7 Feb
2005
7 Feb
'05
2:09 p.m.
I agree with all of the thread. Smoke smells and tastes nasty (I'm a
smoker). A pub completely foggy with smoke is no fun sometimes but
other times it's what I'm looking for. I disagree with bans on
smoking at a state or federal level. One of the founding principles of
this country is that the _preference_ of the majority can never
outweigh the _rights_ of the individual. Part of that means that an
_individual_ bar owner has every right to ban smoking and it is for
him to decide whether that would be a solid business decision. (I
think there is much room for more establishments like this)
Ryan's right about the risks of 2nd hand smoke (so far) ... here's
another site. http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html and it explains
how this 2nd hand smoke hysteria was misled to the public and
propagated to the masses.
There are obviously some people who are truly allergic to smoke just
as there are people allergic to perfume and people who are allergic to
their own skin. It's sad that some people are predisposed to be
sensitive to various substances and I empathise but it is not a valid
justification to create a law banning perfume because a percentage of
the population might be allergic or even just sensitive to it. Or ban
cats, or ban ragweed, or nuts and seeds, or cigarettes etc, etc.
Want to enjoy your favorite brewpubs in a smoke-free environment? Talk
to the business owner .. petition them .. show them you would spend
more money there if they were smoke free and then stick to that
promise and show his neighbors that a smoke-free bar is busier than
the smoking-allowed one. Maybe they'll listen maybe they wont but
summoning the power of the state or federal government to exercise
your opinion is a mistake. You will realize soon enough that once you
give the government that power you will not be able to get it back.
There .. did that cover the broad range of topics? heh.
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:12:01 -0600, Ryan Sinn <ryan(a)sinn.org> wrote:
As a lifelong non-smoker, but self-employed
entrepreneur. I think that
creating laws to regulate smoking in private businesses is bullying and
a very bad precedent to set.
If you don't like the smoke, start your own business or patronize one
who's voluntarily requiring non-smoking inside. Hell, why don't you
actually try and talk to the business owner? If it isn't bad for
business, maybe they'd go non-smoking on their own.
If you're chirping about the second-hand effects of smoking.. Even the
government still can't prove anything...
This is from an anti-smoking site -- the mentality here is, so it's not
harmful, but that won't stop us:
http://www.no-smoking.org/july98/07-20-98-1.html
This is from an author explaining a bit more into the study:
http://www.fumento.com/smoke.html
So this is all more about personal preference rather than YOUR health
(if you're the non-smoker.)
I don't like smoke in my beer or in my food, so I frequent Barley
John's. Obviously if you're spending your time and money in bars that
allow smoking, then it's not such a problem for you because you have
alternatives.
Change this business behavior through your pocketbook not through
legislation.
Ryan
Kirby Richter wrote:
I totally agree with you Rick! As a lifelong
non-smoker I am probably a little more sensitive to second hand smoke then a former smoker
but one must also realize that smoke is a very popular allergen. There is a large chunk
of the population that is also allergic to cigarrette smoke. I have friends that get so
stuffed up in the presence of smoke that they can't breathe at all through their
nose! Nevermind taste anything...
As for beer and smoke - I find that in a smoky place, I cant smell hardly any aroma on
even a strong IPA! The smoke masks it out and also affects the taste buds so it doesnt
taste as good. I find the same with good food. I find it pointless to order a good meal
in a smoky place as the smoke greatly affects how well I can taste the food and how much I
will enjoy the food.
But that being said, smokers represent a large chunk of the population and need to have
their rights observed too. I'm just voicing a non-smokers opinion.
Unfortunately, many smokers dont realize the affect their smoke has on others. And I
would further venture that as one has a few drinks many likely wouldnt care! So I think
government laws are probably necessary to ensure that all people rights are respected.
Kirby
________________________________
From: mba-bounce(a)thebarn.com on behalf of Rick Oftel
Sent: Sun 2/6/2005 9:01 PM
To: mba(a)thebarn.com; St. Paul Homebrewers Club - Public Mailing List
Subject: To smoke or smell or sniffle.
The Saint Paul club had quite a thread on smoking. I couldn't resist adding
a few comments.
Interesting series of comments about smoking in bars and as a x-smoker, I
just need to comment. This message doesn't have anything to do with
current, future, or possible restrictions - it just has to do with common
sense, decency, and beer.
Smoking is an addicting habit. If you become addicted, it takes about 7
years to actually shake the habit but it lingers on much longer. I don't
mind sharing any location with smokers as long as they don't exhale.
OK, they need to breathe but not in my face, not next to the entrance, not
when I am eating, and please don't blow smoke in my face while I am enjoying
a wonderful pale ale or a Pils. I am not aware of a style that includes
imperial nicotine porter but it might fit into the experimental category.
I still am amazed how strongly I feel if I watch someone in a movie take out
a pack (box preferred) of Marlboro reds and light one up. Still gets me
going. Almost as bad as having to walk through a smoke filled room to get
to the non-smoking area or smelling your clothes after a night out at
Smokedale.
On the flip side, we visited the Rocking Lobster (yes, made the trip across
the river) and had a great time. We watched the smokers on the other side
of the glass, enjoyed our dinner, and were amazed how little smoke filtered
into the non-smoking area. Didn't mind it one bit.
So there you have it. Expensive habit that is very hard to quit and is
worse for the body than beer. The good news is that many smokers require
oxygen later in life. After they are gone, they usually have a great cache
of oxygen equipment that is extremely handy for brewing.
Smokers and non-smokers can co-exist as long as both groups respect the
other groups standards. Shouldn't require government action - just common
sense and a little decency.
Sorry, I know you didn't want me voicing my opinion like this but I just
hate the smell of a great beer mixed with nico-smoke.
Rick