Impact of smoking ban on clubs

[Mr. Tea]

You forgot to quote me when I said this.

Zizek is right about the ideological underpinnings of all of this but I do think lower middle class single mothers who are forced to work their second job every night at a bar shouldn't have to get emphazema so Mr. Tea can have a cigarette indoors rather than walking 10 feet to go outside.

Sod that, they can just sit at home on the dole and blow smoke in their kids' faces.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

but I do think lower middle class single mothers who are forced to work their second job every night at a bar ...

... or to fund their expensive drug addictions

But seriously, isn't this just ridiculously de-politicized scapegoating? Isn't the real issue here that of why they are forced to seek a second job in the first place, a political and economic issue, and not some silly, pious nonsense about tobacco smoke?

 

[Mr. Tea]

The idea that someone who has personally helped to fund every murderous gangster terrorist scumfuck from Bogota to Helmand thinks they can take the moral highground over poor widdle bar tenders being exposed to second-hand smoke is just an absolute fucking joke. And not the funny sort, either.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

The idea that someone who has personally helped to fund every murderous gangster terrorist scumfuck from Bogota to Helmand ...

George Bush?

... thinks they can take the moral highground over poor widdle bar tenders being exposed to second-hand smoke is just an absolute fucking joke. And not the funny sort, either.

This issue applies much more to you, Mr Tea: you defend heroin ('its fun!') - in the drugs thread - but you favour banning smoking ... conflicted par excellence.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I never defended heroin per se, I've never touched it; my point about if funding violence was in response to nomad's attempted heart-string tug over people being exposed to tobacco smoke. I was defending recreational drug use in general against your idiotic charge that it was a 'chemical death sentence', and if you actually took part in these discussions rather than dropping in from time to time to dispense your pearls of wisdom about how George Bush is, like, you know, bad and stuff, you might know that I am against the smoking ban.

But I won't hold my breath (lol).

 

[dominic]

Zizek is right about the ideological underpinnings of all of this but I do think lower middle class single mothers who are forced to work their second job every night at a bar shouldn't have to get emphazema so Mr. Tea can have a cigarette indoors rather than walking 10 feet to go outside.

leaving aside the medical case against second-hand smoking, i.e., is there really that strong a case against it???

there are plenty of jobs that we know involve hazardous work conditions -- coal mining, subway work, etc -- and yet b/c the jobs serve a purpose that we as a society deem NECESSARY or USEFUL, then it's okay if certain workers are exposed to very serious health risks

however, b/c smoking is entirely PLEASURABLE and serves no utilitarian purpose, people get up in arms about the prospect of a lower middle class mother with two kids at home having to run the risk of emphysema

so yeah, this is a very ideological argument if you ask me

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

I never defended heroin per se.

I was defending recreational drug use

'I don't but I do!'

you might know that I am against the smoking ban.

... suppose the biggest advantage is that you don't stink of smoke afterwards (you 'only' smell of sweat, instead), which is great esp. for women with longish hair. My girlfriend thinks the ban's the best thing ever for this reason.

Clueless, schizophrenic fucking clown per se.

 

[tom pr]

Clueless, schizophrenic fucking clown per se.

Admitting something has an advantage doesn't mean you support it.

 

[dominic]

personally i think the smoking ban has gone hand-in-hand with the disney-ification of night life

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

leaving aside the medical case against second-hand smoking, i.e., is there really that strong a case against it???

there are plenty of jobs that we know involve hazardous work conditions -- coal mining, subway work, etc -- and yet b/c the jobs serve a purpose that we as a society deem NECESSARY or USEFUL, then it's okay if certain workers are exposed to very serious health risks

however, b/c smoking is entirely PLEASURABLE and serves no utilitarian purpose, people get up in arms about the prospect of a lower middle class mother with two kids at home having to run the risk of emphysema

so yeah, this is a very ideological argument if you ask me

"You can enjoy yourself, just so long as you don't actually enjoy yourself."

