Happy Furry Puppy Story Time with Norbizness

Harrumph!!

A stand-up comic once said, about us Quebecers... "They smoke like it's a CURE for cancer!" And dammit, we do.

Yeah, welcome to the club. My real hometown and my adopted hometown signed on this this moral engineering neo-prohibitionary bullshit. And Minneapolis passed the bill on my birthday.

But fear not, Mr. Bizness. New York has a couple divey joints left where even the bartenders still light up with impunity.

You know who I blame for this shit? White people.

I'm fucking pissed. I don't smoke but now I have to pick up the habit in retaliation.

I'm moving to Austin, and I'm a nonsmoker. So, leave the bars and smoke outside. I'll be going to smokefree bars and clubs, and enjoying it. I'll wave to you outside on the sidewalk enjoying your cancer stick - the one that you can't force me to breathe anymore.

By the way, when you get more vote - Democracy works. Your side lost, dude. Take the cigarette outside and get the fuck over it.

I just moved from Austin to New Orleans, the Big Greasy. I can smoke, or not, in any bar (I'm a non smoker). I can go out to eat after 9:30 at night and have infinitely more choices than Star Seeds and Trudy's. I don't spend 6 minutes a day at the light on 2222 for the Mo-Pac interchange. There's lots of music other than jazz, and there are people above the age of 22 in the clubs. Oh, and they do this other charming thing here. When people hear music they really like in a certain way, they stand up and move around in rhythmic patterns. It's called dancing.

A dark day. I have affixed an empty pack of Marlboros to my black armband.

As you can see, we are attracting a fun new brand of person to Austin.

"The same fuckers who take solo drives in Ford Expeditions on Ozone Action Days, and who allow toxic electricity-generating plants in East Austin to remain open for a decade so that their bill doesn't go up a dollar or two. But they sure can't abide stinky clothes or watery eyes."

I voted for the ban, but I'm not one of these fuckers. Sorry. You can't paint us anti-smoking people all with the same brush. And yes, I'm going to frequent beerland now. So maybe I'll meet you--unless you're going to refuse to go now because all the healthy air might give you cancer second-hand.

Well, the owner of Beerland was one of the founding members of the PAC who was against the smoking ban:

Stockton said he tried holding non-smoking nights at his venue when he first opened it four years ago, but turnout was so bad that he eventually stopped having them.

"The reason why Beerland is not currently smoke-free [is] because the nonsmokers have repeatedly failed to prove that they can support a smoke-free Beerland, he said."

Dammit, without the thick layer of smoke, how else do we keep the petulant assholes out of the bars?

"...draining the individuality..."

So now the ability to smoke is evidence of your individuality? What are you, in 7th grade?

California's had this ban in effect for a while now, and the nightlife, local music scene, etc., is as strong as ever.

I wasn't aware that California had one uniform music scene. And the three-word excerpt applies to the individual choice of bars and venues to retain this, not me deciding to smoke or not. You could always click on the links provided to see what they think of it.

I just hope all the smoking ban proponents were right and there will be no effects on my favorite little clubs (including beerland, 710, the entire red river scene, etc.).

what got me was all the complaints i heard from non-smokers were about how they NEVER got to go see live music coz of all the smoking. hello? the cactus has been non-smoking forever, the parish for the last two years, la zona rosa for (i think) the past two years, the austin music hall, the frank erwin center, the TX union ballroom, all non-smoking. and that's just what i can think of off the top of my head before near enough coffee.

so if these people never went to see music, it's not because there wasn't anywhere smoke-free to go. it's because they DON'T GO SEE LIVE MUSIC, period. they were lying, in other words. like they're gonna go out and see music now. dammit.

like i said, i hope those smoking ban proponents are right, and the clubs are suddenly filled with non-smokers revelling in the fact that "suddenly" they can go see live music in austin.

