In the US, it’s about 1 in 4. 1 in 10, for people who finished 4 years of college.
I sympathize with your feeling oppressed by not being allowed to open a restaurant where people can smoke. But on the other hand, I don’t feel strongly that we should allow people to open restaurants where people can snort cocaine; even though that’s less addictive, less harmful, and a lot more fun.
Smokers are a minority of the population, but form a majority of bar patrons. The two habits tend to be positively correlated with eachother. Smoking is a social habit (frequently acquired socially, reinforced socially, and the shared experience of smoke breaks tends to encourage social behaviour); bars, similarly, are for when you want to get drunk with other people.
The concern is a private property issue, but the bar owners will naturally do what the market tells them. The fact is, even with smoking decreasing, the solid core of bar patrons continues to be tobacco users.
The people advocating for these laws, on the other hand, almost never go to bars. The smoke isn’t affecting them (not two thirds of them, anyhow), and it’s basically a political manouever to push people around—demonize smokers as The Other, and you’ll win votes.
If there actually were a meaningful cohort of people desirous of non-smoking bars, then you wouldn’t need a law—you’d already have them.
And honestly man, banning smoking has seriously impacted the bar scene. You just don’t get the same quality of people in them anymore.
Just for clarification, I’m solely talking about bars, not government buildings, airports, or other common areas; someone’s attendance at the bar is optional. If you’re going to ban smoking there, then you can use the same logic to ban smoking in private homes—because it might harm visitors.
For what it’s worth, the argument I’d heard—not that I agree with it, to be clear—was that visitors/patrons weren’t the issue: the law was designed to essentially extend safe-work-environment laws to bars. Thus, it was the employees who were the at-risk party.
I wish that the law had been written in line with other hazardous materials laws. Then there would be (very expensive) smoking bars in which the staff wore full-on hazmat suits at any time that they might be exposed to the hazardous smoke, and so forth.
EDIT: to be clear, I mean this seriously, not as a joke about smoking laws.
In Canada? Here in Vancouver it is illegal to smoke within 6m of doorways, windows or air intakes of any building. It is hard to see how that level of restriction can be attributed to a work safety motivation.
“We are pleased that the City of Vancouver is taking a leadership role in efforts to reduce tobacco use and protect its citizens from the deadly effects of second-hand smoke. We are encouraging other municipalities within our jurisdiction to adopt these same by-laws,” said Domenic Losito, regional director of Environmental Health for VCH.
Surely the only reasonable argument for a smoking ban is that it imposes negative externalities on non-smokers in the same venue? The fact that many non-smokers dislike the smell of tobacco smoke would probably not in itself justify a smoking ban; it is the supposed negative health consequences of second hand smoke that motivates the ban. There is no equivalent ‘passive snorting’ effect for cocaine so there is much less reason to impose a general ban on taking cocaine in restaurants. If cocaine was generally legal I can’t see a good justification for banning it in a bar or restaurant.
Even if secondhand smoke were completely safe, it could be banned for the same reasons as litter, which also tends not to be harmful to humans, just unpleasant. As for cocaine, maybe its general legality would let it be used in downscale places which don’t want to attract families with children; but I expect lingering cultural pressures would keep it out of family places to avoid alienating core clientele, and keep it out of fine dining places for the same reason they forbid you to patronize them barefoot (because it gives off a low-status signal).
I think it is unlikely that general smoking bans would have become common were it not for the supposed negative health effects of smoking. Particular venues may have privately forbidden smoking to avoid exposing their customers to smoke they found unpleasant (as some did before general smoking bans became widespread) but my impression is that the clincher for the argument for a general ban which enabled such bans to overcome resistance from smokers and bar and restaurant owners was the health argument. I don’t think littering is a very good analogy as no property owners were in favour of allowing littering on their property—it is a form of vandalism. In stark contrast, some of the strongest resistance to smoking bans came from bar and restaurant owners who wanted to allow smoking in their establishments because they believed it attracted more business from their customers.
I’m sure if cocaine was illegal many family oriented establishments would have a private ban on its consumption. I’m less convinced about your fine dining theory—cocaine is very popular amongst the kinds of people who often frequent expensive restaurants (finance industry workers, celebrities, the media, etc.).
I have even been to some Fine Dining restaurants in LA where I’ve seen Cocaine being used. They weren’t lining it up on the tables though, and it was done pretty discretely.
