sandman@midlife
Well-known member
Peace
- Thread starter screaminhugger
- Start date
screaminhugger
Well-known member
I don't just whine about the little piss ant wanna be "gangsta's" who do that ...I actually chased one down one night because he shook my windows at 2 a.m. and threatened to shove his sub woofer up his A@#. He doesn't come around anymore.How about when some jerk drives by my place with all the windows down on his car and 7000 watts of garbage coming out, broadcasting over a square mile? Why am I forced to listen to that? I should have the right to peace and quiet, right? That's actually noise pollution and damaging to my hearing. It sure is funny that I don't hear anyone whining about that. Personally, that gets me way more annoyed than smelling someone after they've smoked. Lets ban stereos--earphones for everyone!
How about allowing people to eat beans? Shouldn't that be banned? Why must I be forced to smell the after effects? I should have the right to breath virgin air, right? If you are going to eat beans, the governement should step in and force you to stay outside until your stomach clears itself out. That crap is lethal!!!
You know... if we all hadn't learned to be the "me generation" when we were wee little lads, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The unselfish thing to do would be to have both smoking and non-smoking bars. In fact, we are free to have them right now. This solution would accomodate everyone. There would be no demonization or alienation or trampling of rights. Why don't we do that? I'll tell you why, because the non-smoking clubs don't seem to stay in business, when there is a choice. Dosen't that tell you something? It has been tried numerous times in my neck of the woods. Every time, it has failed and the places were out of business in no time. So... since free enterprise doesn't seem to work, let's legislate it, right? Force it.
As for smokers, my best friend, most of my family, and 1/2 of my band smoke like chimneys. I still visit my friend, play in bars and love my family. I didn't intend for my post to be a lynching of smokers, but apparently I hit a nerve. Like I said earlier, we all need to be more considerate with our freedoms, I think if we can do that we will all be alot happier. I like what one person here said about not smoking around a mom pushing a stroller, that is what I'm talking about. All I ask is don't blow it in my face, and for Goodness sake, USE A FREEKIN' ASHTRAY!!!, Other than that, enjoy your "disgusting habit", (just kiddin') Thanks for so many reply's. It made me feel important to have so many of you respond to my post.
james
screaminhugger
Well-known member
ban antagonist's!!! Notice I wasn't afraid to have someone disagree with me?
james
roburado
Well-known member
Okay, fine. I have a personal issue with smoking. All those other issues? Not so much. I don't have as big an issue with the noisy car. I don't have as big an issue with mandating what people can and can't eat. Helmet laws? Not so much. Seat belt laws? Not so much. Smoking, however, is a different issue. [Cue the "slippery slope" argument from people with opposing viewpoint.]
Here's why. I'm a physician. Granted, I'm a resident in Anesthesiology. So, I'm not quite fully cooked as a physician. I'm still training. I have yet to take specialty boards. I have been a smoker up to a pack a day, but those days are long gone. I won't get into the whys and wherefores. This is about my beef with smoking in particular. While I'm not quite "fully cooked" with regards to my training, I'm pretty close. Close enough to have seen enough. What that means is that when I see a smoker, I see the trajectory from young people lighting up thinking things are cool, then spending a lifetime doing it (whether or not they ever try to quit), then needing one of a number of things. Let's enumerate a number of scenarios.
1. The need for surgery to remove lung cancer.
2. The need for coronary bypass surgery.
3. The need for someone to remove their larynx, tongue, jaw, parts of their neck.
4. The need to breathe through a hole in their neck.
5. The need to carry around an oxygen tank for the rest of their lives outside of the house.
6. The need to be tethered to an oxygen tank for the rest of their lives inside the house.
7. The need for chemotherapy, radiation therapy.
8. The need to remove metatastic foci of tumor.
9. The need to remove cancerous tumors in any other part of the body due to the carcinogenic effects of smoking.
10. The need for any kind of medical intervention for someone who has only had second-hand smoke exposure. From ER visits for asthma all the way up to the second-hand "smoker" needing any of the above 9.
