musicians: allergic to cigarette smoke?
Bonnieanne Boroson
there are musicians out there who are allergic or unable to handle
cigarette smoke (in bars, clubs, coffeehouses, etc.). What have you
done about it? Please share experiences, suggestions. Serious responses
only, please. Thanks!
Craig Cockburn
bon...@netcom.com "Bonnieanne Boroson" writes:
I don't like cigarette smoke and being asthmatic doesn't help either.
What I object to is that the pubs with folk music seem to have the most
number of smokers and the worst ventilation!
What I did about it? I complained on UK TV campaigning for smoke free
areas in pubs and got the biggest mailbag that part of the programme's
ever had - every letter was in favour.
Craig
--
Craig Cockburn (pronounced "coburn"), Edinburgh, Scotland
Sgri\obh thugam 'sa Ga\idhlig ma 'se do thoil e.
Anne Raugh
Yup, there are. I had a fight with pneumonia last month because of exposure
to cigarette smoke. This is not my usual reaction, but I'm constantly on
the lookout for it. My typical reaction is a three-day cough and subsequent
hoarseness, and the occasional ear infection.
Basically, I've adopted a plan of avoidance. So far, our few performances have
been in smoke-free environments (a hospital, government buildings, outdoors).
I avoid smoke-filled environments on a regular basis, but especially for the
week prior to a performance, because that's about how long it takes my lungs
and voice to recover from an hour in your average bar.
I just plain cannot perform in a smoke-filled room. Singing is an aerobic
activity which requires taking deep breaths regularly. I love to sing too
much to risk permanent damage to my voice and lungs for one show in such a
place. If there are merely a few smokers in the area, I take medication
during the performance (at intermission) and for a day or two afterwards to
keep my lungs clear and avoid the coughing which rips up my throat. I also
keep in touch with my doctor about the latest allergy prescriptions and take
his advice very seriously.
It's annoying, but not impossible. Actually, I'm more annoyed by having to
remember not to breathe when I walk out of my building because of the
constant threat of walking into the atmosphere generated by all the exiled
smokers clustered 'round the door.
Better not get started on THAT one...
-Anne.
Ken Purchase
Admittedly, I'm in the college scene, so we perform mostly in
lecture/performance halls, and it's easy to avoid performing at bars, but I
just don't go to smoky places. Simple.
(__) Moo Ken Purchase /|
(oo) / the Xtension CHORDS a cappella singers \'o.O'
/------\/ University of Illinois =(___)=
/ | || purc...@uiuc.edu U
* ||---|| w(217) 244-6898 h(217) 328-0416 Ack! Pfft!
~~ ~~
Michael DOC Uyyek
venues. When I find myself in a situation where people are lighting up, usually
I find that a good CO2 fire extinguisher works quite well. Seriously, though,
although there aren't too many ways to avoid the smoke if you have to perform,
I find that if you only inhale through the nose (which is better on the vocal
chords, anyway, or so I hear...) you can filter about 75% of it through your
nose hairs (and it makes for quite a conversation piece later when you blosw
your nose (that was "blow" folks..) and it comes out pitch black..) The rest
can be dealt with simply by the act of singing... if you expel your breath
in the right way, you can blow a good deal of smoke away, clearing a
relatively clean pocket of air for you to breathe from. *shrug* you tend
to look like a goldfish gasping for air if you don't practice at it, but
it's better than hacking a lung up and having your eyes swell shut...
Just my $0.02
-- MIKE!!!
My name is Brian Rost
In article <bonamieC...@netcom.com>, bon...@netcom.com (Bonnieanne Boroson) writes...
One local venue (Old Vienna, Westboro, MA) has instituted *some* non-smoking
shows. These are clearly marked on their advertising. Most non-profit
coffeehouse-type venues here in NE are non-smoking already. It's just the bars
that are the problem.
If this rumored federal legislation for smoke-free workplaces comes through,
soon *all* venues will be non-smoking.
Brian Rost @tecrus.enet.dec.com
****************************************************
* *
* The above does not reflect the opinions of *
* my employer. *
* *
* If music is outlawed, only outlaws will be *
* musicians. *
* *
****************************************************
Anna Peekstok
want to have to breathe it (possible cancer risk, wrecks my singing
voice, dries out my eyes and smells bad) or wash it out of my clothes or
smell it on my instruments for days/weeks after a gig! The problem is,
there are plenty of musicians out there for every potential job, and most
venues will just hire someone else rather than listen to any complaints
about the smoke.
The way I see it, the only options are to 1) play a lot of wedding gigs
(few people smoke or drink, and the hours are great!) while 2) waiting
for society to wise up some more and ban smoking in all workplaces --
including bars and taverns.
By the way, I don't want to take away anyone's right to smoke. The minute
they can find a way to do it without affecting me, I'll stop hoping for
laws against it in public places.
Anna Peekstok
tel...@aol.com
Gary Wickboldt
: (This message may be a duplicate - sorry!) I am wanting to know if
Corky Siegal of Chicago (Siegal-Schwal Blues Band, soloist, other gigs)
has required that his shows be non-smoking for at least 15 years,
probably longer.
Gary Wickboldt
Roger Fulton
It's prominently displayed in my office.
"Smoker's rights." Yeah, right.
--
Roger Fulton
ro...@wrq.com
Bob Franke
Cockburn) writes:
>I don't like cigarette smoke and being asthmatic doesn't help either.
>What I object to is that the pubs with folk music seem to have the most
>number of smokers and the worst ventilation!
>What I did about it? I complained on UK TV campaigning for smoke free
>areas in pubs and got the biggest mailbag that part of the programme's
>ever had - every letter was in favour.
I can't tell you how encouraging that is to me. I, too, am asthmatic, and the
least that cigarette smoke does to me is to wear out my voice by the end of a
show--I'm a much better singer without it. I had a wonderful month-long tour of
England and Jersey a year ago last October, but the toughest part of it was the
smoke. I hope to get back to Britain next November & December--let me know how
the campaign is going.
Bob Franke
bobf...@aol.com
Elizabeth Schwartz
request. Of course, Cambridge is not a very smoke-tolerant place to
begin with...
--
System Administrator Internet: bet...@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston Phone : 617-287-6448
100 Morrissey Blvd Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393 of constant information....
David Kassover
...
>
>I don't like cigarette smoke and being asthmatic doesn't help either.
>What I object to is that the pubs with folk music seem to have the most
>number of smokers and the worst ventilation!
>
>What I did about it? I complained on UK TV campaigning for smoke free
>areas in pubs and got the biggest mailbag that part of the programme's
>ever had - every letter was in favour.
>
This is serious, if lighthearted. If that bothers you, just
disregard it:
Trade in a couple of 800 watt voice of the theater style
loudspeakers for some 800 cfm fans. There's more than one way to
blow one's audience away 8-)
--
David Kassover "Proper technique helps protect you against
RPI BSEE '77 MSCSE '81 sharp weapons and dull judges."
kass...@aule-tek.com F. Collins
kass...@ra.crd.ge.com
David Kassover
>I've seen local jazz bars announce smoke-free performances at the singer's
>request. Of course, Cambridge is not a very smoke-tolerant place to
>begin with...
I wonder if a stage, concert hall, and assorted other spaces
provided to a performer could be considered that performer's
workplace.
In New York State, *every* individual is entitled to a smoke free
workplace. I don't deny that there are practical and political
problems to enforcing this kind of thing.
Jon Berger
> I've seen local jazz bars announce smoke-free performances at the singer's
> request. Of course, Cambridge is not a very smoke-tolerant place to
> begin with...
There's a comedy club in San Francisco that went non-smoking a couple of
years ago, and they seem to have survived -- and stand-up comedy is even
more strongly associated with smoke-filled rooms than folk music, in my
experience. There may be more and more of that sort of thing as smoking
becomes more and more marginalized, but, unfortunately, it's going to be
a while before there's a real option of being serious about performing
without being willing to expose yourself to cigarette smoke. There are
a few non-smoky venues here in California, and a few back on the Right
Coast, but I've found that as soon as you get about 250 miles from an
ocean, the smokiness coefficient goes up by about a factor of five. I
don't like this much, but I don't think it's going to change in the near
future, either, so it becomes just one more damn fool thing I have to put
up with.
Nobody's mentioned this yet, but musical instruments that breathe don't
react well to cigarette smoke, either. I've talked to accordion players
who've told me that they have to clean out their reeds on a monthly
basis when they play regularly in smoky bars, and I shudder to think
what the inside of a bagpipe bag would look like after a few gigs in
a standard-issue Irish pub. Especially a bellows-blown bagpipe; the
mouth-blown variety at least has the player's lung tissue to absorb some
of the particulate matter before it gets blown into the bag.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-__ __ /_ Jon Berger "If you push something hard enough,
//_// //_/ jo...@netcom.com it will fall over."
_/ --------- - Fudd's First Law of Opposition
Mary Loveless
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I carefully avoid cigarette smoke under any circumstances and would stop
singing and leave if someone lit up in my presence. I value my high notes
too much to lose them, even temporarily, to someone else's nasty habit.
But I don't perform in public, at this point, let alone try to make a
living at it. So that option isn't for just anyone.
I think activism is part of the answer, and there's a good model for that
in Victory Music, which supports folk (and other) music in the Pacific
northwest. At this point Victory is sponsoring three smoke free open
mikes (Crossroads, Bellevue; Epicurian, Lake Forest Park; Antique
Sandwich, Tacoma; looking for a Seattle location) and sponsors smoke free
weekend concerts at the Epicurian. There are other smoke free venues in
the Seattle area.
Yes, there's a lot of competition for gigs, and people making their
living via music don't necessarily feel able to limit their choices. But
it might make good sense to know what the choices are. Why not list
smoke free venues nation-wide?
I'll start with the ones I know of in Seattle: Active performers will
know of more, and can correct mistakes:
- Backstage: Will list the concert as smoke free at the performer's request
- Latona Pub: Completely smoke free
- Julia's at Park Place: Completely smoke free (I seem to remember seeing
some folk gigs listed there)
- Antique Sandwich, Tacoma
- Epicurian, Lake Forest Park
Scott Dayman
happening, i.e. that federal legislation Brian Rost mentioned.
I haven't heard of that law, but by the sound of it, I'd guess that
everywhere is SOMEONE's workplace, except for home.
--
## Scott Dayman - Jet Propulsion Laboratory (818) 354-2205 ##
## Are you an L.A. bass player? finger sc...@asteroid.jpl.nasa.gov ##
Craig Cockburn
bobf...@aol.com "Bob Franke" writes:
> I can't tell you how encouraging that is to me. I, too, am asthmatic, and the
> least that cigarette smoke does to me is to wear out my voice by the end of a
> show--I'm a much better singer without it. I had a wonderful month-long tour of
> England and Jersey a year ago last October, but the toughest part of it was the
> smoke. I hope to get back to Britain next November & December--let me know how
> the campaign is going.
>
There's a book which I research for "Eat, Sleep and Drink Smoke Free" - see
if you can get a copy when you're over. If not, then give ASH a ring as
they'll know how you can order one. ASH is based in London
TLCaffery
Kassover) writes:
>I wonder if a stage...could be considered that performer's workplace.
David-
This is of course true, though most workplace and public smoking laws (and I
haven't seen New York's) exempt bars and nightclubs. Eventually, that will
change, not just from statutory enactments, but also from insurers clamping
down on worplace smoking once they've paid some big workers comp judgments for
health effects of sidestream smoke. In the short run, though, there is nothing
wrong with the performer asking the venue to place approriate restrictions.
