# Smoking legislation is killing the bars



## Beatles

Have to feel sorry for some of the owners of bars. Ya I know some of them are real slime bags, but thats not the point. Ever since the smoke legisalation has been in place the bars are more empty than ever. In fact, a lot of them have lost so much business that they have had to shut their doors. The bars who are trying to make a go of it have had to spend $$ to build smoking areas, or outside facilities to have smokers enjoy their habits. Now, come May, even the bars who have constructed designated smoking areas will no longer be able to use them. Go talk to a bar owner and try to get your band booked. You get the same response every time. No bands...can't afford it.....people aren't comming out anymore...it's because of the non smoking legisaltion. Puts a real dent in the live club scene. Sucks.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

It's clearly become an issue for bar owners. I am a smoker myself and have no issue at all with restaurants, offices, theatres, etc being smoke free. I remember back to the days when you would have 4-5 people smoking in a small office. It was terrible. I have two teens that so far have not touched them and I hope they never do, it's a hideous addiction. But for these bar owners it's a tough situation. I think it's really unfair that a lot of them went out and spent a lot of cash trying to make everyone happy and now the rules are going to get changed on them again. Clearly, there are still a lot of smokers that frequent bars, or used to. I assume in the years to come the smoking population will continue to decrease. Not sure what the stats are on that right now.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday

I enjoy the smoke free environment. Feel much better in the morning. This coming from an ex-smoker.

It's amazing how the club scene and smoking are related. I know I had to quit going out for some period of time while quitting. Alcohol really lowers a guys will power.


----------



## Accept2

Im glad the places are smoke free, becuase I dont want to breathe it, and I dont like smelling like smoke. I used to have to leave guitar cases outside because of the stink. If no one goes to a bar, then the bar needs to assess how they can get people back in...................


----------



## Milkman

Well, I'm a non-smoker and although I along with most non-smokers hate the stink, I have seen a decline in the number of bars remaining open and in the attendance at the surviving bars.

I still play in a couple of clubs where smoking is allowed for the time being and they're packed. It would be sad if the gigs sytarted to dry up, but it's the way the world is going.


At some point perhaps the number of smokers in our society will be so small as to have little impact on such things, but I have seen quite a few clubs go belly up in my community and they attribute it to the city banning smoking.


The kicker is that they still allow service clubs such as Legions and Army/Navy clubs to permit smoking. That will soon change as well.

Lets hope there will still be some gigs.


----------



## Accept2

I think blamming it on smoking laws is pushing it. The places that do well are the places that people enjoy going to. Alot of these places are dives, and some people dont enjoy going there. If I ever get around to opening a Playboy club, I dont think I'd ever have a problem filling it, smoking or not...........


----------



## Beatles

Accept2 said:


> I think blamming it on smoking laws is pushing it. T


Think so? Check out this link and you may reconsider your view. http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=smoking+closes+bars+toronto&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D724b4079c00a104e%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery%3Dsmoking%2Bcloses%2Bbars%2Btoronto%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.smokersclubinc.com%252Fbanloss3.htm%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPToolbarNS%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smokersclubinc.com%2Fbanloss3.htm
There is a distinct difference between a Playboy club and a bar. Sex sells. Always has.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

Very compelling evidence here. There is no question that it has affected the patron count. Smoking and booze have always gone together like a horse and carriage. But as has been pointed out above, there will be a shift in that once this new generation of non smokers becomes of age. Can the existing bars hang on until then?


----------



## Accept2

The business is harsh to begin with. Alot of these places become flavours of the week and then disappear when someone new shows up in the market. The evidence isnt clear because its not scientifically driven. Its just assumed that these places closed because of non-smoking laws, and ignores all other factors...........


----------



## keefsdad

I've actually had more gigs since they passed the legislation. It will no doubt have an effect, but people have a right not to be poisoned in their workplace.
I am a smoker but I think it's sensible and inevitable.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

I agree, if you are still smoking, then it's outside for you bro... like I said, I still smoke (hope to quit) but I see nothing wrong with no smoking bans in all public houses, buildings etc. For someone that does not smoke it is not nice at all. To tell the truth, I don't think I could even eat in a restaurant anymore that had smoking, it bugs the hell out of me when I am trying to eat.


----------



## Beatles

Accept2 said:


> The business is harsh to begin with.


This I agree with


Accept2 said:


> The evidence isnt clear because its not scientifically driven. Its just assumed that these places closed because of non-smoking laws, and ignores all other factors...........