Really, the list goes on and on. Smoking, as far as I'm concerned, being an anesthesia provider, complicates airway management. When smokers come in for surgery, here's what I have to guard against. They're going to come in. Maybe, they tried to quit smoking a few days before the surgery. Okay, that's fine, but it's not. Less carbon monoxide in their blood, allowing more oxygen to be carried. The trade-off is that they're trachea and bronchial tree are going to be more hyperreactive to any kind of stimuli. What's the problem with that? Well, for general anesthesia, I have to stimulate the airway, because that's just the way of the world. Usually, it's going to involve my placing some kind of artificial airway in their windpipe to protect their access to oxygen and to extract carbon dioxide. It's just the way I'm going to need to protect them for surgery.
What's the problem with all of that? Well, due to the hyperreactive airways, they can have spasm of their bronchial tree which may prevent me from delivering the oxygen they're going to need. Best case scenario: surgery and anesthesia go without a hitch. Worst case scenario? They don't get enough air, because I can't break the spasm in time. Boom. Dead patient. Slightly less catastrophic: vegetable patient.
If the surgery goes fine without event, emergence from anesthesia is the next problem. Their hyperreactive airways may freak out when I take my airway out of their airways. They cough. They strain. They rip open the surgical wound. They rip open a blood vessel somewhere inside. Maybe, they make a heck of a lot of phlegm that blocks the airway. Best case scenario: surgery and anesthesia go without a hitch. Worst case scenario? Boom. Dead patient. Slightly less catastrophic: vegetable patient.
If their respiratory function was bad enough to begin with, well, who knows if I could remove the artificial airway? They may be on a ventilator for the rest of their lives. Probable scenario: pneumonia follows, then death. Best case...rather...miracle scenario: they come of the ventilator. Likely scenario: They stay on the vent. Another likely scenario: airways get plugged with phlegm, patient can't get oxygen, boom. Dead patient. Slightly less catastrophic: vegetable patient.
So, there you have it: what I see of the trajectory of smoking in a nutshell. I see this on a mostly daily basis. Yes, people argue that it's a matter of choice. Fine. The problem is that there is a societal cost, and it's huge. Anytime I have to deal with a smoking-related complication in the operating room, it adds up to big money, to the tune of $1000/minute. Acutally, I have to admit that I don't know if that figure is accurate. It's something I've heard somewhere, but that's what I've heard for the cost of operating room time. The point is, however, every minute that I'm in that operating room fighting the smoker's smoking-related complication is an extra cost to society. It may take 10 minutes, 30 minutes, who knows how long to fight it. That's above and beyond the cost of the surgery. Who's going to pay for the surgery, the medical management, the operating room, etc.? Society will. How? Through their insurance premiums, which may at some point increase, through reduction of benefits, which could happen so that the insurance company remains able to fund benefits. It could also come in the form of medicare dollars, which could go to fund other things. We in the healthcare field spend a lot of time dealing with smoking-related illness, which could be time, energy, resources, and talent that could be spent in other ways. Really, it's about a huge opportunity cost for society. That's my largest beef with smoking.
I'm sure that someone may rebut my rant by saying that smokers will smoke anyway. Then, they might proceed to state that this doesn't really have any relevance to a smoking ban. Okay, fine. That may be true. I don't have epidemiologic data, actuarial data, financial data, etc. either to support it or to refute it. Smoking does have a large cost to society. It is likely that second-hand smoke does as well. What I don't agree with is framing the debate around this issue being one of personal freedom and saying that non-smokers don't have a say. Smoking costs us all. It's not just the resources that go to smoking-related illness and secondhand smoke-related illness. It's the cost of fighting those things at the expense of fighting other problems. As I said, there's a huge societal opportunity cost.
I'm not posting to tell you we should outlaw smoking. I'm resigned to the fact that people will smoke, and people will have to deal with the effects of second-hand smoke. It's just that I have a huge issue with the idea that non-smokers' input is invalid, because the smoker has a right to smoke.
Okay, I guess we may have strayed too far into politics, but then again when money and health are involved it's inherently a political discussion. I'll shut up now.
