Language

it looks good on paper...

Submitted November 23, 2004 - 12:56 am by Charles Faris
hey al,

you write "I quite agree but I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusions, Charles.", but i'm not sure you got the gist of my conclusions, which were that "we can all get along if we put our heads together and operate in good faith." everything after that was a "perhaps".

you also write: "Let the public decide by determining which restaurants and bars it patronizes. Non-smokers can go to non-smoking establishments. Smokers can go to smoker-friendly establishments. The entire problem is the law being involved."

as a smoker you wouldn't know that in towns without smoking laws ALL bars are smoking bars. there are no non-smoking establishments to patronize. the same with restaurants before we got smoking sections. it is simply not economically feasible for a business owner to vote against the smokers if the bar next door doesn't. that's why i say that the either/or binary thinking won't solve these types of problems, and that we need to engage in a dialog of good faith.

you can label the attempt to provide some clean air for the people who don't smoke "authoritarian", which obviously it is, but what is the word for the individuals and groups of people who decide to fill the air with smoke regardless of what the people sitting next to them may or may not want? you've probably never had the experience of sitting at a table (or a park bench) enjoying yourself only to have someone come by and light up a cigarette, or worse, a cigar, thereby effectively evicting you from your good time. that may not be "authoritarian", but it's something just as ugly. as george carlin says, "do you mind if i smoke? no! do you mind if i fart?"

smokers have had their way in bars for hundreds of years, and being a minority of the population, and seeing the way that the tide is turning, now is the moments of power to engage in some open honest dialog, let go of the arrogant attitude of "i can do what i want wherever i want, goddammmit", and look for a solution that accomodates everyone before all the blue states (ironic, eh?) become smoke-free zones.

yours in good faith...

Reply

Our Policy on Comment Submissions: Co-publishers of Narco News (which includes The Narcosphere and The Field) may post comments without moderation. All co-publishers comment under their real name, have contributed resources or volunteer labor to this project, have filled out this application and agreed to some simple guidelines about commenting.

Narco News has recently opened its comments section for submissions to moderated comments (that’s this box, here) by everybody else. More than 95 percent of all submitted comments are typically approved, because they are on-topic, coherent, don’t spread false claims or rumors, don’t gratuitously insult other commenters, and don’t engage in commerce, spam or otherwise hijack the thread. Narco News reserves the right to reject any comment for any reason, so, especially if you choose to comment anonymously, the burden is on you to make your comment interesting and relevant. That said, as you can see, hundreds of comments are approved each week here. Good luck in your comment submission!

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

User login