[Not to mention that she will likely lose her job when the pub is abandoned by half of its regular patrons. But at least she'll be 'safe'!]

 

[dominic]

smoking is a very complicated kind of enjoyment -- it's "bad" for you

smoking has made people uncomfortable since the time of its introduction to the west -- it has alway appeared monstrous and perverse, and it has always irritated the eyes of others

and so the campaign against smoking is an attempt to eradicate this monstrosity, this perverse and corrupting habit

today the campaign is conducted in the language of "health" instead of "naive virtue" --

but whatever, do we really want to live in a society where "health" is the highest good? i would much prefer a society that values ambiguity, sophistication, a pinch of dirt and an ounce of poison

 

[nomadologist]

... or to fund their expensive drug addictions

But seriously, isn't this just ridiculously de-politicized scapegoating? Isn't the real issue here that of why they are forced to seek a second job in the first place, a political and economic issue, and not some silly, pious nonsense about tobacco smoke?

Well, sure, the fact that single mothers need to work two jobs at all is a bigger problem and part of the larger issue. But it doesn't negate the rhetorical weight of the case I provided.

Also, who said single mothers are drug addicts? Who is starting to sound a lot like Fox News now? To imply you must have an expensive drug habit to need a second job is very "rabid conservative"/talk radio of you, HMLT. I'm shocked.

 

[nomadologist]

I never defended heroin per se, I've never touched it; my point about if funding violence was in response to nomad's attempted heart-string tug over people being exposed to tobacco smoke. I was defending recreational drug use in general against your idiotic charge that it was a 'chemical death sentence', and if you actually took part in these discussions rather than dropping in from time to time to dispense your pearls of wisdom about how George Bush is, like, you know, bad and stuff, you might know that I am against the smoking ban.

But I won't hold my breath (lol).

I wasn't trying to "tug" anyone's "heartstrings", I was bringing up an example of the kind of person the anti-tobacco lobby cites as those whose interests they are trying to represent with their anti-smoking litigation.

Heartstrings?

 

[nomadologist]

leaving aside the medical case against second-hand smoking, i.e., is there really that strong a case against it???

there are plenty of jobs that we know involve hazardous work conditions -- coal mining, subway work, etc -- and yet b/c the jobs serve a purpose that we as a society deem NECESSARY or USEFUL, then it's okay if certain workers are exposed to very serious health risks

however, b/c smoking is entirely PLEASURABLE and serves no utilitarian purpose, people get up in arms about the prospect of a lower middle class mother with two kids at home having to run the risk of emphysema

so yeah, this is a very ideological argument if you ask me

The medical case is a pretty strong one, especially medically We spend shitloads of money treating smoking-related cancers every year. Staggering amounts of money.

Which is what I'm sure this is ACTUALLY all about in the end.

Aesthetically, yeah, I love smoking. It tastes good, it feels good, hey, nicotine is even supposedly good for the schizotypal.

I'm all about pleasurable things that serve no utilitarian purpose, you don't have to convert me!

HMLT's hypocrisy here is just funny to me--some drugs are ok (the ones that have met with the status quo's approval) and their negative effects on health can be overlooked [tobacco] while others are evil, "chemical death sentences" that only a completely decadent degenerate would do [cocaine, heroin, LSD].

I'll probably take some acid tomorrow just to be sure.

 

[nomadologist]

The idea that someone who has personally helped to fund every murderous gangster terrorist scumfuck from Bogota to Helmand thinks they can take the moral highground over poor widdle bar tenders being exposed to second-hand smoke is just an absolute fucking joke. And not the funny sort, either.

Personally helped to fund every??

Nice.

Who was taking any moral highground? I was reiterating the logic behind the anti-tobacco lobby. I don't care who smokes, I'm just saying that's the reasoning behind it. It makes some amount of sense to me.