Here's why. I'm a physician. Granted, I'm a resident in Anesthesiology. So, I'm not quite fully cooked as a physician. I'm still training. I have yet to take specialty boards. I have been a smoker up to a pack a day, but those days are long gone. I won't get into the whys and wherefores. This is about my beef with smoking in particular. While I'm not quite "fully cooked" with regards to my training, I'm pretty close. Close enough to have seen enough. What that means is that when I see a smoker, I see the trajectory from young people lighting up thinking things are cool, then spending a lifetime doing it (whether or not they ever try to quit), then needing one of a number of things. Let's enumerate a number of scenarios.
1. The need for surgery to remove lung cancer.
2. The need for coronary bypass surgery.
3. The need for someone to remove their larynx, tongue, jaw, parts of their neck.
4. The need to breathe through a hole in their neck.
5. The need to carry around an oxygen tank for the rest of their lives outside of the house.
6. The need to be tethered to an oxygen tank for the rest of their lives inside the house.
7. The need for chemotherapy, radiation therapy.
8. The need to remove metatastic foci of tumor.
9. The need to remove cancerous tumors in any other part of the body due to the carcinogenic effects of smoking.
10. The need for any kind of medical intervention for someone who has only had second-hand smoke exposure. From ER visits for asthma all the way up to the second-hand "smoker" needing any of the above 9.
Really, the list goes on and on. Smoking, as far as I'm concerned, being an anesthesia provider, complicates airway management. When smokers come in for surgery, here's what I have to guard against. They're going to come in. Maybe, they tried to quit smoking a few days before the surgery. Okay, that's fine, but it's not. Less carbon monoxide in their blood, allowing more oxygen to be carried. The trade-off is that they're trachea and bronchial tree are going to be more hyperreactive to any kind of stimuli. What's the problem with that? Well, for general anesthesia, I have to stimulate the airway, because that's just the way of the world. Usually, it's going to involve my placing some kind of artificial airway in their windpipe to protect their access to oxygen and to extract carbon dioxide. It's just the way I'm going to need to protect them for surgery.
What's the problem with all of that? Well, due to the hyperreactive airways, they can have spasm of their bronchial tree which may prevent me from delivering the oxygen they're going to need. Best case scenario: surgery and anesthesia go without a hitch. Worst case scenario? They don't get enough air, because I can't break the spasm in time. Boom. Dead patient. Slightly less catastrophic: vegetable patient.
If the surgery goes fine without event, emergence from anesthesia is the next problem. Their hyperreactive airways may freak out when I take my airway out of their airways. They cough. They strain. They rip open the surgical wound. They rip open a blood vessel somewhere inside. Maybe, they make a heck of a lot of phlegm that blocks the airway. Best case scenario: surgery and anesthesia go without a hitch. Worst case scenario? Boom. Dead patient. Slightly less catastrophic: vegetable patient.
If their respiratory function was bad enough to begin with, well, who knows if I could remove the artificial airway? They may be on a ventilator for the rest of their lives. Probable scenario: pneumonia follows, then death. Best case...rather...miracle scenario: they come of the ventilator. Likely scenario: They stay on the vent. Another likely scenario: airways get plugged with phlegm, patient can't get oxygen, boom. Dead patient. Slightly less catastrophic: vegetable patient.
So, there you have it: what I see of the trajectory of smoking in a nutshell. I see this on a mostly daily basis. Yes, people argue that it's a matter of choice. Fine. The problem is that there is a societal cost, and it's huge. Anytime I have to deal with a smoking-related complication in the operating room, it adds up to big money, to the tune of $1000/minute. Acutally, I have to admit that I don't know if that figure is accurate. It's something I've heard somewhere, but that's what I've heard for the cost of operating room time. The point is, however, every minute that I'm in that operating room fighting the smoker's smoking-related complication is an extra cost to society. It may take 10 minutes, 30 minutes, who knows how long to fight it. That's above and beyond the cost of the surgery. Who's going to pay for the surgery, the medical management, the operating room, etc.? Society will. How? Through their insurance premiums, which may at some point increase, through reduction of benefits, which could happen so that the insurance company remains able to fund benefits. It could also come in the form of medicare dollars, which could go to fund other things. We in the healthcare field spend a lot of time dealing with smoking-related illness, which could be time, energy, resources, and talent that could be spent in other ways. Really, it's about a huge opportunity cost for society. That's my largest beef with smoking.