Evidence isn't clear???? Read on my friend: 

Media Advisory - McGuinty Government Smoking Ban (Bill 164) Will Result in Job and Business Loss in Ontario's Largest Employment Sector 


Government Data Shows Smoking Bans Devastate Bar Industry Reports Leading Economist

TORONTO, April 19 /CNW/ - Confirming the worst fears of Canada's
hospitality industry The Fair Air Association of Canada (FAAC) and The Pub and
Bar Coalition of Canada (PUBCO) released the most comprehensive economic
analysis yet done on the impact of complete smoking bans on bars and pubs.
The economic impact study offers definitive proof that smoking bans, like
the McGuinty government Bill 164, will lead to widespread devastation
throughout one of Canada's largest employment sectors - the hospitality
industry - in communities across the Province.
The study shows smoking bans in several Ontario cities have had a real
and dramatic impact on revenue. Bar and pub sales were reduced: 23.5% in
Ottawa, 18.7% in London, 24.3% in Kingston and 20.4% in Kitchener. Prof. Evans concluded, "Government data clearly demonstrates smoking bans
materially reduce sales in bars and nightclubs. The evidence is quite clear.
To suggest that smoking bans don't have a dramatic negative impact on bar
sales would be an opinion - not fact." 

Scientifically driven? This has nothing to do with science. Its called economics. If you can't put bums in seats, you can't stay in business. I am not taking any sides here. I am not here to discuss the damage smoking does nor the health effects. I am simply stating the cause/effect of the legislation.


----------



## walden

The government is only screwing themselves in the end in a way... think of all the money the lottery and gaming commissions will lose, it's astounding. I guess they think it balances out because there will be less health costs. I don't think so, i think smoker will still need as much health care regardless. Personally I'm a smoker, and I agree with the ban in some public places, but i think they should at least have smoking sections at least in bars or restaurants.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

What kills me is all concert halls, arena's etc are no smoking, yet you will get a healthy shot of sweet leaf everytime. So if some slob tried to light up a smoke in there he would most likely be beaten to a pulp by the non-smokers and than thrown out of the building. Funny how that works eh?


----------



## Milkman

Accept2 said:


> The business is harsh to begin with. Alot of these places become flavours of the week and then disappear when someone new shows up in the market. The evidence isnt clear because its not scientifically driven. Its just assumed that these places closed because of non-smoking laws, and ignores all other factors...........



Granted it's not scientific, but you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see the trend.

When a bar has been thriving or at least surviving for decades and goes belly up a few months after a no-smoking law is passed.....


This has been the case in Brantford. There's a bar in Simcoe that I've been playing at since the 80s. I'm still playing there every six weeks or so. It's one of the last places I play that still allows smoking (until April 1). It has always been full both Friday and Saturday nights when we play there and there are a LOT of smokers.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong on this believe me, but I 'm nervous about it.


----------



## Milkman

teleman said:


> As a non-smoker, I personally go out to bars and restaurants _more_ since the smoking ban came into effect. The same can be said for about 95% of my friends and family. As the demographic shifts and smokers start to die out (literally), I think it'll be for the best in the long run.



I hope you're right, but so far I'm not seeing evidence of those who pushed so hard to outlaw smoking in bars showing up and putting their money where their mouths are.


Look, I hate the way my clothes stink the morning after playing in a smoking bar, but I want to play. I think there will be a lot of bodies on the floor as a result of this movement.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

Well said Milkman... and he always rings twice ! Or is that the postman?


----------



## Accept2

Milkman said:


> Granted it's not scientific, but you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see the trend.


But its not the only trend going on, and thats what Im getting at. Other trends that are affecting bar attendance include: Aging of the population; impact of immigrants on the population; Increase in bankrupcy in Canada (both personal and corporate); Increase of home electronics like PCs and home theatres; Increase in Sports teams in cities; Health trends that people no longer drink beer or smoke; Social trends (many here) to name a few. How many people come home from work, and decide that they plan on using their free time to go smoke at a bar? If there is a great show to go to, they will be there. If not, there are far better things to do with their time than hang out in a bar and smoke. We also have to think of the fact that smokers themselves are becomming a smaller and smaller minority in the population. As they die out or quit, their impact on the market place will also become irrelevant............


