Lincolnite: Lincoln's Online Community

You must not be a frequent bar customer then. Same with me. If I was, I am certain that I would appreciate not being surrounded by swirls of smoke.

But beyond that, I agree, it is an eyesore out on the streets of downtown, but I don’t think you can equate the amount of second hand smoke you inhale walking by on the street then you would if you frequented a bar, or worse, worked in one. I would think this could be proven empirically.

As far as helping bar owners...well yes...some smokers may now prefer to just stay at home rather than frequent a bar in order to smoke, but is the amount of money a bar owner makes from cutomers the litmus test for what is an what is not good public policy? I don’t think so. Same with private business rights. There are some private businessmen who would probably like to use illegal labor to cut their costs, but as a public policy decision, our community has, for good or bad, decided against that.

However I sympathize with your perspective, having some civil libertarian tendencies myself.

As far as helping smokers quit, I think there is a case there. As a former smoker myself, one reason I quit, although not the main reason, was the pain in the ass it was to walk all the way outside just to smoke. A bar/restaurant is one thing, but an office building or academic building is another.  And when its winter its particularly bad. And there is a stigmatizing effect as well. Here in nebraska, smoking still seems to be considered a social norm. Go to places like california however, if you smoke people look at you like you’re homeless or something.

I’m not comparing the amount of second-hand smoke I inhale on the sidewalk versus inside a business. I’m just comparing the amount of time I spend exposed to the smoke. I intentionally didn’t mention the difference in the amount/concentration of smoke. Noting that difference would weaken my case!

And no, business income isn’t the only, or even the best, measure to consider when determining the “goodness” of public policy. I don’t think I implied anything of the sort. A policy’s effects on local businesses is one of many factors to consider.

I’m not sure I follow your analogy involving illegal labor. You’re saying it’s illegal for businesses to use illegal labor? That’s a bit tautological, no? I don’t see how the analogy applies here.

And as for smoking being socially acceptable in Nebraska, I disagree. I think most elements of Nebraskan culture think smoking is muy uncool. I just think smokers here are too stubborn—and possibly too stupid—to quit. The stubbornness is a Midwestern thing; the stupidity ... well, draw your own conclusions, but I think “willful ignorance” is the best way to describe it. It’s a type of stupidity related to that which drives Cellphone Idiots to set their ringtones to play inane “music” at full volume, and to have private conversations loudly in inappropriate places.

But that’s another story.

the ban lets me go into a fine place (Lazlo’s) tonight (yes I made a random trip to Lincoln) and not smell worse than dog poo when I walked out.

And my lungs like it.

ANd we were outside for a while, no smokers were bothering us with it.

For what it’s worth, the Haymarket’s atmosphere is much different from that of Downtown proper. In fact, I think the Haymarket crowd is probably the type of crowd that drove the success of the smoking ban. Folks like you want to eat at a nice restaurant like Lazlo’s, but without the smoke. But because Lazlo’s owners are morons, they put the waiting area in the smoking section. So everybody who came through the doors had to be exposed to second-hand smoke. Although Lazlo’s offered mostly non-smoking seating, they presented a false choice. Customers didn’t really have the chance to avoid second-hand smoke; if a customer walked in the door, he inhaled second-hand smoke.

In Downtown proper (and in a very few spots in the Haymarket), many businesses never implied that customers had a choice to avoid second-hand smoke. Thus, customers were able to make a decision, before even entering the establishment, about whether or not they wanted to patronize that establishment. That’s one of two fair ways to present options to a customer. The other is to have a truly separated smoking section.

As for not running into the “gauntlet” of smokers that I mentioned, I’m not surprised. Again, the Haymarket environment is different from the Downtown environment. ‘O’ Street is, essentially, a strip of bars; people used to smoke in bars; now they smoke on ‘O’ Street. It is easy to ignore the few smokers displaced by the ban in the Haymarket; it’s quite difficult to ignore the hordes of smokers displaced along ‘O’ Street.

“I’m not sure I follow your analogy involving illegal labor. You’re saying it’s illegal for businesses to use illegal labor? That’s a bit tautological, no? I don’t see how the analogy applies here.”

Au contraire mon frere. Nothing tautological at all. What I mean is, government regulation of business usually results in detrimental financial results for business. For example, in this country it used to be legal to employ child labor for miniscule wages, which was of course beneficial to business. When child labor was outlawed and business was forced to hire adults (and pay them a minimum wage no less) it was to the financial detriment of business but it was done because it was deemed good public policy. I am not equating a ban on smoking with a ban on child labor, but the point is, business shouldn’t be allowed to do whatever the hell it wants to in the name of property or business rights.

In anycase, I sympathize with your viewpoint. Yet you are synthesizing things through a personal choices type of paradigm. Anti-smokings bans are just another example of public health regulations. You see it as a choice, others see it as a hazardous danger to health (which it is...to both smokers and second hand smoke consumers).

You non smokers are never happy.  Can’t you at least relish in a positive fact that there is no smoking in Lincoln establishments?  I smoke on occassion and I’m glad to go home from a bar not smelling like ass, and it doesn’t bother me to go outside and smoke.  If you don’t like the litter, talk to the city council or the establishment.  Its there fault it’s there in the first place.  I think you could find more constructive problems to wine about.

btw, dig the site.

If you don’t like the litter, talk to the city council or the establishment.  Its there fault it’s there in the first place.

I disagree. The litter problem is neither the fault of the City Council nor the establishment. They may or may not be helping the problem—for example, the city could exacerbate the litter problem by not providing enough trash cans on public property—but they aren’t the ones doing the actual littering. That responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of those smokers who think the ground is their personal ash tray.

btw, dig the site.

Thanks! It ain’t attractive, and it definitely ain’t complete, but I’ll get there eventually. I have a few projects going on in the background that I hope to make live within the next couple months. Then the site should be a lot more user-friendly.

Lots and lots of people will not longer go to Lincoln for “fun” because IT ISN’T FUN ANYMORE.

Have smoking and non-smoking bars....let people have the freedom to MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES!!!!!