I'm sure that someone may rebut my rant by saying that smokers will smoke anyway. Then, they might proceed to state that this doesn't really have any relevance to a smoking ban. Okay, fine. That may be true. I don't have epidemiologic data, actuarial data, financial data, etc. either to support it or to refute it. Smoking does have a large cost to society. It is likely that second-hand smoke does as well. What I don't agree with is framing the debate around this issue being one of personal freedom and saying that non-smokers don't have a say. Smoking costs us all. It's not just the resources that go to smoking-related illness and secondhand smoke-related illness. It's the cost of fighting those things at the expense of fighting other problems. As I said, there's a huge societal opportunity cost.
I'm not posting to tell you we should outlaw smoking. I'm resigned to the fact that people will smoke, and people will have to deal with the effects of second-hand smoke. It's just that I have a huge issue with the idea that non-smokers' input is invalid, because the smoker has a right to smoke.
Okay, I guess we may have strayed too far into politics, but then again when money and health are involved it's inherently a political discussion. I'll shut up now.
MingusBASS
Well-known member
Thank you for your educated opinion. I agree 100%.
Rob, You rock. I was a smoker for about 25 years, and have been clean for about 12 years or so. We have had smoke free bars here(san luis) for a long time. I think we may have been the first county in CA to ban smoking. You smokers have every right to smoke, but I have the right to not have you smoke in my space. The smoking ban here has had NO affect on bidness(yes I know), so I guess what I am saying is, if you want to kill yourself, cool. Go right on ahead, but don't expect me to go down with you, or fight for your "rights"
Merry Christmas
Juan
Merry Christmas
Juan
Colin
Well-known member
I just recently upgraded my pa, the older gear was all stained from years in smokey clubs. It's also nice not to have all your clothes smelling as well.
Caca de Kick
Well-known member
I have now gigged through two states that had bans and it affected gigging...the Santa Barbara area in the 90's, and now Seattle area a couple years ago. I saw it affect business big time for a while in each, and in turn slowed gigs during that slow period. In Cali, some places were so slow they went out of business or people lost their jobs, it took about a year before clubs were back to their busy selves. And here in WA the clubs slowed for at least 6 months but still hasn't seemed quite the same.
It's not some light switch when the bans hit, that all of a sudden a different crowd of patrons comes to the clubs. The transition period will hurt your band's income.
I'm not a smoker, but I fall into the idea that establishments that were made for drinking and smoking should be left to do so. If you don't like a club's atmosphere, don't go, no one is forcing you into the club, simple as that.
Drag racing is a hobby for me, and I work on diesels for a living. Many chemical, exhausts and vapors are bad, do I make the gov'ment shut down the industry? No, if I don't like it and know what goes with the territory, I simply wouldn't be in it. Private business is private business, and I don't appreciate the gov'ment telling business owners what to do.
It's not some light switch when the bans hit, that all of a sudden a different crowd of patrons comes to the clubs. The transition period will hurt your band's income.
I'm not a smoker, but I fall into the idea that establishments that were made for drinking and smoking should be left to do so. If you don't like a club's atmosphere, don't go, no one is forcing you into the club, simple as that.
Drag racing is a hobby for me, and I work on diesels for a living. Many chemical, exhausts and vapors are bad, do I make the gov'ment shut down the industry? No, if I don't like it and know what goes with the territory, I simply wouldn't be in it. Private business is private business, and I don't appreciate the gov'ment telling business owners what to do.
Lazybite
Well-known member
Smoking has just recently been banned from pubs here in canberra ... as a someone who smokes when only I drink it is slightly annoying but not the end of the world.
As far as the impact on the music scene goes, I think until less people start smoking (how very nerdy and unrock like) it will have an impact.