----------



## GuitarsCanada

teleman said:


> Maybe it's different where you live. I don't see the trend here in Edmonton. Smoking was banned in restaurants a year and a half ago. A bunch of restaurant owners cried that they would go out of business. As far as I know, bankruptcies and foreclosures in the restaurant business don't seem to be any higher now than 2 or 3 years ago. Most of the loudest pro-smoking restaurant owners who were sure they would be out of business in 2 months appear to still be operating. I haven't noticed any decline in perceived restaurant crowds.
> 
> Smoking in bars was banned on July 1st of last year. I haven't noticed any appreciable drop in the number of people out on any given night. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that more bars have opened than closed since the ban went into effect.
> 
> Maybe we just don't smoke as much in Alberta or something.



I know one thing, you never see people standing outside a restaurant having a smoke at 20 degrees below zero, but you will see a gaggle of them outside the watering holes. Freezing their arses off to have a smoke. I myself do not have a problem with going into a restaurant and spending two hours without a smoke, does not bother me. But I know if I was in a bar (which I rarely go to) I would be wanting to light up. It must be the whole atmosphere thing. Like being on a 4 hour flight, does not bother me.


----------



## imbackagain2

I actually quit smokin a few weeks ago. 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours 12 minutes ago to be exact. hahaha. I think people should be able to smoke wherever they want. IF not in the bar they should definatly have a smoking section. This is discrimination towards smokers because they smoke. The definition of discrimination is the denial of equal treatment to a specific group. So why can't we charge *******s for hate crimes?


----------



## Milkman

My real complaint is not that we as a society are trying to eliminate smoking in public places and in businesses. 

It's just apparent, at least in my little corner of the world, that the folks who were most vocal and active about getting these laws enacted are NOT showing up in the bars thay have harmed.

Are there other factors causing a decline in attendance? Perhaps, but statistics indicate that we are drinking more now than ten years ago, not less. I have heard from many smokers that say if they are not allowed to smoke (at least in a smoking area) in a bar, they'd just as soon stay home.

Again, I honestly hope I'm wrong, but I think it's going to get worse before it gets better.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

Voting seems to be leaning towards smoking sections


----------



## Strung1

teleman said:


> Personally, I think people should be allowed to light off fireworks wherever they want. Bars, restaurants, shopping malls, wherever. Or at least, every public place should have an area where people can light off fireworks. Otherwise, it's discrimination against people who like to light off fireworks.


LOL.  

Same can be said for any bad habit. Compulsive masterbators? Nudists? Where is the justice?  

I'm all for the smoking ban. Its been in effect here for almost 2 years now. Its great to go into a restuarant now and not smell smoke. I don't frequent bars much but its nice to go and not have to burn your clothes when you get home. I used to have to strip down in the yard, light my clothes on fire and shower off under the sprinkler before being alowed in the house.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

Beatles said:


> Have to feel sorry for some of the owners of bars. Ya I know some of them are real slime bags, but thats not the point. Ever since the smoke legisalation has been in place the bars are more empty than ever. In fact, a lot of them have lost so much business that they have had to shut their doors. The bars who are trying to make a go of it have had to spend $$ to build smoking areas, or outside facilities to have smokers enjoy their habits. Now, come May, even the bars who have constructed designated smoking areas will no longer be able to use them. Go talk to a bar owner and try to get your band booked. You get the same response every time. No bands...can't afford it.....people aren't comming out anymore...it's because of the non smoking legisaltion. Puts a real dent in the live club scene. Sucks.


The whole thing is really not about whether you smoke or not, or whether you like the smell or don't. It's about the effect on the bar and clubs. Milkman has got it right in my opinion.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

Absoulutley not, I have already stated that it is a hideous addiction and I hope to live long enough to see it wiped off the face of the earth. What I am saying is the discussion was regarding the effect on bars and clubs. So if you answer based on your personal smoking preference, or the health aspect, you are not addressing the issue raised.


----------



## Beatles

Just as another observation, consider the effects to the secondary industries....lost revenues from liquor and food sales, lost revenue to bar and restaurant suppliers, lost revenue to entertainers, lost revenue to the amusement and vending industry (video games, coin-operated pool tables etc.),


----------



## Milkman

Anyone who disputes the negative impacts smoking has on health is ignoring abundant evidence.


I'm not talking about what smoking does to people, both smokers and non-smokers.


I'm addressing the impact to bars in terms of attendance.

I'd rather play a full smoking bar than a half full non-smoking bar, although as I've said before it's a moot point because a half full bar won't generally hire bands for long.