From what I have read about the 20s and the Speakeasies. I get the feeling that we would see cocaine use become very prevalent in all manner of upscale places. It would be just one more method of showing off one’s sophistication and wealth or importance.
The smoking bans have me at a loss though. I mostly worked at bars and nightclubs during the period right before and after the passage of the ban in CA. I know that none of the owners of the clubs or bars supported the bans, and one of the owners owned several pretty expensive restaurants down near Union Square. He was scared to death that he would lose business at all of his places if the ban went into effect (and he did lose one restaurant). Yet, I never asked him specifically why he was opposed to the ban, nor if he might support it in a different form (better isolation for smoking clientele, for instance). I know as a non-smoker I was hoping that it would pass, but as someone who worked in places where my pay depended upon tips… and tips only come from customers… It made me worry a bit (and smoking customers tended to tip better, as they were usually drunker than the non-smokers).
Very good point, Phil, yet I think there are some differences between snorting cocaine and smoking.
Once upon a time, you did have patrons who would snort cocaine at formal dinner parties or at clubs. And, these were sometimes affairs where smoking was relegated to another room (actually, there are differences there between the types of smoking. Cigar and Pipe smoking was often relegated to a separate room, but cigarettes were allowed almost anywhere.
Although it does not explicitly discuss what I am saying here, the PBS Frontline series on Drugs did document the social uses of Cocaine, and mentions the many (now nearly impossible to find) movies that glorified Cocaine.
Long before I ever did any sort of Narcotic, I invested a lot of time in learning about these substances (mostly for professional reasons), and was surprised at how hypocritical our treatment of Alcohol and Nicotine is in comparison to Cocaine, Opiates, Amphetamines, and especially Hallucinogens and Cannabis (or its derivatives).
Personally, I think that we should allow clubs to decide for themselves what they will allow. I do understand that this will cut off a great many patrons from some venues, and that presents a problem that I am not certain if legislation is the way to handle—although it does need to be addressed.
But, then I could just be glorifying memories of stories about the days of speakeasies when one could buy anything at the bar, from alcohol to heroin.
Smokers are a majority in Canada?
In the US, it’s about 1 in 4. 1 in 10, for people who finished 4 years of college.
I sympathize with your feeling oppressed by not being allowed to open a restaurant where people can smoke. But on the other hand, I don’t feel strongly that we should allow people to open restaurants where people can snort cocaine; even though that’s less addictive, less harmful, and a lot more fun.
Allow me to clarify:
Smokers are a minority of the population, but form a majority of bar patrons. The two habits tend to be positively correlated with eachother. Smoking is a social habit (frequently acquired socially, reinforced socially, and the shared experience of smoke breaks tends to encourage social behaviour); bars, similarly, are for when you want to get drunk with other people.
The concern is a private property issue, but the bar owners will naturally do what the market tells them. The fact is, even with smoking decreasing, the solid core of bar patrons continues to be tobacco users.
The people advocating for these laws, on the other hand, almost never go to bars. The smoke isn’t affecting them (not two thirds of them, anyhow), and it’s basically a political manouever to push people around—demonize smokers as The Other, and you’ll win votes.
If there actually were a meaningful cohort of people desirous of non-smoking bars, then you wouldn’t need a law—you’d already have them.
And honestly man, banning smoking has seriously impacted the bar scene. You just don’t get the same quality of people in them anymore.
Just for clarification, I’m solely talking about bars, not government buildings, airports, or other common areas; someone’s attendance at the bar is optional. If you’re going to ban smoking there, then you can use the same logic to ban smoking in private homes—because it might harm visitors.
For what it’s worth, the argument I’d heard—not that I agree with it, to be clear—was that visitors/patrons weren’t the issue: the law was designed to essentially extend safe-work-environment laws to bars. Thus, it was the employees who were the at-risk party.
I wish that the law had been written in line with other hazardous materials laws. Then there would be (very expensive) smoking bars in which the staff wore full-on hazmat suits at any time that they might be exposed to the hazardous smoke, and so forth.
EDIT: to be clear, I mean this seriously, not as a joke about smoking laws.
In Canada? Here in Vancouver it is illegal to smoke within 6m of doorways, windows or air intakes of any building. It is hard to see how that level of restriction can be attributed to a work safety motivation.