An example of this is a gig I played on friday night, for the best part of the night there were large numbers of people outside smoking during various bands. i personally missed the end of the headlining band because I was outside smoking and socialising.. as were a lot of other people including non-smokers.
On a philosophical level (OT), it is an abuse of civil liberties. For me one has to question what politicians will stop at.. will they ban drinking, which can be equally as damaging as smoking or drug use?? It all seems very puritan to me.
As far as the impact on the music scene goes, I think until less people start smoking (how very nerdy and unrock like) it will have an impact.
An example of this is a gig I played on friday night, for the best part of the night there were large numbers of people outside smoking during various bands. i personally missed the end of the headlining band because I was outside smoking and socialising.. as were a lot of other people including non-smokers.
On a philosophical level (OT), it is an abuse of civil liberties. For me one has to question what politicians will stop at.. will they ban drinking, which can be equally as damaging as smoking or drug use?? It all seems very puritan to me.
roburado
Well-known member
Thanks, Jon. Congrats on being smoke-free. I'm about 8 years behind you--4 years clean. Merry Christmas to you too.
Finally... a level-headed approach!
Bill
Well-known member
I won't get into my thoughts about smoking bans, but I will say this. When I'm driving behind somebody who tosses a cigarette butt out of the window, I seriously want to drive the person off the road and somehow cause them a great deal of agony! The thing about this that drives me crazy to no end is not so much the issue of litter, but how absolutely DISRESPECTFUL it is to toss a used cigarette on another person's vehicle. Even if the butt never hits anybody's car, to me, it's as if the smoker is saying, "I'm more high & mighty than you...so I'm going to toss my nasty, flaming garbage on you. Ha ha!"
If anybody here does that, please reconsider next time you're about to toss out a cigarette butt!
If anybody here does that, please reconsider next time you're about to toss out a cigarette butt!
B Donkle
New member
Smoking in or out of bars
I am from Cali and I smoke...Yea I know yuck...need to kick the habit but its hard...either way, the bars here mostly have smoking sections outside in the back or on the side if there is a side entrance, other wise you just smoke before you go in or wait till you leave. I love to go to shows, and I don't think that it has affected business here at all....I think that if we had smoking in bars it might affect business. I don't like to breath in others smoke and I don't like to breath it around other people. It is rude, so I try to smoke with one either other smokers or where there isn't anyone around to be hurt by the smoke. In the end I wouldn't worry about it hurting busniess you guys will be fine!
I am from Cali and I smoke...Yea I know yuck...need to kick the habit but its hard...either way, the bars here mostly have smoking sections outside in the back or on the side if there is a side entrance, other wise you just smoke before you go in or wait till you leave. I love to go to shows, and I don't think that it has affected business here at all....I think that if we had smoking in bars it might affect business. I don't like to breath in others smoke and I don't like to breath it around other people. It is rude, so I try to smoke with one either other smokers or where there isn't anyone around to be hurt by the smoke. In the end I wouldn't worry about it hurting busniess you guys will be fine!
bovinehost
Administrator
I'm reticent to get involved in this but the way I see it is....I save my money, I build my place, I have this idea about a great bar with live music, I hire my staff and I open my doors.
I pay the mortgage/rent. I make sure we're following the zoning laws. I pay the staff and their insurance, benefits, etc. I book the bands.
This is America. If I want MY establishment to be a smoking establishment, then that is my right. You have the right to not frequent my establishment if smoking bothers you. But you do NOT have the right to tell me how to run my business.
Conversely, if I want it to be non-smoking, that is also my right. If you want to smoke, you have the right to stay away, spend your money somewhere else, but you don't have the right to tell me that smoking MUST be allowed.
Keep the government away from my books, my movies, my bars.
The government that governs best governs least.
I pay the mortgage/rent. I make sure we're following the zoning laws. I pay the staff and their insurance, benefits, etc. I book the bands.
This is America. If I want MY establishment to be a smoking establishment, then that is my right. You have the right to not frequent my establishment if smoking bothers you. But you do NOT have the right to tell me how to run my business.
Conversely, if I want it to be non-smoking, that is also my right. If you want to smoke, you have the right to stay away, spend your money somewhere else, but you don't have the right to tell me that smoking MUST be allowed.