----------



## Milkman

teleman said:


> Again, there must be very different demographics where you live and where I live. I haven't noticed _any_ drop in bar attendence since the smoking bylaw came in last year. Not in live music venues, anyway. The scene is as vibrant as ever. Maybe it's different in dance clubs, but if someone wants to go see a band they like, the fact that they may have to step outside to blow smoke doesn't seem to deter people. I'm playing a bar tomorrow, and I fully anticipate that its going to be full.
> 
> I have to think that absolute hard-core smokers who won't go out of the house at all if they think their smoking might be limited is a small percentage of the population, and getting smaller all the time. This won't be an issue at all in another 5 to 10 years. People will look back on it with disbelief (much like I look back at the days when people used to be allowed to smoke on airplanes and busses and in movie theatres).
> 
> Will bars go out of business? Maybe a few here and there. A few movie theatres probably closed down when smoking was banned from them too. In the long run, though, the live music business isn't going to live or die based on the support of hard-core smokers.



Ok man,

I'm not making this shit up. Bars are closing. It's been awhile since I played out west, but the scene here in Brantford has taken a severe body blow. 


Different demographic? Well, that's another topic, but things are definitely different out west as I recall.


----------



## Beatles

I have to agree with Milkman. In the Greater Toronto area its the same thing. Less bars and more bands = tougher to get gigs. I'm going to a few places tomorrow to try and book my band. Some of the places I've played before. I'll let you know the outcome.


----------



## Robert1950

I don't smoke. It sucks. Cigarette companies are Nazi Merchants of Death. If a person wants to smoke, its his/her choice to cost the Cdn. Taxpayer a shitload of $$$$$$. Taxes on smokes don't even begin to cover the cost of illness, death and sick time at work. If a person wants to smoke - DON'T DO IT NEAR ME !!!!!!!!!!!! There is no worse turnoff then kissing a hot and horny chick who mouth tastes like a friggin ashtray.


----------



## hoser

the smoking ban has been in since july, and there's been a decrease in sales....
imo, there should be a smoking section for patrons.....they allow a smoking room for staff, so why not.


----------



## Robert1950

If there is a patron's smoking section, it should be closed off (glass is good ) and ventilated, otherwise it would be no different than, for example, having pissing and non-pissing sections in a swimming pool.


----------



## asatattack

Robert1950 said:


> Taxes on smokes don't even begin to cover the cost of illness, death and sick time at work.


 Stats show the cost of drinking is 6 times more then the money they bring in from taxes. Personally, I couldn't care a less how many bars go under because of a smoking ban. Are there not other venues to play at? Why does it have to be at some skanky bar. Having a smoking section in a bar is a comprimise but it has to be in a separately ventilated area. I remember when they had "non-smoking sections" in restaurants what a joke that was!


----------



## Accept2

Correct, if bars go down, then they go down, and are replaced by something else. Over 100 years ago, companies that made horse whips were everywhere and refused to change because they couldnt accept the change that was happening in our culture. Today, only a hand ful of those companies exist. The rest went bankrupt because they couldnt adapt to the changing business climate. Same goes for the bars, dont blame the changes, blame the businesses who cant adapt to those changes................


----------



## Beatles

Accept2 said:


> Same goes for the bars, dont blame the changes, blame the businesses who cant adapt to those changes................


And what are the changes you think would have made a difference in keeping the bars open?


----------



## Accept2

The bars should make any changes other than their current strategy of blaming others for their failure. Any change is better than that one..............


----------



## Milkman

Accept2 said:


> The business is harsh to begin with. Alot of these places become flavours of the week and then disappear when someone new shows up in the market. The evidence isnt clear because its not scientifically driven. Its just assumed that these places closed because of non-smoking laws, and ignores all other factors...........



Yes bars have always come and gone, but there were some bars that were in business for decades that went belly up within a few months or even weeks of the smoking ban in Brantford.


Hell man, you don't have have a scientific study to read the writing on the wall. Just ask the bar owners what they think, amd they're the ones hiring the bands.


----------



## Accept2

Same thing happened with horse whip companies. Some were around for a hundred years, and then they disappeared. Some of those companies are still around today because they adapted to a new business climate. The rest died off. If the business is good, and its well run, then it stays in business. If a business cant adapt to changes, then its doomed to failure, because things change all the time..............