I've noticed that a few performers, including The Roches, make no-smoking a
required provision; which is easier to do when you've got clout, eh?
--Taylor
Mike Shames
>Elizabeth Schwartz (bet...@cs.umb.edu) wrote:
>Nobody's mentioned this yet, but musical instruments that breathe don't
>react well to cigarette smoke, either. I've talked to accordion players
>who've told me that they have to clean out their reeds on a monthly
>basis when they play regularly in smoky bars, and I shudder to think
>what the inside of a bagpipe bag would look like after a few gigs in
>a standard-issue Irish pub. Especially a bellows-blown bagpipe; the
>mouth-blown variety at least has the player's lung tissue to absorb some
don't bet on it .........
there are some STRANGE diseases spread by pipes
>of the particulate matter before it gets blown into the bag.
as a non-smoker and a bag-piper who has bought pipes FROM a VERY
HEAVY SMOKER (bugler no less) -- i have had to reseason the bag
several times, change the reeds and re-oil the wood before i could
play with-out gagging.
likewise with flutes.
and i will not knowingly let a smoker try any of my wind instruments.
it takes a week to get rid of the taste.
i have not noticed a problem with free reeds but
lucky for me i live in the Northern Bay area where for the most part,
pissing in the street is not considered as bad as smoking.
most of my gigs are outside -- weddings or dances where the
dancers would beat to death with sticks any one who lit up.
and most of the concert halls are no smoking by law
John Shepherd
-> If this rumored federal legislation for smoke-free workplaces comes through,
-> soon *all* venues will be non-smoking.
->
This is definitely being considered by Montgomery County, MD, where a
lot of my band's gigs have been in the last few years.
While I'm not a smoker, and I don't particularly enjoy the way my
clothes smell after coming home from a gig, I don't look forward to any
laws that force all venues to be smoke free. I'm quite confident that
if all clubs had to be smoke free, a large percent of them would end up
losing too many patrons to stay open, let alone hire bands.
A while back someone posted an informal survey on local music scenes
and it was mentioned by some that raising the national drinking age to
21 helped kill the scene in their areas. Even those cities whose music
scenes survived suffered from the impact of losing a good portion of
patrons. A ban on smoking could conceivably kill several more emerging
music centers. For a lot of people, drinking is synonymous to smoking.
Right or wrong as that may be, it's ingrained in their minds. They
think "If I can't go to a club and relax with a beer and a smoke, then
what's the point in going?" (Unfortunately, music is often an
afterthought.) As a result for us musicians, it becomes that much
harder to expose our music and create a following.
There are some smoke free venues here in the DC area, but they are few
and far between. Club owners in general are smart enough to know what
there patrons want. If the public wanted more smoke free venues, they'd
exist (at least in the cities that have the market to support them).
Then there's the "smoke-free workplace" perspective. Employees of bars
should be as equally entitled to smoke-free workplaces as office
workers. However, considering the nature of the business, a ban on
smoking could end up forcing their place of employment out of business.
I suggest maybe legislating high (yet affordable) ventilation
requirements for clubs that allow smoking, particularly in the
non-smoking areas of the club. Then employees who want to avoid smoke
could be assigned to just the non-smoking sections. (I don't know how
restaurants typically handle this so this may not be realistic.)
Does anybody else have ideas for an alternative to a straight out ban?
\
==============================================================================>
______ ____________________ /
/ __ _ _ _ _ /__ _ _ ___ __ _ _ ___ __ __
___/ /_/ _/--/ _/\_/ ___/ _/--/ _/_- _/-' _/--/ _/_- _/-<,_/__>
_____________________________ (w...@ice.stx.com) ______________________________
These are my opinions and not necessarily anyone elses.
Shepard Abrams
>In article <CoIJo...@ryn.mro.dec.com>, ro...@tecrus.enet.dec.com (My name is Brian Rost) writes:
>-> If this rumored federal legislation for smoke-free workplaces comes through,
>-> soon *all* venues will be non-smoking.
>->
>This is definitely being considered by Montgomery County, MD, where a
>lot of my band's gigs have been in the last few years.
>While I'm not a smoker, and I don't particularly enjoy the way my
>clothes smell after coming home from a gig, I don't look forward to any
>laws that force all venues to be smoke free. I'm quite confident that
>if all clubs had to be smoke free, a large percent of them would end up
>losing too many patrons to stay open, let alone hire bands.
This is what many of the area bars in San Luis Obispo, CA also thought when
legislation to ban smoking in all public places was underfoot several years
ago. Yet when the ban was implemented shortly thereafter in that city,
business in bars was found surprisingly not to be affected. I suspect that
this may also wind up being true in other cities, although I have to admit
that business in blue collar bars would seem to be particularly susceptible
to such a ban. With the current anti-smoking trend in our society, I think
it's just a matter of time before we find out.
Shep Abrams
Craig Cockburn
w...@ice.stx.com "John Shepherd" writes:
>
> Does anybody else have ideas for an alternative to a straight out ban?
>
Ban it in the area near the stage?
Michael Robinson
: (This message may be a duplicate - sorry!) I am wanting to know if
A new Irish bar has just opened in San Jose (Paddy's) which is
smoke-free. The reaction seems to be very positive, even from
smokers. Of course, in our California climate it is no hardship
to go outside for your smoke.
The response from accordion players is 100% positive.
Michael Robinson
Bill Sallee
public places. During the debate, before it was passed, most of the
city's bar owners complained that a smoking ban would force them out
of business. In the end bars were exempted from the smoking ban.
Eric Ogata
(Shepard Abrams) writes:
w...@glacier.stx.com (John Shepherd) writes:
>While I'm not a smoker, and I don't particularly enjoy the way my
>clothes smell after coming home from a gig, I don't look forward to any
>laws that force all venues to be smoke free. I'm quite confident that
>if all clubs had to be smoke free, a large percent of them would end up
>losing too many patrons to stay open, let alone hire bands.
> This is what many of the area bars in San Luis Obispo, CA also thought when
> legislation to ban smoking in all public places was underfoot several years
> ago. Yet when the ban was implemented shortly thereafter in that city,
> business in bars was found surprisingly not to be affected.
I would suspect that while the bars may lose some smoking patrons,
they would also *gain* non-smoking patrons (like me for example). I
currently spend aproximately zero time and money inside of smoke
filled venues, drinking, listening or playing. My attitude would
change dramatically if the situation regarding smoking were to
change. I suspect that there are plenty of other non-smokers who might
feel similarly.
--
eric
og...@tethys.nswc.navy.mil
Jon Berger
> Why not list smoke free venues nation-wide?
Excellent idea! And in the San Francisco East Bay, there's Ashkenaz.
You know, this seems like the sort of thing that might work better by
email; if we do it on the public channel, this thread is going to go on
longer than the infamous "Train Songs". Tell you what, I like this idea
enough to volunteer to be the repository: everybody, send me your lists of
smoke-free music venues in your area, together with (if possible) a VERY
brief description of the type of music they go for (jazz, folk, blues,
rock, eclectic -- that sort of thing). I'll compile the list and post it
here when it looks like the submissions have died down. This could be
a very valuable resource!
Jessica Raine
>> Does anybody else have ideas for an alternative to a straight out ban?
When I was looking at colleges and went to visit Antioch, their
campus coffeehouse-type-thing had a small sign on all the tables. Said sign
read : "SMOKING TAX 25 CENTS. You wanna smoke outside, do it for free; you
wanna smoke in here, it's gonna cost you a quarter per cigarette. Brought to
you by the musicians of Antioch College, who're sick of smoking." Every time
someone lit a cigarette, they had to put a quarter in a can on their table.
The girl I was staying with told me that the quarters go into a fund which
will eventually be donated to the Music Department to buy new equipment.
Personally, I think Antioch needs to exterminate las cucarachas which are
living in the basement of their music building, more than they need to buy
new equipment, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, it worked.
A lot fewer people smoked inside.
Jess [just found out my pot-smoking future housemate's not living with us.
Smoke/drug/alcohol-free house, here I come.:)]
Jessica Raine | st92...@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
"I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me."--Kipling
Above all, get not carried away with the glowtape, lest thy stage look like
unto an airport.--the Techie's Creed
Craig Cockburn
tlca...@aol.com "TLCaffery" writes:
> This is of course true, though most workplace and public smoking laws (and I
> haven't seen New York's) exempt bars and nightclubs. Eventually, that will
> change, not just from statutory enactments, but also from insurers clamping
Not in Britain they don't, where the smoke problem is much worse. Bars are
covered under at least two laws relevant to smoke: The Health and Safety
at Work Act and the Common Law duty of care. Both of these mean that a
bar employee could sue the owner if their health was adversely affected
by secondary smoke in the workplace. I don't think it'll cover musicisians
unless they are employed by the establishment. In court it would also be
necessary to prove the employer's liability and so the musician would have
had to have been going to the establishment often enough and regularly
enough to prove a link. Causually turning up every once in a while
probably wouldn't do.
Craig
John Altinbay
Several reasons why he feels a smoking ban will put the places he performs
out of business.
We always worry about how many people would stop going to restaurants,
bars, music clubs if smoking would not be permitted.
We almost never ask the other question: how many people *don't* go to
these places, or would go more often if there weren't smoking in them?
I currently avoid restaurants that permit smoking, and I have virtually
eliminated concerts in places that allow smoking. Certainly my SO
won't go becasue the smoke hurts her so much.
What is the current ratio of smokers to non-smokers? 1:2, I believe.
I know that Great American Music Hall now has non-smoking nights.
I think these places would thrive *more* with no smoking.
--
John Altinbay - alti...@netcom.com anon...@twwells.com
===============================================================
There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.
Toby Koosman
> I would suspect that while the bars may lose some smoking patrons,
>they would also *gain* non-smoking patrons (like me for example). I
>currently spend aproximately zero time and money inside of smoke
>filled venues, drinking, listening or playing. My attitude would
>change dramatically if the situation regarding smoking were to
>change. I suspect that there are plenty of other non-smokers who might
>feel similarly.
I know lots of folks who never go to clubs for this reason, no matter how
much they're interested in the music. Recently the city art museum hosted
a very popular jazz series with an announced no smoking policy, featuring
a lot of the same musicians you can hear in the clubs downtown. So I
think there's an argument here, at least for new clubs that don't have
an established clientele.
You could also argue that alternative venues already exist, and are called
"coffee houses".
I used to frequent a club called "Ella Guru's" that featured a very eclectic
range of acts. They had bad ventilation and not so much as a 'no smoking'
section, or at least not one that worked. However, there were many shows
where nobody lit up, and with a little planning you could avoid smoke just
by selecting the right bands. (If I recall, rock was smoke intensive, folk
was smoke free, jazz was moderate [more smoke for classic than experimental
jazz]...)
Toby Koosman koo...@utkvx.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee USA
Scott Dayman
start going to a club if they prohibited smoking?
His message just struck a note with me. There's a club in my home
city that has KNAC (hard rock) night that I'd like to go to, but
just wasn't enthused enough to go. Now I realize that it's probably
due to the environment (i.e. smoke). I swear, you'd think that
anybody who goes to a rock music club gets a beer and a cig with
their admission.