You'll be pleasantly surprised when you discover that bars and nightlife don't suffer one jot from smoking bans. They really, truly don't--although this seems to have to be proven anew with every new smoking ban.

well, when places like beerland end up having to end their nonsmoking shows in order to actually make enough money to exist, it doesn't give me hope.

but now i guess i have to hope. so here's to hoping y'all are right!

You'll be pleasantly surprised when you discover that bars and nightlife don't suffer one jot from smoking bans.

Yeah, but the smokers do. How is that any different from any other way we legislate morality? You could ban women from wearing bare midriff tank tops to movie theaters because it offends old people, and more old people might go to the movies to make up the difference. BUT IT'S STILL WRONG.

Banning smoking in a public place is one thing, but banning it in private establishments that no one is required to enter crosses a line, and is thoroughly unacceptable.

The problem with the pro-ban argument is that the people making it seem to attach the same value to someone who goes to beerland twice a week as someone who comes once every six months to bitch about how there's no parking anywhere for their suburban.

Having lived in both California and New York as each place instituted their ban, it has little to no effect either way other than creating a massive group of annoyed people clogging up the entrance and providing 'sweet relief' for yuppie assholes who would come see live music much more often if they'd just sweep the homeless off the streets whenever Coldplay comes to town.

Jesus, what a bunch of babies. If you need your precious drug so much, you can (1) put in a dip, (2) walk fifteen feet to the sidewalk, or (3) take some X. You can still get high, and without endangering the waitstaff's health and making everyone else smell like a dog's ass.

It's hilarious to see smokers bitch about SUV drivers. You both only care about yourselves. You infringe on other people's health and safety and cloak your selfishness by pretending there's a larger principle at stake.

Thank goodness that justice has finally been served in the name of all those people who have died due to second hand smoke... oh, wait. A little googling and it seems that "second hand smoke" has never been designated as a primary or even secondary cause of death in the United States.


If you want to protect people I suggest a ban on drinking in resturants and bars. There is, after all, a lot of evidence that second hand alcohol is pretty darn dangerous. And hey, let's ban fast food; it's certainly a major contributor to our nations overall saggalicious poor health. While we're at it, can we get a ban on assholes? There always seems to be a group of assholes at every bar I go to. While they may not be detrimental to my health they certainly offend me, and that's really what smoking bans boil down to anyway.


I'm not disputing the negative health effects of smoking, but whatever happened to perspective? Here in Atlanta the ban has indeed affected bars. In the spring/summer it's not too rough (outside smoking section, natch) but come the cold weather bars have been seeing a major dropoff in their clientele.


From what I understand the Atlanta smoking ban is worded such that the enforcement is upon the individual rather than the establishment. In other words, if you're "caught" smoking in a bar it isn't the bar that gets fined; it's you. This has resulted in a number of Atlanta area bars, after experiencing a drop in patronage ignoring the ban altogether.

Now that I can't smoke, I'm not going to drink in a bar or listen to live music. Because it's not about socializing with friends or supporting bands. It's about me being able to smoke whenever and wherever I want. Why can't you selfish people understand that?

I voted for the ban. For me, it isn't about the health effects of second hand smoke. Its the fact that I have a right not to smoke, and when you smoke in an enclosed space I happen to be in, you are forcing me to breathe your smoke. Your home, your choice. But bars are essentially public accommodations (unless they are members only). I have as much right to be there as anyone else wearing shoes and shirts and behaving themselves. Why should my presence in a public accommodation negate my right not to smoke? No one is telling smokers not to smoke, we're just saying you have to do it where you aren't forcing others to smoke with you.

Not that it will make you feel any better, but...I used to smoke, so I understand how smokers feel in this case.

Could it be that most local music so lame in Austin, only the smokers will put up with it (just for the fellowship?)

"Could it be that most local music so lame in Austin, only the smokers will put up with it (just for the fellowship?)"

Obviously written by someone who has never been within 150 miles of Austin.