----------



## Milkman

teleman said:


> I guarantee that any business that goes belly up that fast is NOT going belly up because of the smoking ban. If a few slow nights equal bankruptcy, they couldn't have been on very firm financial footing to begin with.



A few WEEKS or MONTHS was what I said, not days. Try running a business with a forty percent drop in revenue and see how long it takes to go under. 

You're pretty much convinced that you're right. By the way, your analogy of horse whips is pretty thin don't you think?

Yeah sure the bars could change to say....underwear stores. Hope you enjoy that kind of gig, LOL.

Maybe we're seeing the end of the bar scene as we knew it. It may be inevitible, but I'll tell you what, there's a bar I play at regularly that will be subject to a smoking ban April 1. There are a LOT of smokers there and it's packed when we play there. I'll give you my follow up a couple of months after the ban takes effect.


----------



## Accept2

The horse whips is a classic analogy for failing businesses. Even if you go to Harvard Business School they will lecture you on that because its the classic change in environment scenerio. Why cant it be that no one wants to see the band in question? Why must it be the nonsmoking? I would hope that smokers can make it thru a 45 minute set and then have a smoke during the change over. If they cant then they definately have a problem. All the bars I know have made patio areas, alot of them even heated, and they still pack the place. Thats an example of adaptation. If a business fails its because the business owner didnt do things to adapt. I've been hired by many companies to look into their businesses, and Im amazed how many of them will blame something on their predicament, and fight like mad to accept that it was their own reluctancy to change that put them in their predicament..................


----------



## Accept2

Milkman said:


> Maybe we're seeing the end of the bar scene as we knew it.



I think youre catching on the aspect of social changes in the business environment..............


----------



## Beatles

I'm going to repost this link again. And since I have taken the time to post this twice, maybe the doubting Thomases who haven't bothered reading it, or think they have the answer because of "social aspects" would take the time to read it and make their comments. I have been following this thread since my first original post. Again its not whether smoking is good or bad for you, or what you personally think of smokers, or smoking in bars, but rather the effect of the legislation. http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=smoking+closes+bars+toronto&pa ge=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%2 6requestId%3D724b4079c00a104e%26clickedItemRank%3D 1%26userQuery%3Dsmoking%2Bcloses%2Bbars%2Btoronto% 26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.smokersc lubinc.com%252Fbanloss3.htm%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPToolbarNS%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&re move_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smokersclubinc.com%2Fban loss3.htm
Take the time to read post #13 in this thread. It deals with the governments review and study of the effects of the legislation. I find it quite laughable that there was reference to "no scientific data" to support this, and now its being referred to as "social changes" that are the cause/effect. It's economics. Man get your head out of the sand. 
Let me give you some background about my involvment with the "bar scene". I have been giiging in the Greater Toronto Area for the past 30 years. I know how bars are run , and I personally know several bar owners. I have seen changes take place that affect them over the years. ALL of them tell me that the no smoking legislation has had its affect. That is from the ones that are still surviving. If you don't want to consider the facts that are presented to you, go and talk to them yourself. Maybe its different in other parts f the county, but its reality in Toronto.


----------



## Accept2

Hmmm, your link doesnt work. I think the reason that no one wants to pat you on the back, is that no one cares to hear about it. Im sure if there was no sales tax, revenues would go up. Big deal. It doesnt matter. Whats relevant is the business environment you are in, not what you wish you were in. If it has driven down business, then its the business owners problem to adopt to those changes. If they want to simply bitch about it, and not change, then I hope they go out of business so that the good businesses get more Payola$................


----------



## Beatles

Accept2 said:


> Hmmm, your link doesnt work.


http://www.smokersclubinc.com/banloss3.htm


----------



## Beatles

Accept2 said:


> I think the reason that no one wants to pat you on the back, is that no one cares to hear about it.


Where did I imply i wanted a pat on the back????????????


----------



## Accept2

Anyone notice that those clubs that play that trance/hiphop/house/dj music have been raking in the bucks in the past couple of years? They keep getting bigger and bigger. No smoking allowed, but they seem to be packing em in..............


----------



## Beatles

Accept2 said:


> Anyone notice that those clubs that play that trance/hiphop/house/dj music have been raking in the bucks in the past couple of years? They keep getting bigger and bigger. No smoking allowed, but they seem to be packing em in..............


When was the last time you talked to a bar owner?


----------



## Accept2

I have clients who own bars. I talk to them all the time. They dont seem interested in the recent surge in popularity of house music/hiphop clubs.................