If clubs prohibited smoking, I'd probably be much more inclined to
go. In L.A., and more recently, Pasadena, they've outlawed smoking
in restaurants, and it makes me prefer them over other cities.
Now if they did that with clubs, I hope that would be an improvement
for everybody...but probably not for the smokers.
Craig Cockburn
og...@tethys.nswc.navy.mil "Eric Ogata" writes:
> I would suspect that while the bars may lose some smoking patrons,
> they would also *gain* non-smoking patrons (like me for example). I
> currently spend aproximately zero time and money inside of smoke
> filled venues, drinking, listening or playing. My attitude would
> change dramatically if the situation regarding smoking were to
> change. I suspect that there are plenty of other non-smokers who might
> feel similarly.
You're right. I have details of independent surveys carried out in the UK
which show that non-smokers would visit pubs more if there were no
smoking areas, no-smoking areas are the most wanted changes in UK
pubs and the smoky nature of pubs is a major reason why many non-smokers
avoid such places. I also know of over 200 UK pubs with no-smoking areas
and lots of sucess stories of pubs which cater for the non-smoking
majority.
Craig.
Bonnieanne Boroson
>> Why not list smoke free venues nation-wide?
>This could be
>a very valuable resource!
Thank you, thank you, thank you for doing this. I am so amazed and
impressed at the response to this issue, and all of it positive.
In addition, several wonderful Netters have highlighted these
resources:
Americans for Non-Smokers Rights/Smoke-Free Musicians' Project
is based in Berkeley, CA (510) 841-3032
The American Lung Association
The ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) may be a strong legal asset
in possible cases of discrimination (venues who won't
hire musicians because of their reaction to cigarette smoke)
(yes, this is a whole other issue) :)
B. Boroson
--
================================================
Bonnieanne Boroson / bon...@netcom.com
Oakland, California USA
Folksinger/songwriter available. Inquire within.
================================================
John Shepherd
-> John Altinbay brings up an interesting point. How many people would
-> start going to a club if they prohibited smoking?
->
I guess it depends on the type of music/clientelle the club is
offering. I'm sure there'd be a greater demand for non-smoking
alternative music clubs than there would be for non-smoking blues or
honkytonk clubs. A good portion of my band's audiences tend to be the
over-thirty, blue-collar, beer-n-whiskey-drinking, cigarette-smoking
good-old-boys-and-gals. I'd be willing to bet a smoking ban wouldn't go
over very well with most of them.
I suggest if you'd like a club to have a smoke free night, talk it over
with the manager. Have your friends do the same. If enough people bring
up the idea, he's bound to give it a shot.
Paula A Briggs
Some people have suggested alternatives to an all out ban, here's another:
In Austin for some really popular shows where the clubs know they can
sell out two sets the first (early) set is the non-smoking set. A
totally anecdotal, non scientific, biased survey (i.e. the three early
non-smoking shows I've attended) I have noticed new faces that don't
usually patronize these particular clubs as well as heard people remark
how nice the non-smoking envrionment is. The later shows seem to be
business as usual and the crowds are not hurt by the earlier, smokeless
show.
However, one very important (historically speaking that is) club is
located on the University of Texas campus which, about three years ago
banned smoking in ALL University buildings, regardless of their use. As
a casual observer, I would say the Cactus attendance has remained
unchanged, more likely because they cater to a unique crowd than because
anybody cares about smoking for those two hours.
rst...@eagle.wesleyan.edu
> In article <766738...@scot.demon.co.uk>, cr...@scot.demon.co.uk (Craig
> Cockburn) writes:
>
>>What I did about it? I complained on UK TV campaigning for smoke free
>>areas in pubs and got the biggest mailbag that part of the programme's
>>ever had - every letter was in favour.
>
> least that cigarette smoke does to me is to wear out my voice by the end of a
> show--I'm a much better singer without it.
Does anyone have any smokefree music venue news to report from North Carolina?
It's the one issue that has me apprehensive about moving to the (choke, cough)
Raleigh-Durham area, which I hear has a lovely music scene.
PS Bob, you've written some quite wonderful songs and hope you
keep breathing them out to us for a very long time... B-)=
ft...@aurora.alaska.edu
> (This message may be a duplicate - sorry!) I am wanting to know if
> there are musicians out there who are allergic or unable to handle
> cigarette smoke (in bars, clubs, coffeehouses, etc.). What have you
> done about it? Please share experiences, suggestions. Serious responses
> only, please. Thanks!
Well, someone has got to play the devils advocate here. Before you ask, no
I don't smoke. I used to, but I haven't for some time now. However, I strongly
object to the harassment of smokers. To me, this is just a politically correct
form of good old fashioned prudery.
But aside from such personal opinions, I think it's worth pointing out that most
musicians are not in a position where they can, or should, dictate to their
audiences. After all, musicians are paid to entertain audiences. Audiences are
not paid to listen to musicians. If you are famous enough to smugly demand that
everyone cater to your delicate sensibilities or not come to see you, then I
congratulate you on your success. I, on the other hand, deem myself lucky to
have an audience at all.
I also suspect that a general ban on smoking in clubs will result primarily in
a loss of business in clubs and consequently loss of gigs for musicians. Oh, I
know there are lots of places one can point to and say "Didn't happen here", but
again, most of those places are concert oriented and feature big name
performers. My experience has been that if there are no big names, then there
had better be alcohol and tobacco, or there will be no audience, either. For
some reason, people without vices don't pay local musicians.
You should feel lucky. Fifty years ago, you would have probably had to play
your music in a brothel. That is where blues, and a lot of folk, were born.
--Chase Brady
Craig Cockburn
> You know, this seems like the sort of thing that might work better by
> email; if we do it on the public channel, this thread is going to go on
> longer than the infamous "Train Songs". Tell you what, I like this idea
> enough to volunteer to be the repository: everybody, send me your lists of
> smoke-free music venues in your area, together with (if possible) a VERY
> brief description of the type of music they go for (jazz, folk, blues,
> rock, eclectic -- that sort of thing). I'll compile the list and post it
> here when it looks like the submissions have died down. This could be
> a very valuable resource!
The Old Coach Inn in Canonmills has a smoke free bar and folk music on
a Thursday. Canonmills is about 15 mins walk north of Edinburgh city centre.
Mark Slagle
> Then there's the "smoke-free workplace" perspective. Employees
> of bars should be as equally entitled to smoke-free workplaces
> as office workers. However, considering the nature of the
> business, a ban on smoking could end up forcing their place of
> employment out of business.
Employees of bars have the right to seek work elsewhere. They
do not have the right to unilaterally dictate the conditions of
their employment with a particular establishment. They can
seek employment in a non-smoking venue or they can accept the
job and the conditions that go with it at a smoking venue, but
they can't have their cake and eat it too.
> I suggest maybe legislating high (yet affordable) ventilation
> requirements for clubs that allow smoking, particularly in the
> non-smoking areas of the club. Then employees who want to avoid
> smoke could be assigned to just the non-smoking sections. (I
> don't know how restaurants typically handle this so this may
> not be realistic.)
I suggest we leave it to the individuals who are directly
involved to make their own decisions about what level of hazard
and/or discomfort is acceptable for a given income. I suggest
we all mind our own business instead.
> Does anybody else have ideas for an alternative to a straight
> out ban?
Live with it or live without it?
=Mark
--
----
Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059
sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com Sunnyvale, CA 94088
408-756-0895 USA
David Kassover
>
>Employees of bars have the right to seek work elsewhere.
> They
>do not have the right to unilaterally dictate the conditions of
>their employment with a particular establishment.
In New York State, they do. With about the same level of support
that handicapped people have.
>
>I suggest we leave it to the individuals who are directly
>involved to make their own decisions about what level of hazard
>and/or discomfort is acceptable for a given income. I suggest
>we all mind our own business instead.
>
Ah, but I do. I also make sure that places that do not conform
to my idea of a proper environment in which to ingest food and
drink, for example, know exactly why I don't come in, or why I am
leaving.
--
David Kassover "Proper technique helps protect you against
RPI BSEE '77 MSCSE '81 sharp weapons and dull judges."
kass...@aule-tek.com F. Collins
kass...@ra.crd.ge.com
Scott Amspoker
> I would suspect that while the bars may lose some smoking patrons,
>they would also *gain* non-smoking patrons (like me for example). I
>currently spend aproximately zero time and money inside of smoke
>filled venues, drinking, listening or playing. My attitude would
>change dramatically if the situation regarding smoking were to
>change. I suspect that there are plenty of other non-smokers who might
>feel similarly.
Recently, the "Goodie's" coffeeshop chain here in Albuquerque repealed
their 100% no smoking policy after business dropped off 30%. They
have returned to the traditional smoking/non-smoking sections.
Bars are typically places where people go to indulge in their vices
and "let their hair down" so to speak. I can respect someone who is
annoyed by cigarette smoke wanting a non-smoking bar. Hell, I have an
extremely high tolerance for cigarette smoke and have occasionally left
poorly ventilated bars with irritated eyes. However, I rather let people
vote with their money rather than implement an outright ban.
--
Scott Amspoker |
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM | [X] NONE OF THE ABOVE
|
sc...@bbx.basis.com |
Craig Cockburn
sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com "Mark Slagle" writes:
> Employees of bars have the right to seek work elsewhere. They
> do not have the right to unilaterally dictate the conditions of
> their employment with a particular establishment. They can
yes they do. They can take the owner to court and ensure that owner
abides by the law (including the Health and Safety at work Act).
Oh, the Queen's Hall in Ebinburgh has banned smoking in the whole
building, including the bar. This was the venue for the biggest
concerts in the recent Edinburgh folk festival.
Craig.
Mike Shames
i do feel lucky, i got to play in a brothel once (about 20 years back),
was very well treated, and only one or two of the patrons
smoked......
one of the employees told me that few of her colleagues smoked because
some (enough) customers complained about the taste.
i, of course, just played banjo and never went "upstairs".
fuzzy
Bonnieanne Boroson
>We almost never ask the other question: how many people *don't* go to
>these places, or would go more often if there weren't smoking in them?
>I currently avoid restaurants that permit smoking, and I have virtually
>eliminated concerts in places that allow smoking. Certainly my SO
>won't go becasue the smoke hurts her so much.
>What is the current ratio of smokers to non-smokers? 1:2, I believe.
>I know that Great American Music Hall now has non-smoking nights.
>I think these places would thrive *more* with no smoking.
A resounding yes. I would go out and sing, play and dance in A LOT
of clubs if they went totally non-smoking. Here's my dollar - who's
going to take it? :)
At this point, I'd like to bring up a related issue. Some people suffer
"local" reactions to smoke (dry eyes, coughing, sore throat, etc.),
while some (like myself) experience a more systemic reaction (fatigue,
dizziness, passing out). This renders someone like me basically unable to enter
a place where there is smoking at all.
Before the activism of the 1960's and '70's, people in wheelchairs
were unable to enter a lot of public buildings because they were not
designed to accommodate them. Laws have changed this so that
now an employer is at fault if s/he does not make a way for all to
gain entrance to a public building. Might the same follow for an inability
to enter public buildings because of a significant reaction to cigarette smoke?
John Altinbay
>involved to make their own decisions about what level of hazard
>and/or discomfort is acceptable for a given income. I suggest
>we all mind our own business instead.
>
It's easy for people who smoke or have nice high tech jobs where
smoking tends to be outside the buildings to say this.