I’d heard it re: the smoking bans implemented in Minneapolis; I’m not surprised that Canada takes an especially paternalist position on the matter.
Also, more than votes are gained when demonizing smokers—there are also the smokers’ tax dollars.
Brother, you don’t even want to know what we’re paying each day up here in Soviet Canuckistan.
sigh And they call the LOTTERY a stealth tax on the poor...
Surely the only reasonable argument for a smoking ban is that it imposes negative externalities on non-smokers in the same venue? The fact that many non-smokers dislike the smell of tobacco smoke would probably not in itself justify a smoking ban; it is the supposed negative health consequences of second hand smoke that motivates the ban. There is no equivalent ‘passive snorting’ effect for cocaine so there is much less reason to impose a general ban on taking cocaine in restaurants. If cocaine was generally legal I can’t see a good justification for banning it in a bar or restaurant.
Even if secondhand smoke were completely safe, it could be banned for the same reasons as litter, which also tends not to be harmful to humans, just unpleasant. As for cocaine, maybe its general legality would let it be used in downscale places which don’t want to attract families with children; but I expect lingering cultural pressures would keep it out of family places to avoid alienating core clientele, and keep it out of fine dining places for the same reason they forbid you to patronize them barefoot (because it gives off a low-status signal).
I think it is unlikely that general smoking bans would have become common were it not for the supposed negative health effects of smoking. Particular venues may have privately forbidden smoking to avoid exposing their customers to smoke they found unpleasant (as some did before general smoking bans became widespread) but my impression is that the clincher for the argument for a general ban which enabled such bans to overcome resistance from smokers and bar and restaurant owners was the health argument. I don’t think littering is a very good analogy as no property owners were in favour of allowing littering on their property—it is a form of vandalism. In stark contrast, some of the strongest resistance to smoking bans came from bar and restaurant owners who wanted to allow smoking in their establishments because they believed it attracted more business from their customers.
I’m sure if cocaine was illegal many family oriented establishments would have a private ban on its consumption. I’m less convinced about your fine dining theory—cocaine is very popular amongst the kinds of people who often frequent expensive restaurants (finance industry workers, celebrities, the media, etc.).
I have even been to some Fine Dining restaurants in LA where I’ve seen Cocaine being used. They weren’t lining it up on the tables though, and it was done pretty discretely.
From what I have read about the 20s and the Speakeasies. I get the feeling that we would see cocaine use become very prevalent in all manner of upscale places. It would be just one more method of showing off one’s sophistication and wealth or importance.
The smoking bans have me at a loss though. I mostly worked at bars and nightclubs during the period right before and after the passage of the ban in CA. I know that none of the owners of the clubs or bars supported the bans, and one of the owners owned several pretty expensive restaurants down near Union Square. He was scared to death that he would lose business at all of his places if the ban went into effect (and he did lose one restaurant). Yet, I never asked him specifically why he was opposed to the ban, nor if he might support it in a different form (better isolation for smoking clientele, for instance). I know as a non-smoker I was hoping that it would pass, but as someone who worked in places where my pay depended upon tips… and tips only come from customers… It made me worry a bit (and smoking customers tended to tip better, as they were usually drunker than the non-smokers).
Very good point, Phil, yet I think there are some differences between snorting cocaine and smoking.
Once upon a time, you did have patrons who would snort cocaine at formal dinner parties or at clubs. And, these were sometimes affairs where smoking was relegated to another room (actually, there are differences there between the types of smoking. Cigar and Pipe smoking was often relegated to a separate room, but cigarettes were allowed almost anywhere.
Although it does not explicitly discuss what I am saying here, the PBS Frontline series on Drugs did document the social uses of Cocaine, and mentions the many (now nearly impossible to find) movies that glorified Cocaine.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/buyers/socialhistory.html
Long before I ever did any sort of Narcotic, I invested a lot of time in learning about these substances (mostly for professional reasons), and was surprised at how hypocritical our treatment of Alcohol and Nicotine is in comparison to Cocaine, Opiates, Amphetamines, and especially Hallucinogens and Cannabis (or its derivatives).
Personally, I think that we should allow clubs to decide for themselves what they will allow. I do understand that this will cut off a great many patrons from some venues, and that presents a problem that I am not certain if legislation is the way to handle—although it does need to be addressed.
But, then I could just be glorifying memories of stories about the days of speakeasies when one could buy anything at the bar, from alcohol to heroin.