----------



## Beatles

teleman said:


> That's not much of a study. It appears to be anecdotal reports of people who sent e-mails to the owner of a pro-smoking website.


If need be, you can find studies with more meat in them. I can't comment on your experiences where you live, only my experiences in Toronto.


----------



## Beatles

teleman said:


> How about these ones:
> 
> http://www.tcsg.org/sfelp/economic.htm


Or this?http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banlinks.html


----------



## Beatles

teleman said:


> Here's a whole ton of links to studies that show the opposite the what "The Smoker's Club" website is saying:
> 
> http://www.tcsg.org/sfelp/economic.htm


sure that' s great if you're in El Paso Texas, Australia. or New York, but what about something a little closer to home?


----------



## CocoTone

keefsdad said:


> I've actually had more gigs since they passed the legislation. It will no doubt have an effect, but people have a right not to be poisoned in their workplace.
> I am a smoker but I think it's sensible and inevitable.


Well you are the exception rather than the norm. Bookings have dropped for us, and a lot of my buddies because of the loss of patrons. Your situation won`t last tho, if you want to play in bars.

CT.


----------



## devil6

People shouldn't be forced to breathe in other peoples cigarette smoke. It's nice to come home from a club and not have my clothes reaking of cigarette smoke. More clubs should be looking into building seperate smoking rooms. It costs quite a bit of money, but if you're in it for the long run you're gonna have to shell out some cash because it doesn't look like this smoking ban will be going away anytime soon.


----------



## CocoTone

The way I see it, people now can`t smoke in bars, and add that to the fact that if they have more than 2 beers, they`ll blow over and lose their DL, its not worth the hassle to go out to bars anymore. Stay home with a box of brewskies, yer honey and some DVD`s and **** the bar scene. Thats reality. 

CT.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

CocoTone said:


> The way I see it, people now can`t smoke in bars, and add that to the fact that if they have more than 2 beers, they`ll blow over and lose their DL, its not worth the hassle to go out to bars anymore. Stay home with a box of brewskies, yer honey and some DVD`s and **** the bar scene. Thats reality.
> 
> CT.




You may have something there Coco


----------



## Mahogany Martin

GuitarsCanada said:


> You may have something there Coco


yeah I also think that coco is onto something too. Even if bars made it *appealing* let's say by lowering the price of a drink (or whatever else), people still do not like to cab it to and fro the club/pub. I totally agree that there's more to the decrease in attendance than the smoking ban. But at the same time...

I remember the 1st time I saw this new Tim Hortons being built with a banner stating "opening soon - smoke free environment" or something to that effect. We all said that it will not fly. "People will stop going to Timmy's". Did that happen? no!

So much has been said in these post so far and but, is the *legislation* allowing bar owners to build a separate room (all glassed in with a door or something) within their establishment?. I believe not.

And that's where maybe there's a problem. The Tim Horton sort of business can survive this type of change. But there's something to be said about the smoking type of person, they like to spend money and go out. The outside patio, even covered up and *heated* isn't the same. If you're going to drop some dough to see a band and have a drink (take a cab there and back), you want to be able to stay at your table and have a smoke there.

Staying home with some brewskies, your woman and some dvds is another thing too. But sometimes you want to see a band - live!. But then you think about all this (cabbing it, smoking outside,...) then you just end up staying home. 

I say that they should allow smoking inside, in an entirely seperate room (but it has to be glassed in so you can stay there for the night and see the band). That entire generation of rockers/smokers have to be given some time to keep on spending their money in bars and be comfortable. Who knows, maybe someday soon, nobody will sit behind glass and the partions will come down and the new generation (of non smokers) will take over.


----------



## Hinrich

GuitarsCanada said:


> But as has been pointed out above, there will be a shift in that once this new generation of non smokers becomes of age. Can the existing bars hang on until then?


I agree, it's a growing pain and the industry will eventually pick up again. Unfortunately a lot of bars got hurt but I'm sure even more people got killed from second hand smoke just from frequenting (especially working) at these places.


----------



## Baba Rumraisin

Milkman, I was in one of the Brantford bars a few weeks ago for a battle of the bands my son's metal band was entered in and I was suprised at the lack of attendance there. The place was only a quarter full. I've been away from the bar scene for twenty some years and this was my first trip back into one and, back then, if you had a battle of the bands going on you were going to have a hard time finding a place to stand, if you got in at all.
I smoke too and made it through the night only having to go out once for a fix but then that's how I do it at home. (Aren't I wonderful)
It doesn't look good. With all the restrictions on small business owners this added loss of customers could spell the end for many. Which, of course, is going to take away a lot of venues for up and comers to get out with their stuff.