People who work at bars don't have high income. They likely
can't get jobs readily at smoke-free places.
Must be nice to be able to be so smug.
>> Does anybody else have ideas for an alternative to a straight
>> out ban?
>
>Live with it or live without it?
>
>=Mark
>--
>----
>Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059
>sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com Sunnyvale, CA 94088
>408-756-0895 USA
Andy DeFaria
>We always worry about how many people would stop going to restaurants,
>bars, music clubs if smoking would not be permitted.
>We almost never ask the other question: how many people *don't* go to
>these places, or would go more often if there weren't smoking in them?
Probably because the number is quite small.
>I currently avoid restaurants that permit smoking, and I have virtually
>eliminated concerts in places that allow smoking. Certainly my SO
>won't go becasue the smoke hurts her so much.
>What is the current ratio of smokers to non-smokers? 1:2, I believe.
That does not indicate at all, how many of those non-smokers are bothered by
the smoke so much so as to avoid places completely. It has been my experience
that many people are non-smokers but are not bothered by smoke unless it is
excessive or direct. Your line of reasoning doesn't hold water.
_______________________________________________________________________________
I swear by my life and the love of it that I will | Andrew DeFaria
never live for the sake of another man nor ask | Hewlett Packard
another man to live for mine. | California Language Lab
John Galt | def...@cup.hp.com
_______________________________________________________________________________
Andy DeFaria
>In article <SLAGLE.94A...@sgi523.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
> sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com "Mark Slagle" writes:
>> Employees of bars have the right to seek work elsewhere. They
>> do not have the right to unilaterally dictate the conditions of
>> their employment with a particular establishment. They can
>yes they do. They can take the owner to court and ensure that owner
>abides by the law (including the Health and Safety at work Act).
No they don't! They may have the *abilitity* they may have the *law* and they
may have the *might*, however none of these gives them the "right".
Aubrey McIntosh
> You're right. I have details of independent surveys carried out in
> the UK which show that non-smokers would visit pubs more if there
> were no smoking areas...
The city council in Austin recently passed a no-smoking ordinance.
There are certain bars that claim this will kill them, etc. Others
report significant increase in business. For myself, I'd like to be
able to go listen to music, have a beer, and not gag at the smell of
my clothes the next morning.
--
3/22/94 I received my exam from last week. I more class exam, ever!
4/3/94 Harvested perhaps 60 pounds of leeks. Will cook tonight.
4/11/94 A copy of the appeal arrived today. I don't think I'm unduly worried about it.
Paul Andrew Sabourin
: No they don't! They may have the *abilitity* they may have the *law* and they
: may have the *might*, however none of these gives them the "right".
Hmm...how are people endowed with "rights," then? By God?
If this is so, you're wrong, because my god (his name is Leon, and he runs a
hot dog stand at 13th & New York Ave. in DC) told me that I *did* have the
right to unilaterally dictate the terms of my employment to my employer.
Then again, he also told me I had the right to stand naked in front of the
White House and read from "Ulysses" while standing on my head, but I don't think
I'll be exercising that one in the near future.
Paul "We're a small but tightly knit religion; write me for a brochure"
Sabourin.
Andy DeFaria
>It's easy for people who smoke or have nice high tech jobs where
>smoking tends to be outside the buildings to say this.
>People who work at bars don't have high income. They likely
>can't get jobs readily at smoke-free places.
>Must be nice to be able to be so smug.
Just about all McDonalds are not smoke free along with most fast food places.
Not to mention theaters, etc, etc. Sounds like you ain't been looking too
hard.
Andy DeFaria
>Hmm...how are people endowed with "rights," then? By God?
For a disertation of rights I suggest that you first read something like "Man's
Rights" by Ayn Rand in "The Virture of Selfishness" or something similar. Then,
if you still wish to discuss the matter, we can talk. Childishly inventing a
convient "god" as a retort only shows your insencereity.
Ken Josenhans
In article <SLAGLE.94A...@sgi523.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>Employees of bars have the right to seek work elsewhere. They
>do not have the right to unilaterally dictate the conditions of
>their employment with a particular establishment. ...
This is a libertarian philosophy, however it is not reflective
of the current state of the law. No doubt you would like to return
employer-employee relationships to about the level of 1900 --
say before OSHA, or before the Triangle Shirtwaist fire. However,
if we're going to argue libertarian politics, we rapidly leave the
purview of the music newsgroups... (yup, guilty as charged)
>I suggest we leave it to the individuals who are directly
>involved to make their own decisions about what level of hazard
>and/or discomfort is acceptable for a given income. I suggest
>we all mind our own business instead.
Indeed, and I'm sure those poultry-plant employees who burned to death
in North Carolina a few years back were glad they had the opportunity
to trade their lives for a near-minimum-wage job.
What I'm waiting for is a case charging that excessively
amplified music is a threat to employee hearing.
-- Ken Josenhans, non-smoker
k...@netsun.cl.msu.edu
Bracy H. Elton
It has been mentioned several times throughout this stream some
concern regarding the presence of cigarette smoke in bars and
restaurants, in particular as such situations apply to performers and
musicians and when one is allergic to cigarette smoke.
In the East Bay Area (San Franscisco Bay Area), there has been a large
effort to pass new ordinances controlling smoking in many public
places. The model ordinance came from the American Lung Association
of California and was largely developed by Serena Chen of that office.
(I have her number in case there is interest.)
Most of Alameda County is now smoke-free (in some sense) in public
enclosed places. Some city councils modified the model ordinance to
exempt certain bars, etc. But the spirit of the new ordinances are
basically the same: they control second-hand smoke in public enclosed
places, among them schools, businesses, park buildings, etc. Some
versions exempt certain places and/or situations.
There seems to be a wave passing over the country to strengthen
smoking control ordinances throughout American cities, some of which
may address the situation that orginated this thread of discussion,
some may not.
Now, during my own investigation of ways of dealing with second-hand
smoke (in an apartment situation), I uncovered some interesting
aspects of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (a
federal act) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code
Sections 51-56) as amended in 1992. These acts aim to disallow (under
certain conditions and situations) discrimination with regard to
disabilities, with "disability" as defined in the respective acts.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act was amended in 1990 to address
discrimination with regard to disabilities, and it borrows some of the
same language as in the ADA, partitularly in the definition of the
term "disability". The Unruh Act has a broader scope as it deals with
discrimination with regard to sex, race, etc., and in more situations
than those covered by the ADA.
In the ADA Handbook, a book published by the US Government and which I
found in the Alameda Public Library (Pleasanton branch), there is some
discussion regarding alleries to cigarette smoke being considered a
disability, as defined in the ADA. The handbook indicates that it is
possible for an allergy to cigarette smoke to be treated as a
disability under the ADA, which would give those persons certain
rights under the Act.
These rights include the right to not be discriminated against in
places of employment (under certain conditions, for example, the
number of employees is larger than some number I don't immediately
recall---sorry). Were a person disabled under the Act, then they
would have the right to enjoy employment as if they did not possess
the disability.
The acts also protect patrons of "public places" from being
discriminated against.
I know of no case in court (I am not an attorney) in which a an
allergy to cigarette smoke was deemed a disability under the ADA (or
the Unruh Act). But I imagine that if it were so determined, then the
employer would have certain legal responsibilities as provided by the
applicable act, the employee or patron could then bring suit against
the employer for damages, etc., and the employer would have monetary
incentives (among other ones) not to discriminate against such
employees, prospective employees, or patrons.
Some have attempted to use such arguments before city councils in an
efforts to enact stronger smoking control ordinances.
If anyone knows of cases involving allergies to cigarette smoke and
the ADA and/or the Unruh Civil Rights Act, please let me know.
Thank you.
Regards,
Bracy
P.S.1. I am also a professional musician who refuses to perform in
smoking environments and am partipating in efforts to curb the
publics inhalation of second-hand smoke (Tri-Valley Smoke-Free
Coalition).
P.S.2. For those who are members of musicians' unions, perhaps this
might be an issue to raise with your orgainization? Perhaps certain
clauses could be added to employment contracts.
P.S.3. I am also working with the owner of my apartment complex owner
(over a thousand units) to develop a plan for segrated smoking and
non-smoking sections of units on his rental properties.
--
Bracy H. Elton, Ph.D. \ E-mail: el...@fai.com
Senior Research Scientist \ Phone: (408) 456-7749
Computational Research Division \ FAX: (408) 456-7075
Fujitsu America, Inc. \ Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed
3055 Orchard Drive \ are not necessarily
San Jose, CA 95134-2022 USA \ those of my employer.
Mark Slagle
> In article <SLAGLE.94A...@sgi523.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>> I suggest we leave it to the individuals who are directly
>> involved to make their own decisions about what level of hazard
>> and/or discomfort is acceptable for a given income. I suggest
>> we all mind our own business instead.
> It's easy for people who smoke or have nice high tech jobs
> where smoking tends to be outside the buildings to say this.
I smoked for twenty years, but I no longer do. Why do you
think it is any of your business to tell other people what
they can and can't do with their lives?
> People who work at bars don't have high income. They likely
> can't get jobs readily at smoke-free places. Must be nice to
> be able to be so smug.
You get to call me smug when you've tried to live on $1.60 and
hour and have done some of the other dirty jobs that I have done.
Otherwise you just get to parade your incredible ignorance. Must
be terrible to be such an arrogant snob and a busybody rolled
into one.
Kip
wrote:
> Just about all McDonalds are not smoke free along with most fast food places.
> Not to mention theaters, etc, etc. Sounds like you ain't been looking too
> hard.
Not in Seattle. There are smoke free McDonalds here and I believe I read an
article a few months ago that said many of the fast food chains are
considering this as a general rule. Also movie theatres here don't allow
smoking in the building, New York city is the only place I've been where
there was a smoking/nonsmoking section.
The thing I hate about smokers being so defensive is they refuse to see
that they have been torturing a large portion of the population and doing
in innocent people's health for a long long time without ever apologizing
and thinking it was their right. Smoking is a luxury/privilage NOT a right.
We, nonsmokers, do have a right though to try and keep our health without
someone infringing upon our air space by thier drug addiction.
I once woke up from a wonderful dream where I had become a partner of a
smoke free club that featured music of all sorts (jazz, blues, folk..) had
good food at a reasonable price, (and yes served alcohol), a sizable dance
floor, and a classy decour/atmosphere. I woke up saddened by the economic
reality. With three smoke free bars/taverns (one does have music) I feel
hope it might be possible someday that part of my dream might come true.
The discussion here shows that there is a market for such possibilities.
Kip
Bonnieanne Boroson
>> can't get jobs readily at smoke-free places. Must be nice to
>> be able to be so smug.
>You get to call me smug when you've tried to live on $1.60 and
>hour and have done some of the other dirty jobs that I have done.
>Otherwise you just get to parade your incredible ignorance. Must
>be terrible to be such an arrogant snob and a busybody rolled
>into one.
Hey. This thread was posted solely for the intent to discuss
musicians' inabilities or allergies to cigarette smoke in places
where we play. It is NOT meant for personal insult or name-
calling. If you want to contribute something in a more
argumentative fashion, try alt.smokers or alt.bitterness.
Bonnieanne
John Altinbay
>John Altinbay (alti...@netcom.com) wrote:
>>We always worry about how many people would stop going to restaurants,
>>bars, music clubs if smoking would not be permitted.