Don't confuse Austin with the rest of Texas, kid. The music scene is Houston is prepackaged crap lapped up by meth and x-addled suburban kids...Austin still has more than a shred of cred.

Just for disclosure, I've lived my whole life smack in the middle of Tobacco Road, smoked a pack a day for 18 years, but haven't bought a pack in four months. I've smoked outside almost exclusively for the last decade, regardless of the weather, because I find it unpleasant to smoke inside. Or rather, I find it unpleasant to sit in a smoky room, and that includes clubs. So I sympathize with the non-smokers. It does completely stink and irritate people's eyes and causes serious, real issues for, say, asthmatics.

But bans like this are bullshit. If I own a bar and I smoke, I should be able to open an establishment where people are allowed to carry out a completely legal activity because it's My. Fucking. Bar. If you don't like the completely legal activities that go in my fucking bar, you should go across the street, where they doesn't allow smoking, as is their right in their fucking bar.

If the clean living police were actually interested in saving lives, they would be stopping bars from selling alcohol.

"they doesn't"

I doesn't use preview nearly enough.

As someone with asthma who had to quit going out to listen to jazz because of the smoke in the clubs, let me just say how sad it is to read this whiny shit.

Lisa, I sympathize. I really do. But my objection isn't based on a whine (I don't smoke anymore and didn't smoke indoors when I did), but on objections to the government imposing these kinds of strictures on private establishments. If club owners want to establish smoke-free clubs, I'm all in favor of that and would attend them at the same rate as smoking clubs. The fact that they don't is revealing.

I'm not seeing the whining restricted to one side of this debate.

Banning smoking in a public place is one thing, but banning it in private establishments that no one is required to enter crosses a line, and is thoroughly unacceptable.

The only counter-argument to this that has even a shred of credibility with me is that employees must choose between secondhand smoke and, um, not starving on the streets.

Still, I view these smoking bans as nanny-statism run amok, nothing more. Don't like smoke? Guess you're stuck with REO Speedwagon two-fers on any of your nine local Clear Channel affiliates. Sucks, but that's your choice, I guess.

It's kind of galling that there's a certain crowd out there that refuses to participate in any social activity until it's been shaped and engineered to their exact specifications, with no regards for the preferences of other people.

Oh yeah - I don't smoke. It's disgusting. But that doesn't keep me out of the bars.

"It's kind of galling that there's a certain crowd out there that refuses to participate in any social activity until it's been shaped and engineered to their exact specifications, with no regards for the preferences of other people."

You mean like the ones who won't go someplace if they can't smoke?

I don't go to a lot of clubs, and don't especially care about the ban either way. But the rampant hypocrisy in the pro-smoking crowd is rather overwhelming. Some people tried to change things to make it more comfortable for them. The only difference between them and the smokers is that the smokers were there first, and that is only because of ignorance as to the effects.

If you don't like the ban, fine. If you choose not to frequent a place you can't commit suicide at, that's entirely your choice. But can we PLEASE drop the hypocritical "What a bunch of pansies who have to get their way!" insults as you're bitching like a bunch of pansies who have to get their way?

All of the commenters hanging their hat on an eighth-grade-level version of libertarianism need to realize that with a few dissenters, we're all THRILLED with the results of smoking bans for restaurants and airlines. You, therefore, aren't going to win much support by bleating that the bar owner should be allowed to do whatever they want, and that the absence of non-smoking bars indicates no demand (and no, the Cactus doesn't count - UT made them do it; and LZR doesn't count - the old ban made it impractical for them to continue allowing smoking).

Sometimes the market is more complicated than you think. Non-smoking restaurants were few and far between prior to the ban even though 90-some percent of patrons preferred them. Non-smoking airlines mostly didn't exist prior to the Feds banning it - even though 90-some percent of patrons would have preferred them. Businesses tend to gravitate towards the least-common-denominator regardless of the preferences of their clientele.

And besides, if you really need a nic-fix while a t a bar, something like the "Nicotini" is bound to appear in Austin before long.