If it were up to me, I would be personally handed a fucking eighth of 100% pure heroin at the beginning of every week along with a few thousand dollars, a few grams of coke for when I needed to wake up and be at attention, and eventually put on a morphine drip when I got old enough to be allowed to medically kill myself in the most painless possible manner with no ethical objections from anyone. Couldn't give a fuck who smokes.

 

[nomadologist]

there are plenty of jobs that we know involve hazardous work conditions -- coal mining, subway work, etc -- and yet b/c the jobs serve a purpose that we as a society deem NECESSARY or USEFUL, then it's okay if certain workers are exposed to very serious health risks

This is a good point I suppose, but if this is going to be your argument, you're going to have to back hazard pay for employees who work in smoke-friendly environments, and you're also going to have to allow them to sue for worker's compensation for any and every sneeze that escapes from them for the rest of their lives, since they'll have excellent legal cases against their employers unless they're getting really high hazard pay and sign contracts that state they understand fully the risks involved. These would still be easy enough to overturn in the case of catastrophic illness later on, as any contract lawyer would be glad to tell you.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

HMLT's hypocrisy here is just funny to me--some drugs are ok (the ones that have met with the status quo's approval) and their negative effects on health can be overlooked [tobacco] while others are evil, "chemical death sentences" that only a completely decadent degenerate would do [cocaine, heroin, LSD].

That is a gross misrepresentation of everything I have actually said. I never said any such thing about any drug being 'ok'. Where the fuck did you read any of this?

Look, nomad, this is a serious fucking issue, so stop trying to score cheap, dumb 'points' my resorting to such disingenuous misrepresentations; leave that to the Vimothy's and Tea's.

I was - completely accurately - pointing out the sheer inconsistency evident on this forum by those posters demanding that hard drugs be legalized while simultaneously defending the banning of soft drugs. Such hypocrisy is informed by sheer narcissistic egoism, not by any consistent or informed social policy. And it is totally self-defeating: do you imagine it will now be easier to have hard drugs decriminalized/legalized? [this is somewhat directly analogous to those on poor, non-unionized pay demanding the abolition of, expressing hostility towards, all trade unions because unionized workers secure higher pay and better work conditions - something that is happening everywhere in the West]

All drugs - even caffeine - have negative health effects, every dog in the street knows that, yet you seek to insinuate that I don't know this. Well fuck you, Nomad. Face up to your hypocrisy, and stop maliciously falsifying what I say here.

It is you who is defending the status quo here: the purely self-centred hedonistic threadmill.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

Also, who said single mothers are drug addicts? Who is starting to sound a lot like Fox News now? To imply you must have an expensive drug habit to need a second job is very "rabid conservative"/talk radio of you, HMLT. I'm shocked.

What is this?

You know you've lost the argument and been exposed as a total hypocrit on the subject of drugs, so - like the tea's of this world - you resort to such offensive abuse.

FUCK OFF, nomad.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

This is a good point I suppose, but if this is going to be your argument, you're going to have to back hazard pay for employees who work in smoke-friendly environments, and you're also going to have to allow them to sue for worker's compensation for any and every sneeze that escapes from them for the rest of their lives, since they'll have excellent legal cases against their employers unless they're getting really high hazard pay and sign contracts that state they understand fully the risks involved. These would still be easy enough to overturn in the case of catastrophic illness later on, as any contract lawyer would be glad to tell you.

So now you're a fucking lawyer?

Maybe we should sue you, then, for your demented ravings about drugs hereabouts? ... 'Emotional and psychological distress.'

You've completely lost it, Nomad.

 

[nomadologist]

Umm. I never defended drugs--if you'll go back to the original discussion Zhao and I had, it was HE who favored the legalization of drugs (in particular heroin). I said that I thought some drugs might be ok to legalize (in my mind, marijuana) but that the ban on hard drugs and especially heroin should be maintained and strictly enforced.

If you're not saying that it's ok to smoke, then what are you saying? This is what it sounded like you were saying.