>
>>We almost never ask the other question: how many people *don't* go to
>>these places, or would go more often if there weren't smoking in them?
>
>Probably because the number is quite small.
>
From the definitiveness of your statement, I assume you know this
for a fact.
>>I currently avoid restaurants that permit smoking, and I have virtually
>>eliminated concerts in places that allow smoking. Certainly my SO
>>won't go becasue the smoke hurts her so much.
>
>>What is the current ratio of smokers to non-smokers? 1:2, I believe.
>
>That does not indicate at all, how many of those non-smokers are bothered by
>the smoke so much so as to avoid places completely. It has been my experience
>that many people are non-smokers but are not bothered by smoke unless it is
>excessive or direct. Your line of reasoning doesn't hold water.
>_______________________________________________________________________________
...or they put up with it, because they don't feel they can or want
to do anything about it. The non-smokers you mention
will still go to these places if they are smoke free. We don't
know how many are now staying away. I suspect the number is
growing. We know the hazards, and more and more, we just simply don't
want to be exposed to them.
Look at the number of people who have come forth and said they'd
go to these places, who don't go now.
>I swear by my life and the love of it that I will | Andrew DeFaria
>never live for the sake of another man nor ask | Hewlett Packard
>another man to live for mine. | California Language Lab
> John Galt | def...@cup.hp.com
>_______________________________________________________________________________
John Altinbay
>Craig Cockburn (cr...@scot.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>>In article <SLAGLE.94A...@sgi523.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
>> sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com "Mark Slagle" writes:
>
>>> Employees of bars have the right to seek work elsewhere. They
>>> do not have the right to unilaterally dictate the conditions of
>>> their employment with a particular establishment. They can
>
>>yes they do. They can take the owner to court and ensure that owner
>>abides by the law (including the Health and Safety at work Act).
>
>No they don't! They may have the *abilitity* they may have the *law* and they
>may have the *might*, however none of these gives them the "right".
>_______________________________________________________________________________
What's your point here? Which "right" are you talking about?
Do they have less "right" than smokers have to put poison in
the air around nonsmokers?
Craig Cockburn
alti...@netcom.com "John Altinbay" writes:
> In article <CooED...@cup.hp.com> def...@cup.hp.com (Andy DeFaria) writes:
> >John Altinbay (alti...@netcom.com) wrote:
> >>We always worry about how many people would stop going to restaurants,
> >>bars, music clubs if smoking would not be permitted.
> >
> >>We almost never ask the other question: how many people *don't* go to
> >>these places, or would go more often if there weren't smoking in them?
> >
> >Probably because the number is quite small.
> >
>
Let's talk facts here.
The number isn't quite small. It's a major reason why the 2/3 of
non-smoking adults don't go to smoky places. I can quote independent
surveys to back this up. Non smoking areas in pubs is the most wanted
change in both Scottish and English pubs (source: The Consumers
Association: Jan 1988 - SIX years ago!!!!). There are many other
surveys, including those by NOP (National Opinion Poll) and actual case
histories by _entire pub chains_ which have adopted non-smoking areas
as a result of support by over 60% of the _SMOKING_ customers. How many
surveys and actual case studies would you like to see before you
believe that no-smoking areas in pubs are a viable prospect and answer
consumer demand? Note that I'm not talking about exclusive country
establishments - I'm talking about city centre pubs catering for an
average city centre drinker.
I appeared on national UK television campaining for non-smoking areas
to be established in UK pubs. 2 million people saw the programme and 3 1/2 years
later I run into people who still remember it. The programme
wasn't about smoking or non-smoking, it was a consumer programme about
general consumer affairs. I got the biggest mailbag that part of the
programme has ever had and every letter was in favour of the idea
(source: Scotland on Sunday: Nov 90 - Scotland's Leading Sunday
Newspaper). In the last two years the good beer guide (a guide which
primarily surveys pubs for beer and not for anything else such as smoke
free areas) has not only introduced a symbol marking pubs which cater
for non-smokers but has noted that the number of the pubs with the
symbol has more than doubled in two years. The guide is available from
CAMRA in St Albans.
I also wrote an article on this subject for "Pints of View" last May,
this has a circulation of over 10,000 and is the newsletter of the
Edinburgh area Campaign for Real Ale. 3 months later Edinburgh District
Council in a blaze of publicity became the first council in the UK to
prosecute pubs for being too smoky under the Health and Safety at work
Act. I also got an invitation to appear on national BBC1 and Scottish
TV at prime time. My letters appeared in The Scotsman, The List and my
research has contributed to Eat, Sleep and Drink smoke free - the
primary publication of ASH, the UK's main anti-smoking organisation. I
was also interviewed in Gaelic for Radio nan Gaidheal when I got
smoking advertising banned at the Royal National Mod (Scotland's
biggest singing competition and a major folk event). About 5 months
after this, the company in question pulled the campaign across the
whole UK. I also wrote a letter to Heathrow airport asking them to
introduce a no-smoking area in the pub I visited there. They introduced
such an area and the last I heard, it was so popular there was a queue
to get in.
Smoking is on the way out - the sooner that pubs realise this the
sooner they will capitalise on consumer demand. Smoking and drinking
are two seperate issues - smoking in any quantity is bad and not only
harms the smoker (in direct proportion to the number of cigarettes
smoked) but also harms the nonsmokers who breathe the polluted (and
unfiltered) tobacco smoke. Moderate drinking on the other hand is
actually _beneficial_ to health. The UK government says that the
average woman can drink 14 units of alcohol a week without any risk to
health (for men it is 21 units). 1 unit is one "short" (eg approx one
fluid ounce of whisky) or half a pint (10 fluid ounces) of average
strength beer (3-4%).
Having a drinking age of 21 is stupid. It simply encourages illegal
drinking and experimentation with drugs as a form of entertainment. If
people can have children and get married at 16 then this is the age
they should be allowed to drink at. Why is consuming alchohol worth an
extra 5 years of maturity on top of having a child? Would anyone like
to attempt to justify this?
Once the no-smoking drinking scene has been established, the next thing
will be vegetarian beer (fish bladders - finings - are used to clear
beer during fermentation).
I have a drawer which is about 4 inches deep and crammed full of
information on this subject and which stretches back for over 4 years.
If anyone wants information on this subject, then let me know.
You might be interested to know that non-smokers can even get cheaper
_car_ insurance. Source: The Times 30-Nov-92. The discount can be as
much as 12.5%. This is because smokers have a lower regard for their
own personal safety and are bigger risk takers than non-smokers. The
act of smoking whilst driving is also a distraction and the deposits
on the inside of the windscreen also reduce contrast at dusk and also
increase glare, thereby reducing visibility.
Craig
p.s. I get a discount on my house insurance for being a non-smoker too.
Shepard Abrams
>Having a drinking age of 21 is stupid. It simply encourages illegal
>drinking and experimentation with drugs as a form of entertainment. If
>people can have children and get married at 16 then this is the age
>they should be allowed to drink at. Why is consuming alchohol worth an
>extra 5 years of maturity on top of having a child? Would anyone like
>to attempt to justify this?
Yeah, I'll take a stab at it. While I don't have the statistics to back
this up, I'd be willing to bet that a sixteen-year-old is a heck of a lot more
likely to drink and drive than a twenty-one-year-old. I think that this is
more than ample justification for the law. Also, I can't say that I see how
having a legal drinking age of twenty-one encourages experimentation with
drugs. If a minor is not allowed to drink, I doubt that it's any more difficultfor that individual to score some alcohol than it would be to score some drugs.
In fact, that individual is more likely to find alcohol than illegal drugs in
his/her parents' home. So how does a drinking age of twenty-one encourage
drug use amongst minors?
Shep Abrams
dld...@pan.com
dld...@pan.com
Craig Cockburn
sh...@osler.wustl.edu "Shepard Abrams" writes:
>
> Yeah, I'll take a stab at it. While I don't have the statistics to back
> this up, I'd be willing to bet that a sixteen-year-old is a heck of a lot more
> likely to drink and drive than a twenty-one-year-old. I think that this is
> more than ample justification for the law. Also, I can't say that I see how
Presumably many of these individuals who drink irresponsibly also drink and
have sex. So why not have an age of consent of 21 too?
> having a legal drinking age of twenty-one encourages experimentation with
> drugs. If a minor is not allowed to drink, I doubt that it's any more
> difficultfor that individual to score some alcohol than it would be to score
> some drugs.
Exactly my point. It's just as difficult to get both, and it's illegal to
get both. If alcohol was legal than people could just go down the pub for
a few drinks and wouldn't need to get involved with an illegal subculture.
> In fact, that individual is more likely to find alcohol than illegal drugs in
> his/her parents' home. So how does a drinking age of twenty-one encourage
> drug use amongst minors?
>
But one of the biggest problem areas is students at colleges where they
don't live at home. If you were 18 and wanting to have a good time,
here are some options in America: Drugs (illegal), Drink (illegal), ie.
no difference. Your options in Britain are drugs (illegal), drink
(legal). A choice between a legal activity and an illegal activity.
Most normal people choose the legal activity, hence less people are
tempted towards the illegal drugs. Or perhaps you can come up with a
convincing explanation why drugs are so much more rampant in the US
than in the UK? I got offered drugs in a US high school (!!!), this
wasn't much different to walking the streets of Amsterdam. At
University in the UK I didn't encounter them at all.
Craig
dd...@jaguar.uofs.edu
> Well, someone has got to play the devils advocate here. Before you ask, no
> I don't smoke. I used to, but I haven't for some time now. However, I strongly
> object to the harassment of smokers. To me, this is just a politically correct
> form of good old fashioned prudery.
>
> You should feel lucky. Fifty years ago, you would have probably had to play
> your music in a brothel. That is where blues, and a lot of folk, were born.
KISS MY ASS! You wouldn't play a brothel with people spraying their
cum in your face, would you? So why should I play a place with people spraying
their smoke in mine? And that makes me the unreasonable jerk?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave D. Cawley | Where a social revolution is pending and,
University Of Scranton | for whatever reason, is not accomplished,
dd...@jaguar.uofs.edu | reaction is the alternative.
ddc1@SCRANTON | -Daniel De Leon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
c art
where there's smoke, there's flames...
> >We almost never ask the other question: how many people *don't* go to
> >these places, or would go more often if there weren't smoking in them?
>
> Probably because the number is quite small.
>
> >I currently avoid restaurants that permit smoking, and I have virtually
> >eliminated concerts in places that allow smoking. Certainly my SO
> >won't go becasue the smoke hurts her so much.
>
> >What is the current ratio of smokers to non-smokers? 1:2, I believe.
>
> That does not indicate at all, how many of those non-smokers are bothered by
> the smoke so much so as to avoid places completely. It has been my experience
> that many people are non-smokers but are not bothered by smoke unless it is
> excessive or direct. Your line of reasoning doesn't hold water.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Maybe it's just because I was smoked out of a bar Saturday night before a
favorite band came on, but...
I don't drink or smoke. I go to the two local bar venues _only_ for the
music, and only for the bands I really, really want to hear (equals, oh,
once every 1-2 months). Like many bars, they are small boxlike affairs with
so-so ventilation. I have no idea what your definition of an excessively
smoky environment would be, but when it causes me a 2nd-hand nicotine high
(heart rate jumps, followed by later insomnia) I leave.