M1EK, I don't hold truck with libertarianism, eighth-grade level or otherwise.

we're all THRILLED with the results of smoking bans for restaurants and airlines

And a majority of the folks in the states that banned gay marriage are THRILLED with the results of those referenda as well. Your point?

If you're equating banning smoking in restaurants (something which affects the 90% of people there who didn't intend to inhale smoke) to banning gay marriage, you're doing my work for me. Keep it up.

No, my point is that a majority can be found to support all manner of propositions, some reasonable, some not. If that's the premise you are working from, then it's a stunningly weak one.

If you don't like the ban, fine. If you choose not to frequent a place you can't commit suicide at, that's entirely your choice. But can we PLEASE drop the hypocritical "What a bunch of pansies who have to get their way!" insults as you're bitching like a bunch of pansies who have to get their way?

Last I checked, smokers weren't trying to pass laws requiring bars to allow smoking.

Last I checked, smokers weren't trying to pass laws requiring bars to allow smoking.

Now's their chance!

I am a social smoker and voted against the ban. I don't necessarily think it will drive the music scene into the ground and can understand people who want to go see a smokefree show. I do however think its absurd to make all bars smokefree. I don't know how many of you have spent an evening at the Horseshoe, Deep Eddy, or LaLa's, but the patrons of those places go there to smoke and drink. Those are the places that, unless they disregard the ban, will shut their doors because their clientele will stay home.

yes, dear, california DOES have just one uniform music scene. har har.

i just posted a comment on amanda's post but i thought i'd try to comfort you with a reminder that it's a ban on smoking in bars, not smokers in bars. you will still be adored as much as ever, i'm sure. and like i said before, in SF we do have bars you can smoke in so maybe they'll have them in austin too. all is not lost, my friend!

who'da thunk austin would become as tightassed as san francisco? (no pun intended.) once you get used to it out there though, perhaps you'll come out here for a visit and we can go to all the coolest dives in SF and compare and contrast the merits of each? i can think of five smoking bars offhand so there's hope!! i'll even buy the first round! (and you can buy all the rest. yay!)

xoxo, jared

I live in New York, and I have to tell you, the smoking ban rocks. I can now go out with my friends -- all of my friends, not just the ones who will put up with second hand smoke -- and we can enjoy ourselves. In fact, many of my smoker friends don't seem to mind the ban, except when it's particularly cold.

Cigarette smoke is an invasion of my civil rights, the right to breath clean air. Polluting the atmosphere with toxic smoke carries no such weight. Sorry.

And I smoked for twenty years.

Give the smoking ban a try before you condemn it. Oh, and quit smoking. All you're doing is propping up a disgusting and loathsome industry which has killed more people than any other industry of which I can think. 400,000 per year in this country, alone.

If you do smoke, try American Spirits. They don't have all the toxic chemicals of sheet tobacco and I actually don't mind the smell.

once the pro-ban people convinced everyone that second hand smoke was a meaningful danger, the war was lost. I happen to believe that the "danger" of second hand smoke is nil, but I am the only one who believes this, so what good does it do?

All thats left to pro-smokey-place people is pitiful rear-guard actions that are doomed to failure.

I say this as a pro-smokey-place person.

Yay! The arrogant fucks won! Yay!

You all win, you'll live forever because you don't commit suicide like me! Yay!

Go suck a tailpipe fucksticks. Oh you already do? Well I guess the tiny plume of smoke from my quarter-inch thick cig is much worse than what you breathe on the way to work!

It's truly amazing how some progressives instantly start to sound like William F. Buckley when you talk about impedeing their ability to impose cigarette smoke on everyone else.

You guys have no idea how arrogant you are truly being. I wish you could see yourselves from the other side of the aisle.

You'll be bitterly pleased to note that I had dinner with a couple from NYC tonight who said the smoking ban was the nail in the coffin of a number of their favorite places.