Keep the government away from my books, my movies, my bars.
The government that governs best governs least.
Psycho Ward
Well-known member
Amen! And I'll smoke to that Jack!
roburado
Well-known member
I'm generally in agreement with you. It's just that on this particular issue, I can't agree one hundred percent, and I can't "feel good" about just having the argument be about personal rights and responsibility.
Oh, wait. I said I was going to shut up.
+1 and amen.
Smoking is indefensible and I smoke....well I am quitting today is day 1. Do you really want the government legislating what YOU choose to do as far as this goes? Look at prohibition; failed miserably. No soapbox here, just the facts. What's next?? A lot people have workplace hazards. We can rationalize this every way til' Sunday. It's your right to let or not let people smoke in your establishment.
Narcosynthesis
Well-known member
I don't smoke, and think its a pretty odd habit myself, but if someone wants to smoke, thats fine by me.
We have had a smoking ban here (Scotland) for about a year now and for me it is pretty cool, I am much happier going into town to catch a band when I know I can come home without that smell hanging over me, so I tend to do it much more often than I would otherwise. Yeah, it is my choice whether I went to a bar that accepted smoking or not, so before a lot of the time I stayed home, whereas now I am that bit happier in town and more likely to go see odd shows I wouldn't have otherwise bothered with. the people wanting to smoke just having to pop outside for a fag whenever they feel the need
I can accept people going on about their rights and so on and their choice to smoke or not, but to me, if I wanted to stay away from smoke, I had to stay home and miss out altogether while everyone smoked indoors, now everyone can use the bar, the difference is the smokers putting up with a couple minutes inconvenience to smoke outside. seems a bit fairer to me...
I think one of the big points here were the rights of the barstaff, for many people, working in bars at nights is one of the only ways they can earn money while having university and other stuff on during the day when most normal jobs are on. So they don't really get a choice, and have to put up with smoke and the health issues to earn money, banning smoking indoors gives them the freedom to work happily during the hours they need.
One thing to note, the Musician/TV Presenter Roy Castle died of lung cancer brought on through smoking, despite never smoking in his life, purely through years of working in smokey bars to earn a living doing what he loved...
David
We have had a smoking ban here (Scotland) for about a year now and for me it is pretty cool, I am much happier going into town to catch a band when I know I can come home without that smell hanging over me, so I tend to do it much more often than I would otherwise. Yeah, it is my choice whether I went to a bar that accepted smoking or not, so before a lot of the time I stayed home, whereas now I am that bit happier in town and more likely to go see odd shows I wouldn't have otherwise bothered with. the people wanting to smoke just having to pop outside for a fag whenever they feel the need
I can accept people going on about their rights and so on and their choice to smoke or not, but to me, if I wanted to stay away from smoke, I had to stay home and miss out altogether while everyone smoked indoors, now everyone can use the bar, the difference is the smokers putting up with a couple minutes inconvenience to smoke outside. seems a bit fairer to me...
I think one of the big points here were the rights of the barstaff, for many people, working in bars at nights is one of the only ways they can earn money while having university and other stuff on during the day when most normal jobs are on. So they don't really get a choice, and have to put up with smoke and the health issues to earn money, banning smoking indoors gives them the freedom to work happily during the hours they need.
One thing to note, the Musician/TV Presenter Roy Castle died of lung cancer brought on through smoking, despite never smoking in his life, purely through years of working in smokey bars to earn a living doing what he loved...
David
Thoreau, right?
I strongly agree with you in principle, I just wish that more club owners would choose to ban smoking. As I watch my mom slowly kill herself, while I inhale it myself second hand weekly at gigs, it all seems pretty insane to me that anyone would keep doing this to themselves or others. Then again, smoking is an addiction. Rob, I, too, see plenty of the effects at work including the monetary cost to society due to more complicated health care needed by smokers. It would be ideal if more employers looked after their employees welfare by banning indoor smoking - maybe they should get an insurance break for that?
I just wish more folks would quit! Good Luck to you Bonzo - way to go!