That's the only time I get exposed to smoke now, and it annoys me more than
in years past 'cause smoke _isn't_ everywhere anymore. If there was no
cigarette smoke, I would indulge my music addiction much more often, say,
once a week. But it's not worth the physiological tradeoff.
It has been your experience that many non-smokers aren't bothered by smoke
unless it is excessive or "direct" (uh, blown in face? crammed down
throat?). That ain't mine. Whatever. But this and several other posts would
indicate that non-going non-smokers are a minor group compared to active
bar/club goers. The number is not "quite small". You just haven't seen us
yet because music venues are one of the last bastions of smokers. When (not
if) a local non-smoking music venue opens -- federally mandated or not --
I'll be first in line. Well, not first. See non-smoking musicians' earlier
comments.
IMHO a federal mandate should not exclude smokers from having clubs/bars
with smoking allowed, with the implicit consent of audience, musicians, and
other employees. This might actually increase overall music attendance.
It's nice to have choices. Right now, the de facto situation is that
non-smoking musicians and audiences don't.
\\
\\ Will it go round in circles?
// Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?
//
Steve Manes
: Not in Seattle. There are smoke free McDonalds here and I believe I read an
: article a few months ago that said many of the fast food chains are
: considering this as a general rule. Also movie theatres here don't allow
: smoking in the building, New York city is the only place I've been where
: there was a smoking/nonsmoking section.
Smoking has been banned in all NYC theatres for the last eight years...
banned by the NYC Fire Dept, not the EPA. I used to be a very heavy smoker
and was playing a Broadway show when that law came down, which also included
a ban on backstage smoking.
: The thing I hate about smokers being so defensive is they refuse to see
: that they have been torturing a large portion of the population and doing
: in innocent people's health for a long long time without ever apologizing
: and thinking it was their right.
As a former smoker (clean for four years), I agree that smoking needs to be
regulated so as not to *force* it on those who are allergic/sickened by
smoke. This would include elevators, planes and other confined public areas
that both smokers and non-smokers *must* share. I am less enthusiastic
about absolute smoking bans in restaurants and night clubs because, one,
there are plenty of restaurants and bars now that either don't allow smoking
or handle the two groups very effectively and, two, the restaurant business
has done a very good job of regulating itself, once it understood what its
customers wanted. The bottom line is that there are more nonsmokers than
smokers and, once restaurant owners learned that they might be losing a
large block of nonsmoking customers, many took measures to accomodate these
folks through more effective partitioning and ventilation of smoking areas,
up through complete bans on smoking, even *before* the laws came down.
As the co-owner of a restaurant small enough to be exempt from a required
smoking section, we discourage smoking by keeping one (1) corner table open
for smokers, and we disallow smoking entirely during dinner seating or
whenever the place is crowded. I've seen very little of this defensiveness
you comment on. In only rare instances has a smoker griped about our
policy, even though there is no legal reason why they may not smoke. Only
once has a smoker refused to cooperate, and he was piss-drunk and ornery
when he walked into the place. Keep in mind that my restaurant is in
Brooklyn, whose denizens aren't noted for being quiet and cooperative about
their perceived rights.
: Smoking is a luxury/privilage NOT a right.
: We, nonsmokers, do have a right though to try and keep our health without
: someone infringing upon our air space by thier drug addiction.
Smoking is no more a "privilege" than washing your car. It is something
which can be regulated under any number of pretexts but so can quite a lot
of other activities which may annoy some people and not others. The
question is should we ban every activity that might be offensive to some
group or should we leave room for both sides to strike an agreeable
compromise? Should we prohibit a club from offering live music on the
grounds that loud bands might annoy an old lady living within the statute
500-foot radius, or should we allow the club owner to take steps to meet
some compromise standard by isolating that noise, thereby making it a moot
issue?
Zero-tolerance anti-nuisance laws are scarey things with lots of potential
for severe abuse. NYC's infamous, take-no-prisoners "cabaret law" shut down
dozens of clubs and almost killed live music in this town. Even though
almost all of the affected clubs were non-union, the AFM finally felt
threatened enough to commit its legal and PR resources to fight it back to a
legal stalemate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Manes ma...@magpie.com
N'Yawk, N'Yawk =o&>o
Steve Manes
: I don't drink or smoke. I go to the two local bar venues _only_ for the
: music, and only for the bands I really, really want to hear (equals, oh,
: once every 1-2 months). Like many bars, they are small boxlike affairs with
: so-so ventilation. I have no idea what your definition of an excessively
: smoky environment would be, but when it causes me a 2nd-hand nicotine high
: (heart rate jumps, followed by later insomnia) I leave.
Pardon, but have you complained to management? I don't mean to a waiter or
the bouncer at the door but to the club's owners? Let them know how bad it
is and that it's probably bad enough to force other people to stay away from
their establishment too. That's the kind of language club owners
understand. If you don't want to do it in person, a letter will work,
especially since it's a record of a complaint that can be used against them
later.
If you get no response, contact your local health department and send them a
copy of the letter. Nightclubs and other places that are required to meet
certificate of occupancy standards also have to meet ventilation standards.
A bar around the corner from me was so smokey that even normally-tolerant me
wouldn't go in there because it made my clothes smell like the bottom of an
ashtray. After dwindling crowds and lots of customer complaints there are
now a couple of brand-new air scrubbers in the ceiling and the place is more
packed than ever.
Victor V Vuchic
for drinking and driving, not the drinking age. In many european
countries if you are found driving with any amount of alcohol in your
system, you loose your license. How can this country give someone who
is the age of eighteen the responsibility of choosing the nations
leader, getting married, and even giving his life for the country, yet
he can not have one beer. I know in PA you have to be 21 in order to
buy Non-alcoholic beer because it has .1% alcohol, I think that's
pushing it a little to far. I myself have been arrested for having 1.5
beers, even though I wasn't near a vehicle, and was completely out of
beer, I had to pay a $300 fine and lose my license for 3 months...for
1.5 beers, that's pretty unjust. If you look at european countries,
they're systems work well, and I feel that 16 or even 18 is a
reasonable drinking age.
John Shepherd
-> In article <OGATA.94A...@tethys.nswc.navy.mil>
-> og...@tethys.nswc.navy.mil "Eric Ogata" writes:
->
-> > I would suspect that while the bars may lose some smoking patrons,
-> > they would also *gain* non-smoking patrons (like me for example). I
-> > currently spend aproximately zero time and money inside of smoke
-> > filled venues, drinking, listening or playing. My attitude would
-> > change dramatically if the situation regarding smoking were to
-> > change. I suspect that there are plenty of other non-smokers who might
-> > feel similarly.
->
-> You're right. I have details of independent surveys carried out in the UK
-> which show that non-smokers would visit pubs more if there were no
-> smoking areas, no-smoking areas are the most wanted changes in UK
-> pubs and the smoky nature of pubs is a major reason why many non-smokers
-> avoid such places. I also know of over 200 UK pubs with no-smoking areas
-> and lots of sucess stories of pubs which cater for the non-smoking
-> majority.
->
First off, let me point out that while I agree that there should be
(well ventilated) non-smoking areas in all clubs, I don't feel there
should be an across the board ban on smoking in all clubs, which is
being suggested in proposed legislation in some areas.
Surveys are one thing, reality is another. What people say they'd do
and what they actually do are typically quite different. I'm sure
non-smokers would go to bars more often if there were no smoking
allowed, but how often is more often? And how many smokers will go to
bars less often? What will the net effect be for each club?
I strongly encourage club owners to experiment with non-smoking nights
on their own before the government gets involved and makes it
mandatory (and I don't mean just once on a monday night. Maybe a month
of fridays or a straight week of no smoking). Talk to the management in
your favorite clubs and point out to them that it's in their best
interest to find out what their patrons want. If they attempt it, make
sure your non-smoking friends know about it. For some clubs it'll work
out wonderfully, for others, not. If not, then they should at least
offer a no smoking area to their customers.
Glenn M. Poorman
|> You might be interested to know that non-smokers can even get cheaper
|> _car_ insurance. Source: The Times 30-Nov-92. The discount can be as
|> much as 12.5%. This is because smokers have a lower regard for their
|> own personal safety and are bigger risk takers than non-smokers.
Not even an "it's been written" or "IMHO". That last sentence blew
your credibility! And you were doing so well! Your statement that
smokers take bigger risks than non-smokers is complete and total
garbage!! Where did this BS come from? Most of the people that I
know who are major risk takers are athletes and have never taken a
smoke or drink in their life! And the "lower regard for their safety"
thing is almost as bad. Granted .... smoking is a terrible thing to
do to yourself (I am an ex-smoker) but it has nothing to do with a
low regard for safety. It is habit!!! If it were low regard for
personal safety, there wouldn't be so many smokers trying desperately
to quit.
I'm glad to say that I won't be reading any of your articles. Maybe
next week you can find another group of people to stereotype. You
can start your post with "All red meat eaters are homicidal".
--
=========================================================================
Glenn M. Poorman
=========================================================================
David Kassover
I know of an individual who received 30 lashes and 30 days for
appearing in public after consuming alcohol. Of course, this
wasn't in Europe, although he was a British National...
--
David Kassover "Proper technique helps protect you against
RPI BSEE '77 MSCSE '81 sharp weapons and dull judges."
kass...@aule-tek.com F. Collins
kass...@ra.crd.ge.com
Roger Fulton
>bars, music clubs if smoking would not be permitted.
>
>these places, or would go more often if there weren't smoking in them?
>
>eliminated concerts in places that allow smoking. Certainly my SO
>won't go becasue the smoke hurts her so much.
>
There have recently been two times when I could have seen
a performance either in Seattle at The Backstage, or in
Everett (Washington) at The Everett Community Theater.
I've been to performances at both venues. The Backstage
is a bar. They claim to be trying to do something about
smoking, but until they adopt a "No smoking allowed" policy,
there will always be some smoke there during a performance.
The Everett Community Theater is a performance hall, and
doesn't allow smoking.
So, how far do I go out of my way to go to Everett CT instead
of The Backstage? 40 miles round trip. And this is on top
of an already somewhat lengthy drive/ferry ride. Going to
Everett about doubles my travel time.
In addition to going out of my way to a non-smoking venue to
see a performance, there are many performances that I skip
just because they are not available in a smoke-free environment.
(Aside to Mr. Adrew "Smoke 'Em If You Got 'Em" DeFaria: My
view of so-called smokers' "rights": Me having to endure
your smoke invading my lungs is about the same as you having
to endure my fist smashing your face.)
--
Roger Fulton
ro...@wrq.com
John Shepherd
->
-> What I'm waiting for is a case charging that excessively
-> amplified music is a threat to employee hearing.
->
Okay, how about this: All live music establishments should make
earplugs and facemasks available to their employees and patrons.
Geff King
>sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>>
>>> Does anybody else have ideas for an alternative to a straight
>>> out ban?
>>
Sure - we could call them 'smoke-easies.' They'd be private clubs
where patrons and employees, as a condition of membership and/or
employment, would have to sign lengthy disclaimers which would not hold
the establishment responsible for any health problems related to
exposure to smoke. Pay scales, of course, would have to be high in order to
make it worth the 'risk' for musicians, waiters, bartenders, etc. to
literally sign their lives away.
