believe everyone should be just like you, aren't you taking on the same ideology?
I do not hate anyone here. I am not fighting anyone here. I am just discussing.
Garrett on 01/28/2003:
I'd just like to steer this away from where I know it's going... I'm not all that interested in drug discussion or all that. My problem is completely limited to smoking in public places.
Also, Shawn, your point is basically exactly what my point was in the actual post. There's not much that can be done—it's already passed. So now we just have to deal with it. Doesn't mean I'm gonna stop smoking.
Steve on 01/28/2003:
Shawn: you have two statements that mix me up as to where you want this discussion to go:
"This whole debate is realy irrelevant because our choice is gone. It's fun to come up with creative solutions, but the problem has already been "solved.""
So, given our current situation in NY, what can we do?
If the last one is just a sarcastic statement, I disagree with your first.
I think it is important to discuss issues, even if there is no answer. Maybe we can't do anything physical to change it, but if we don't talk about it can't people that support this ban take our silence as a submission to their reasoning? We should be outraged, but just not "Ah well, I'm mad but what are you going do? Lets not talk about it." If every smoker takes on that attitude then smoking will be illegal in a year.
So what if I'm writing on MR or the opinion column of the New York Times? I tried it yesterday and they didn't post my comment.
Garrett: I did not want to lead it to a discussion on other drugs; I was simply pointing to the similarities between cigarettes and other drugs.
As toward your attitude on the subject, it's rather pathetic. What happens when they ban
smoking on the streets? They will do it slowly, little by little until they make it totally
illegal. Dennis Leary made it a joke, but you're not going to steal a space ship. If you take it as a small limit and just deal with it you are not thinking ahead.
Garrett on 01/28/2003:
My attitude isn't rather pathetic. It's realistic. I don't have time right now in my life to walk up and down the street in front of City Hall protesting the smoking ban. I'm busy. Yes, it sucks, but I can't be bothered with the intricate work of sign-making right now.
I'll just have to deal with it come March 1. If that's pathetic, then oh well. You can go make signs.
Steve on 01/28/2003:
I'm not going to make a sign. Nor did I tell you to make one. I just don't like the "I'll just deal" attitude. Of course you'll deal with it in real life, doesn't mean you have to stop thinking about it. You might forget.
michael on 01/30/2003:
weed is a plant that grows in the ground,
if god didn't wanit it—- it wouldn't be around,
so all you assholes who don't smoke weed,
stfu and try it ;)
Steve on 01/31/2003:
And that's the end of this discussion for me.
Good job, Michael.
Paige on 01/31/2003:
Michael...you are a jackass. Not because of your opinions or the fact that you wouldn't know correct spelling if it kicked you in the neck...you just are.
Sorry Steve, I know you wanted to end the discussion...but I thought that needed to be said.
David on 02/03/2003:
I think that having two sections of a restaurant makes sense because (as far as I can tell) when I'm at least two booths away from a table with smokers I don't have a problem with it. And even if the smoke carries - it doesn't smell bad. And when I 'do' smoke there - it doesn't piss anyone else off because the non smokers are on the other side of the room. The 'segregation' is there so that everyone can feel comfortable eating in different groups. Talking about smoke sections in bathrooms is less realistic just because nobody smokes in a bathroom when they can sit comfortably smoking and eating at a table.
It's up to the buisness to decide what is a more profitable venture. (Even if smoke vents costed a lot - they would be worth it in the long run.) If the place is 100% non smoking, then fine - if we really want to eat there we'll have to smoke someplace else. And if we're really that pissed off about it, we can make our signs. And if it becomes unprofitable to piss off so many smokers, maybe these diners can change back. But we don't get to decide - only suggest. They can just kick us out or call the police if we get too suggestive.
I'm unsure... Was this change in the diner 'required by law'? That would suck.
But we have to choose when to deal, and when to react and say something.
By the way, another question I would ask is - are smokers pissed off because they have to have a smoke every hour? (Like, a pack a day?)If you can't eat without having a smoke does the smoking still feel good? Or does it become a stale addiction?
Because if it's a stale addiction with no pleasure involved (i've heard of people that say "I don't really get a buzz anymore") then I'm not sure what the point of smoking that much is. Especially when you would hypothetically be complaining and bitching about keeping the freedom to 'not' enjoy smoking at a diner while eating or lounging.
I'd write more, but I'm tired...
David on 02/03/2003:
Oh yeah, sorry for carrying the conversation further - if it was still going. It was more for my sake than anyone elses. But there's more to talk about.