I'm surprised how many people say that they don't believe that second-hand smoke poses a threat to bystanders. It makes me think of the school board members in Kansas who don't believe in evolution, or that character in the movie "Atlantic City" who never wore seat belts because she didn't believe in gravity.

Maybe the studies aren't conclusive about whether second-hand smoke is a significant factor in causing lung cancer deaths, but asthma alone is a pretty common reaction.

I don't know how it's going to work in Austin. If the implementation of the ban causes more hardship to more people than unlimited smoking did, then the community will have to reassess. I'm not going to pretend to decide for the residents of a city I don't live in.

I can only speak for the Northern California community I live in. And we still have bars and live music venues and smokers, and it seems to have worked out with few, if any, dire effects.

Not everyone agreed with the ban, and I'm sure lots of people continue to be annoyed with it, but the non-smoking project wasn't imposed on the community by our nanny-overlords. There were simply enough people - patrons and workers - who preferred smoke-free venues that the issue reached critical mass, and the community instituted a change.

Austin residents have to work this out. Either it'll prove impossible to effect, or some sort of practical compromise will be reached, or businesses will adjust.

"Last I checked, smokers weren't trying to pass laws requiring bars to allow smoking."

Like I said, that's simply because smokers got there first.

As to those who deny the risks of second-hand smoke... I thought that only the religious right ignored science they didn't like. I grew up in a house where both parents smoked. I'm walking, living proof of the impacts. If you want to live in denial about what you're doing to yourself, fine - the only people you hurt are you, and your family, and your kids when you die early (as my mother did, at 46, from lung cancer) and leave your daughters to be walked down the isle by an uncle. That's all up to you.

Living in denial about what you're doing to the people around you is irresponsible and wrong.

Urizon, meet the kettle -- it's black too. The gigantic arrogance non-smokers dish out makes us look positively humble. We are "drug addicts" bent on forcing our "disgusting" habit on poor asthmatics, because ONLY cigarrette smoke harms asthmatics.

Listen, I know that some people are assholes and insist on smoking in close proximity to non-smokers. I'm not one of them. But if I'm in a half-empty bar with a 20-foot ceiling sitting with other smokers and I know the waitstaff are smokers(or don't care), why don't I have the right?

Because I'm hurting myself? I also eat too much salt...do I need your approval for that also? Why not ban cigs and salt?

Where does the nannying stop?

You mean like the ones who won't go someplace if they can't smoke?

Um, yes, that's exactly who I meant. Please read my original comment a bit more closely for the oh-so-not-subtle anti-ban sentiment.

Yes, second hand smoke can be dangerous, however if a non smoker spends enough time in smoky bars to develop cancer or asthma you probably have other problems. Cirrhosis perhaps? I simply don't see why this couldn't have been solved without resorting to a complete ban. The solution they already had in place was fine. They could have even increased the permit fee to discourage smoking further without impeding on business owners' rights.

Good lord, I hope I don't run into half of these jackasses at my favorite spots now.

As for the smokers-fighting-back argument: unfortunately, there is a two-year moratorium on changing the ban - plenty of time for your favorite bar to go out of business.

1) When smoking bans have been applied in other cities (such as NYC), there have always been winners and losers. Small less trendy bars have been hit hard, while trendy night clubs have done well. It is pure Yuppie enthnocentrism to say "everyone like it." Many Yuppies love it, but a lot of other people don't, and to disregard their voices is the height of arrogance.

2) This type of law is awful public policy. One group (whiny non-smokers who want to go to bars/clubs) recieves something for absolutely nothing. A fair solution would allow the market to decide. If non-smokers really hate smoke in bars, they would have to support smoke free bars. Eventually, if enough people did so, other bars would take the hint. However, the non-smokers would have an affirmative obligation in that situation that they show no ability to fulfil.

3) The people who want to inconvenience a large plurality (if not majority) of bar patrons because of the "scent of smoke in their clothes" are truly foul. Please move to Kansas, or wherever...