Of course, no one in their right mind would EVER consent to such a wild
scheme...:)
+- Geff King, Librarian/Bass Player - mail ge...@access.digex.net -+
| << speaking for gbk not (lai or epa) >> |
| "I believe that if the electricity's off for more than ten hours,|
+- you should kill yourself" --Cheryl Wheeler, 1994 ---------------+
c art
> c art (ca...@umich.edu) wrote:
> : so-so ventilation. I have no idea what your definition of an excessively
> : smoky environment would be, but when it causes me a 2nd-hand nicotine high
> : (heart rate jumps, followed by later insomnia) I leave.
>
> Pardon, but have you complained to management? I don't mean to a waiter or
> the bouncer at the door but to the club's owners? Let them know how bad it
> is and that it's probably bad enough to force other people to stay away from
> their establishment too. That's the kind of language club owners
> understand. If you don't want to do it in person, a letter will work,
> especially since it's a record of a complaint that can be used against them
> later.
>
> If you get no response, contact your local health department and send them a
> copy of the letter. Nightclubs and other places that are required to meet
> certificate of occupancy standards also have to meet ventilation standards.
As it happens, I was a housemate with the manager of one of said bars for a
year. The ventilation system they have installed is industrial-strength; on
a slow night, I never notice smoke, 'cuz zip, it's gone. Housemate/manager
said that it was the strongest setup available to them, & I believe him.
But it was barely noticeable the other night when 90 percent of the
clientele were smoking at once. The other place is an old danceroom
upstairs at a struggling German restaurant. They don't have the money to
pay their dishwashers, let alone put in sufficient ventilation. The places
that book the alternative/mutant music I like to hear rarely have the
luxury to make that choice. The kind of pro-active moves you suggest are
great, but not always appropriate; my sympathies are first with people
trying to present that kind of music in any form, even if I can't go
because of smoke.
Kim Ulmer
In article <OGATA.94A...@tethys.nswc.navy.mil>, og...@tethys.nswc.navy.mil (Eric Ogata) writes:
> In article <2p4oip...@medicine.wustl.edu> sh...@osler.wustl.edu
> (Shepard Abrams) writes:
>
> w...@glacier.stx.com (John Shepherd) writes:
>
> >While I'm not a smoker, and I don't particularly enjoy the way my
> >clothes smell after coming home from a gig, I don't look forward to any
> >laws that force all venues to be smoke free. I'm quite confident that
> >if all clubs had to be smoke free, a large percent of them would end up
> >losing too many patrons to stay open, let alone hire bands.
>
> I would suspect that while the bars may lose some smoking patrons,
Count me in as one of those non-smokers who feel the same as you. I love
to dance, but I rarely go -- the reason being that I just can't tolerate
the smoke or the smell.
Kim
> --
> eric
> og...@tethys.nswc.navy.mil
--
****************************************************************************
* Kim Ulmer AIX Development IBM Net: ki...@nova.austin.ibm.com *
* Austin, Tx VM Net: kimu@ausvm6 *
****************************************************************************
Jon Berger
> In article <767143...@scot.demon.co.uk>, cr...@scot.demon.co.uk (Craig Cockburn) writes:
> |> You might be interested to know that non-smokers can even get cheaper
> |> _car_ insurance. Source: The Times 30-Nov-92. The discount can be as
> |> much as 12.5%. This is because smokers have a lower regard for their
> |> own personal safety and are bigger risk takers than non-smokers.
> Not even an "it's been written" or "IMHO".
I see -- and you would have gone much easier on him if he'd said one of
those things, right?
Actually, he had something much better than an "it's been written" or an
"IMHO", which perhaps you missed because your vision was obscured by the
frothing at your mouth. He quoted a source; see, it's right up there
following the word "Source" and the colon. I'll grant you that there's a
certain amount of chauvinism inherent in the assumption that everyone will
understand "The Times" to mean "The Times of London" as opposed to "The
New York Times" or "The Los Angeles Times", but a quick look at Craig's
email address convinces me that that's probably what he meant.
The point being made here is not that Craig thinks smokers have lower
regard for their personal safety than non-smokers. The point, and I
think it's perfectly obvious to anyone who is paying attention, is that
at least one insurance company thinks that smokers have lower regard for
their personal safety than non-smokers. You might disagree with this
proposition; Craig's motivation for bringing it up, I suspect, was to
point out that if you do disagree, you're disagreeing with an insurance
company, and they're not generally known for being stupid about things
like risk-taking.
> Your statement that smokers take bigger risks than non-smokers is
> complete and total garbage!!
In your humble opinion, of course. We realize that you don't claim to
be stating a fact here, since you haven't quoted any sources, studies,
statistics, or anything that supports this flat assertion other than some
vague ramblings about "Most of the people you know" being athletes, which
you seem to think demonstrates something or other.
Craig, on the other hand, was quoting from a newspaper article which
was reporting on a policy adopted by an insurance company. I think his
credibility is just fine, thanks.
> Where did this BS come from?
The Times 30-Nov-92, apparently. Where does yours come from?
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-__ __ /_ Jon Berger "If you push something hard enough,
//_// //_/ jo...@netcom.com it will fall over."
_/ --------- - Fudd's First Law of Opposition
Kim Ulmer
In article <CooED...@cup.hp.com>, def...@cup.hp.com (Andy DeFaria) writes:
> John Altinbay (alti...@netcom.com) wrote:
> >bars, music clubs if smoking would not be permitted.
>
> >We almost never ask the other question: how many people *don't* go to
> >these places, or would go more often if there weren't smoking in them?
>
>
> >eliminated concerts in places that allow smoking. Certainly my SO
> >won't go becasue the smoke hurts her so much.
>
>
> That does not indicate at all, how many of those non-smokers are bothered by
> the smoke so much so as to avoid places completely. It has been my experience
> that many people are non-smokers but are not bothered by smoke unless it is
> excessive or direct. Your line of reasoning doesn't hold water.
Excuse me, but most clubs that I've been to have very excessive and very
direct smoking. I don't know of any non-smoker who is not bothered by
smoke in a club. (and I know lots of non-smokers)
Someone made a comment that seemed like the best solution, so far.
Have separate nights for smokers and non-smokers.
Kim
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> I swear by my life and the love of it that I will | Andrew DeFaria
> never live for the sake of another man nor ask | Hewlett Packard
> another man to live for mine. | California Language Lab
> John Galt | def...@cup.hp.com
> _______________________________________________________________________________
Craig Cockburn
poo...@cc4032.pms.ford.com "Glenn M. Poorman" writes:
> In article <767143...@scot.demon.co.uk>, cr...@scot.demon.co.uk (Craig
> Cockburn) writes:
>
> |> You might be interested to know that non-smokers can even get cheaper
> |> _car_ insurance. Source: The Times 30-Nov-92. The discount can be as
> |> much as 12.5%. This is because smokers have a lower regard for their
> |> own personal safety and are bigger risk takers than non-smokers.
>
> Not even an "it's been written" or "IMHO". That last sentence blew
> your credibility! And you were doing so well! Your statement that
> smokers take bigger risks than non-smokers is complete and total
> garbage!! Where did this BS come from? Most of the people that I
BS? So why do insurers offer discounts for non smokers then? Is
it a figment of their imagination? Insurance companies know a thing
or two about statistics...
Craig.
Scott Amspoker
>The thing I hate about smokers being so defensive is they refuse to see
>that they have been torturing a large portion of the population and doing
>in innocent people's health for a long long time without ever apologizing
>and thinking it was their right. Smoking is a luxury/privilage NOT a right.
>We, nonsmokers, do have a right though to try and keep our health without
>someone infringing upon our air space by thier drug addiction.
In a bar? I guess we each choose our poison.
--
Scott Amspoker |
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM | [X] NONE OF THE ABOVE
|
sc...@bbx.basis.com |
Mark Slagle
> Hey. This thread was posted solely for the intent to discuss
> musicians' inabilities or allergies to cigarette smoke in places
> where we play. It is NOT meant for personal insult or name-
> calling. If you want to contribute something in a more
> argumentative fashion, try alt.smokers or alt.bitterness.
And you call that contributing? And do you get exclusive rights
to decide what a thread can be about?
=Mark
--
----
Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059
sla...@lmsc.lockheed.com Sunnyvale, CA 94088
408-756-0895 USA
Craig Cockburn
> following the word "Source" and the colon. I'll grant you that there's a
> certain amount of chauvinism inherent in the assumption that everyone will
> understand "The Times" to mean "The Times of London" as opposed to "The
> New York Times" or "The Los Angeles Times", but a quick look at Craig's
> email address convinces me that that's probably what he meant.
But it's name is The Times, and it's certainly not The Times of London -
it's a national UK newspaper printed in various locations. National UK
papers are generally not associated with towns in the UK in the same
way that American papers are and only Americans seem so feel this need to
call national UK papers "The xxx of London". They do have a London bias tho.
Oh, the source for the article reported in the Times is a survey carried
out in the US, Canada and Australia. The Guardian, 19-Dec-92 reported:
"Computer assimulated driving tests have shown that smokers were 3.5 times
more likely to have accidents than non-smokers. The accident rate fell for
smokers who had not lit up for at least three hours but was still almost
double that of non-smokers."
The Evening Standard, 16-Dec-92 (P15) also reported "... Smokers were arrested
at 3.4 times the rate of non-smokers. Statistics from 3,700 drivers showed
that 27% of smokers under 30 had had one or more accidents, the percentage
among non smokers was only 19. Among drivers over 30, 15 per cent of smokers
had had accidents compared with 10% of non-smokers".
The new insurance policy was also mentioned in The Guardian 17-Dec-92
I have other references too.
Joel Baxter
first request for this was, I believe, only posted in r.m.a-c, so many
participants may not have seen it).
I've set the Followup-To appropriately for this article. If you follow up
to any other articles on this topic, please edit your Followup-To line so
that r.m.a-c does not appear in it.
If there are any r.m.a-c-ers who disagree with this, and who don't want to
go to the trouble of following the thread in a different group, please speak
up now.
Thanks,
and, BTW, don't worry if you don't "get" my .sig :),
--
Joel Baxter jba...@lemur.stanford.edu
Here's the plan. Mark does all the work.
Glenn M. Poorman
|> Craig, on the other hand, was quoting from a newspaper article which
|> was reporting on a policy adopted by an insurance company. I think his
|> credibility is just fine, thanks.
Oh! I guess that makes it true!
Glenn M. Poorman
|> Actually, he had something much better than an "it's been written" or an
|> "IMHO", which perhaps you missed because your vision was obscured by the
|> frothing at your mouth. He quoted a source; see, it's right up there
|> following the word "Source" and the colon.
You're absolutely right! I must admit that such a flat out blanket
statement about an entire group of people does cause a bit of frothing
on my part and I do apologize.
Skip Gundlach
>
>Just about all McDonalds are not smoke free along with most fast food places.
Correction. *ALL* corporate owned Mickeys *are* smoke-free.
Franchisees are encouraged to follow suit but are not *required* to do
so.
>I swear by my life and the love of it that I will | Andrew DeFaria
>never live for the sake of another man nor ask | Hewlett Packard
>another man to live for mine. | California Language Lab
> John Galt | def...@cup.hp.com
>_______________________________________________________________________________
--
Skip Gundlach, 1439wells and 2539fi for the shy
Multi-faceted and -talented musician and survivor
Please note that the from: line is wrong. I am sk...@gamma.bae.uga.edu,
not skip@gamma.*stat*.uga.edu. We will get that fixed someday...