Rachael on 03/24/2003:
FUCK ALL OF YOU NON-SMOKING ASSHOLES WHO FEEL THEY HAVE TO CONTROL AND STERILIZE THIS ENTIRE COUNTRY. I'm just going to move to Europe where, MYSTERIOUSLY, people are healthier, thinner, live longer, AND SMOKE LIKE FEINDS.
dave on 09/18/2004:
Hi is David and Yeda in Ireland this is an essay that might give you some inspiration about the philosophical meanings of the lord of the rings if you like the story you will love this
+++ONE RING TO KEEP THEM IN THE DARK++++
Smoking a self-destructive habit, which started at some point in time in the Americas it just seems crazy when you think about it philosophically its an act violence on the self body & sole masochism to use the correct phrase it?s the hole in the bucket of your sole. Anybody who has given up will now how hard it is but how better you feel .I can only compare it to breaking free from a prisoner of war camp other smokers are the guards and all around. So to stay on top you keep fit which is a normal thing in its self
Smoking has nothing to offer society I and a lot of people believe it has a very bad effect on the collective consciousness and is a corner stone of the problems of the world effecting the perceptions of people themselves its like a blinker for the hole of humanity back hole for spirit a destroyer or vacuum of loves energy the it keeps us humanity from attaining holiness 100%spiritual awareness
The method I used to stop a pilgrimage the Camino Santiago de Compostela in Spain it took 36 days in total from the Pyrenees to Finisterra where you burn a set of clothes at the end. It?s a very powerful thing to do psychologically & spiritually the death of the old and start of the new. As for smoking I now have a massive immunity against them a buffer zone. But it?s not just the burning of a set of clothes the whole pilgrimage you are becoming more aware spiritually awoken other pilgrims may smoke but the tone is always down around where they are. With giving up smoking you have to break many psychological links like the link with food alcohol its like cutting out badges out of your physique your ego out of your fore conscience. Smoking keeps you from harmonising with your true spiritual self your inner child when your in harmony with yourself your dreams don?t seem so alien and you can decode them more easily. The Camino is a spiritual thing Camino means way and ultimately you find a truer way a better course and leave a lot of chains behind the only thing is its hard coming back into the horrible reality that exists in the world now .I personally believe two major things keep the world this way commercial separation separate commercial identities in competition with each other in other words inharmonious systems and the other is lack of respect for life not enough love and people in the dark with the bad systems being part of the problem not part of the solution a taker rather than a giver a world of givers is better than a world takers a simple philosophy.
I had a thought on the pilgrimage for the possible reason smoking started, something like that just doesn?t just happen for no reason. Smoking causes a spiritual vacuum. So possibly people like Columbus and others felt a draw over the ocean. The shamans of the Americas smoked because they thought it brought them closer to god. Well the Europeans who came over who had something the thing that made Europe great the Gospel. I also have a theory why smoking was allowed to continue even grow it was sort of like a blinker for the hole of humanity so the day when it ceased worldwide would be the day when humanity fully awoke.
Some countries have taken positive steps but the best way to deal with it is to treat it for what it is an illness a spiritual illness banning smoking from the work place & all public places is good but it does not stop it .It has to stop growing so dependent smokers should get a state card and only with this card can you buy cigarettes or you have to get a prescription for them after doing a medical until you attempt or the cut off point for a national or international effort to stop all at once stopping all production and distribution limiting sale to pharmacies. All the financial gain made from selling cigarettes should go back into structured government EU &international plans for getting people well if everybody gave up at the same time It would make so much easer This would have to be planned but there is no reason this can?t happen before Halloween or all saints day by the least? Doctors could prescribe pilgrimages something like the Camino a spiritual journey say on the Wicklow Leister way, which starts in Marley Park.
Health groups could provide a structure along the way accommodation food medical care ect they could study the Camino Santiago de Compostela in Spain that pilgrimage is about 1500 years old its symbol is the escallop shell. It depends on how dynamic the government or governments are. First the extra tax on the smokes would help doubling the price to really get the message home
Groups would see injustice and their power to change popular culture would come more into the light Our media would reflect the change from a bad news to good news Terror Terrorism would be a thing of the past and loose its grip love would prevail people would rise above the past hate fear anger all the things of the past Perfect systems would come into place
Rubbish would be a thing of the past. The EU would become the UE united earth or union of earth all pockets of hell on Earth would be removed the military would become a disaster reaction force the gun would be retired violence would end
People of different nationalities &cultures would not be looked at in a fearful way .the wealth gap would harmonise International Treaties could be passed like the formation of a new international Language a mixture of Chinese English Spanish Indian Islamic and African languages. To help bring the world together everybody in the world could communicate to each other you would then only need two languages your native language &the international one.
The pillars of our new world order would be Liberty & Responsibility. New trading methods could be put in place one where there is no inflation. Say a kilo of rice is one Earth credit or a kilo of wheat all separate commercial identities would merge into national services, food service, health services manufacturing services each nation would have a quota for trade 50% produce for home consumption 50% for export
How we can start is by sending this message to as many people as you can to Governments to translate it into the languages of the various countries this will reach the media public fingers the consciousness collective the world has the perfect medium in the internet just send it to everyone in your mail box photocopy it and give it to people we will all be part of this could reach a million people before next month its up to You