Greg House
|>Excuse me, but most clubs that I've been to have very excessive and very
|>direct smoking. I don't know of any non-smoker who is not bothered by
|>smoke in a club. (and I know lots of non-smokers)
|>
|>Someone made a comment that seemed like the best solution, so far.
|>Have separate nights for smokers and non-smokers.
|>
|>Kim
Just for the record, and the sake of argument. I know far more non-smokers
then smokers and virtually every non-smoker that I know is bothered to some
degree by being around smoke. For a large percentage of them, this *is*
enough to keep them from going to a club to watch a live band, or at least
to reduce the frequency at which they do go.
For me, I love live music enough to tolerate it periodically to see bands.
It's an annoyance and makes my eyes hurt for most of the next day, even
if I use drops. My wife, on the other hand, is very very negative about
the smoke, and that single reason is enough to keep her out of clubs most
of the time. When we go together, we frequently have to leave early
because the smoke is bothering her so much.
A club with a really good ventilation system helps somewhat, but there
are very few of those. I don't think seperate nights for smoking and
non-smoking works very well, because the furniture, the walls, everything
in the place is covered with smoke residue. I've been in clubs where
nobody was smoking, early in the evening before the business really picks
up, and still came away with my cloths stinking of cigarettes.
Greg
Anna Peekstok
>>abides by the law (including the Health and Safety at work Act).
>No they don't! They may have the *abilitity* they may have the *law* and they
>may have the *might*, however none of these gives them the "right".
If you're so concerned about rights, why are you not bothered by the fact
that people who smoke in public pollute the air that nonsmokers breathe,
thereby forcing their choice to poison themselves on others who do not
desire it? Personally, I believe people should be able to poison
themselves any damn way they please, but once their junk gets into the
public airspace, it's everybody's business.
Anna Peekstok
apee...@aol.com
Eileen Noel
PLEASE!!!!
Take this discussion to alt.smokers. This no longer is relevant
to rec.music.*.
All you guys are doing is alienating folks.
Eileen
Coggins adam cody
>In article <kip-2204...@kip.astro.washington.edu> k...@astro.washington.edu (Kip) writes:
>>The thing I hate about smokers being so defensive is they refuse to see
>>that they have been torturing a large portion of the population and doing
>>in innocent people's health for a long long time without ever apologizing
>>and thinking it was their right. Smoking is a luxury/privilage NOT a right.
>>We, nonsmokers, do have a right though to try and keep our health without
>>someone infringing upon our air space by thier drug addiction.
>
>In a bar? I guess we each choose our poison.
>
Ever get second hand drink?
A person can go to a bar and enjoy music/conversation without alcohol,
but, without a gas mask, it is difficult to go to a smokey bar without
breathing smoke.
I think the answer to this issue is not extensive government regulations
but people voting with their feet and telling club owners why.
ObMusic: I've been making mixdown tapes of my band for friends and
thinking about set lists, and I was wondering whether anyone
had any words of experience on this. If you had a mix of
music with different textures, how would you go about
choosing what order to put songs in? We're a rock band that
does mostly originals, and there is a lot of contrast from song
to song (and section to section within songs.) Put each song in
maximum contrast with the previous song, or cluster similar songs?
Open with the songs you think are best, or save for later?
By the way, if you follow up this article please edit in/out any
newsgroups that apply/don't apply.
Later,
Cody
Stephen Heller
because I find the smoke toxic. Likewise I don't like the fact that it
stinks up my clothes, hair and affects the taste of my beer! I have been
known to 'buy drinks around' in exchange for smokers' temporary abstinance
(rarely!). Added to the other 'bar menace', exceedingly loud music (where
you have to scream to be heard), and you have the 2 main reasons I rarely
frequent any local taverns. I've heard that there are some places where
there are mandatory smoke-free workplaces (inc. bars), and I hope the trend
gains ground and becomes the rule, rather than the exception. IMHO, public
smoking is, at least, an offensive practice, as rude as taking a public
dump (or piss). The right to frequent public places without being offended
is greater than the right to offend anyone in such places. Smokers are no
different than any other drug addict. Their habbit is antisocial and best
kept hidden until they die...
--
THE GOLDEN RULE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
The one who has the gold makes the rules.
*-----------------------------------------------*
# Stephen Heller email:hel...@moravian.edu #
*-----------------------------------------------*
RGIL...@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca
poo...@cc4032.pms.ford.com (Glenn M. Poorman) writes:
>
>In article <767143...@scot.demon.co.uk>, cr...@scot.demon.co.uk (Craig
>Cockburn) writes:
>
>|> You might be interested to know that non-smokers can even get cheaper
>|> _car_ insurance. Source: The Times 30-Nov-92. The discount can be as
>|> much as 12.5%. This is because smokers have a lower regard for their
>|> own personal safety and are bigger risk takers than non-smokers.
>
>Not even an "it's been written" or "IMHO". That last sentence blew
>your credibility! And you were doing so well! Your statement that
>smokers take bigger risks than non-smokers is complete and total
>garbage!! Where did this BS come from? Most of the people that I
>know who are major risk takers are athletes and have never taken a
>smoke or drink in their life! And the "lower regard for their safety"
>thing is almost as bad. Granted .... smoking is a terrible thing to
>do to yourself (I am an ex-smoker) but it has nothing to do with a
>low regard for safety. It is habit!!! If it were low regard for
>personal safety, there wouldn't be so many smokers trying desperately
>to quit.
>
>I'm glad to say that I won't be reading any of your articles. Maybe
>next week you can find another group of people to stereotype. You
>can start your post with "All red meat eaters are homicidal".
If this guy had read context he would have understood that Mr. Cockburn was
quoting The Times.
I think its admirable of Mr. Poorman to be wrestling with his own demons
but doing it in public is not helpful to anyone.
To claim that smoking is a habit or addiction that drives the poor sufferer
to inflict the fallout of his cheap drugs on anyone else is not very
convincing - choice, "right", and responsibility are inseparable.
Furthermore, I have read numerous postings by Mr. Cockburn on a variety of
subjects - his remarks are always helpful; Mr. Poorman, on the other hand,
has yet to offer anything worthwhile, IMHO. :-(
BTW: Right On, Craig! :-)
Ron Gillmore
Victoria, B.C.
dld...@pan.com
Jeffrey Miller
alone and talk about music, folks? I for one am sick and tired of
reading all this allergies to cigarette smoke stuff. Please?
Antony Mossop
>Add me to the list of people who DON'T (or rarely) go to bars primarily
>because I find the smoke toxic. Likewise I don't like the fact that it
>stinks up my clothes, hair and affects the taste of my beer! I have been
>known to 'buy drinks around' in exchange for smokers' temporary abstinance
>(rarely!). Added to the other 'bar menace', exceedingly loud music (where
>you have to scream to be heard), and you have the 2 main reasons I rarely
>frequent any local taverns. I've heard that there are some places where
>there are mandatory smoke-free workplaces (inc. bars), and I hope the trend
>gains ground and becomes the rule, rather than the exception. IMHO, public
>smoking is, at least, an offensive practice, as rude as taking a public
>dump (or piss). The right to frequent public places without being offended
>is greater than the right to offend anyone in such places. Smokers are no
>different than any other drug addict. Their habbit is antisocial and best
>kept hidden until they die...
>--
Absolutely, they should have places where they consume those drugs that
are legal, alcohol, tobacco and the like, hidden away from public gaze,
something like...like...a pub (oh dear!).
Tony Mossop, geophysics, Stanford
Warren J. Bloom
didn't get my message the first time, here it is again, just so you won't
scratch your heads wondering what the hell he was talking about. (Sorry to
r.m.a-c folks for the repost. I swear it will never happen again, dammit.)
Did someone get access to my account last night and subscribe me to
rec.music.a-cappella.nicotine.beer-enthusiasts.age-of-consent.semantics?
Although I enjoy a good social-issues debate as much as the next person,
and as much as I wish to give Mr. Cockburn my absolute full support
(I never understood ages of consent either; does it mean that government
wants to make sure that you're mature enough to make your own moronic
decisions?), I would appreciaite it if we could keep it off of r.m.a-c.
This group gets enough daily volume; I don't want to have to sort through
this non-musical (although it started out as one) debate, and I hate to
use Kill files because I feel like I might miss something (What would I do?
If I put a Kill on "smoking", I might miss a message that says "Wow!
Rockapella's Tuesday show was really smoking!" :) ). Imagine how much
larger this discussion would have become if y'all had posted on rec.music.
bluenote. (Oh boy, am I gonna catch crap for that.)
- Warren B.
Too bad. No .sig for Henry.
Warren J. Bloom
original posting, for the sake of those of you in groups other than r.m.a-c
who might be scratching their heads in confusion.
-----
Jack A. Zucker
cigarette smoke than playing. It also amazes me that a bunch of people
subscribing to the music.makers group profess that "this is why I
rarely go to bars...".
No wonder the goddamn music scene sucks these days ! :-)
--
----|\----------------- **------------------------------
----|/-----------------**---****---*****----------------
---/|-----------------**---**--**----**-----------------
--/-|_-------------****---******---**-------------------
-|--|-\------------****---**--**--*****-----------------
\_|_/
| Jack A Zucker Internet: j...@icd.ab.com |
| Allen-Bradley Company, Inc. |
| 747 Alpha Drive Voice: 216-646-4668 |
| Highland Hts., OH 44143 Fax: 216-646-4484 |
Chris Conway
stuff deleted, then:
>
>To claim that smoking is a habit or addiction that drives the poor sufferer
>to inflict the fallout of his cheap drugs on anyone else is not very
>convincing - choice, "right", and responsibility are inseparable.
>
>Furthermore, I have read numerous postings by Mr. Cockburn on a variety of
>subjects - his remarks are always helpful; Mr. Poorman, on the other hand,
>has yet to offer anything worthwhile, IMHO. :-(
>
>BTW: Right On, Craig! :-)
>
>Ron Gillmore
>Victoria, B.C.
We British Columbia types obviously have it right. Our local club prohibits
smoking during all musical performances. Recent and upcoming performer
bookings include Bill Henderson, Roy Forbes, Connie Kaldor, Shari Ulrich,
Little Mike and the Tornadoes, Bill Bourne and Shannon Johnson, Stephen
Fearing, Garnet Rogers, Ellen McIlwaine, Incognito, Art Ellefson, Brenda
Baker, and on and on. No complaints from performers or audience (regardless
of their vices). Get with the times, all you naysayers!
PS. I smoke. Just not for the few hours per week I spend at concerts.
CC
Glenn M. Poorman
First off ... I reacted much to quickly to a single statment. "Smokers have
a lower regard for their own personal safety and are bigger risk takers".
I still don't believe that statment .... but after counting to 10, it was
obvious that Mr. Cockburn was simply quoting a source. As a result, I posted
an apology. I will admit that I am guilty of letting a single statment send
me off before my brain engaged and, once again, I am sorry!
|> To claim that smoking is a habit or addiction that drives the poor sufferer
|> to inflict the fallout of his cheap drugs on anyone else is not very
|> convincing - choice, "right", and responsibility are inseparable.
I never said that! All I meant was that smoking does not automatically mean
that a person has a low regard for thier own safety or that they are a risk taker.
|> Furthermore, I have read numerous postings by Mr. Cockburn on a variety of
|> subjects - his remarks are always helpful; Mr. Poorman, on the other hand,
|> has yet to offer anything worthwhile, IMHO. :-(
In this thread ..... you are right!