----------



## david henman

...in spite of the fact that i'm a smoker, i am all for the rights of non-smokers, especially musicians who don't smoke (hey, i'm biased ).

that said, it is truly unfortunate that there is no room for compromise. the isolated smoking rooms have worked quite well in a number of venues here in the gta.


----------



## Guest

I count myself as a smoker (Though I binge.... and go days or weeks between smokes) but Windsor is going non-smoking in June, and I can't WAIT!

And well, when the movie theatres went non-smoking, people said that'd kill them... it didn't... same with airlines... and restaurants... and... and... and.....

Being into the pub/folkie scene, we're actually looking forward to an INCREASE in attendance when the non-smoking law comes into effect. 

And well, the worker safety issues cannot be ignored.... If the poisons coming off the lit end of a cigarette were present in a mine-shaft or a foundry, nobody would be allowed to work there! 

There's ONE exception to my opinion... Legion Halls.... I drove past one in a non-smoking town some time ago, and was appalled to see WW2 VETS standing outside in the harsh dead of winter so they could smoke.... back in their day we didn't really know any better, and gave them smokes in their Red Cross packs and told them it'd help their 'nerves'.... Now they're addicted.... and old.... and well, anyone who got their boots wet, saving the human race from the slime of itself.... I say let these poor old guys enjoy their last few moments on this earth in comfort. It is, quite literally, the LEAST we can do to thank them! 

Outside of that, bring on the ban!


----------



## stratace05

Ya, I live here in Buffalo, NY. A few years ago, the smoking ban in New York State went to effect and there is a major slump in crowds. A few good bars I have known have closed down due to it. I think it's pretty stupid. I mean you're already gettin drunk off your ass, you might as well smoke a cig there too. Damn the politicians!


----------



## Guest

If Ireland survived going non-smoking, so can we



(over there, they smoke like it's a CURE for cancer... almost as bad as Quebec!)


----------



## Bob Rock

Yes there will be Bars and Pubs closing, people loosing their jobs, but those are bar & Pub owners how are not progressive. They've been relying the patron that comes in sits down, drinks a beer and has a smoke to fill their coffers. The successfull Bar and Pub of today and the future will be the ones that give the patron a reason to come to their establishment. Case and point, a local pub that I frequent, for the last 4 years is still up and running and doing fine. The pub just down the street has closed his doors. Why? because the pub I go to gives me a reason to go there. On Thursday nite they run one the more successful open stage jams in the city (the place is allways packed that nite) They're starting to book live bands on Saturday nites. They have fun pool touraments on Monday & Friday nites, oh and did I mention the waitresses are really cute. The bottom line is for Bars and Pubs to survive they are going to have give people a reason to come to their establishment.

As for the one earlier post who the bar owner wouldn't hire his band because he didn't have the money, don't worry, he'll be out of business soon anyway.


----------



## Spikezone

ClintonHammond said:


> And well, the worker safety issues cannot be ignored.... If the poisons coming off the lit end of a cigarette were present in a mine-shaft or a foundry, nobody would be allowed to work there!


Hear, hear!
-Mikey


----------



## Guest

Props to Scotland!


----------



## MaxWedge

After 35 years of smoking, I gave it up fifteen months ago. It's a far better payout than some lame promise to reduce the GST by, wow, 1%.


----------



## PintoMusic

CocoTone said:


> The way I see it, people now can`t smoke in bars, and add that to the fact that if they have more than 2 beers, they`ll blow over and lose their DL, its not worth the hassle to go out to bars anymore. Stay home with a box of brewskies, yer honey and some DVD`s and **** the bar scene. Thats reality.


It's probably what many people are thinking and I think you said it best.

I personally don't smoke and I don't have sympathy for people who smoke so I support smoking bans in most public places... except bars.

As nice as it is not to come home reeking of smoke after a night out at a club or pub and how this should all benefit my long-term health, I can see how the ban has sucked the life out of that industry.

But let's say they reinstate indoor smoking for bars. There's going to be a lot of gray area when it comes to licensing and what would qualify as a smoking establishment. Of course, everybody will want to maximize their business and will therefore seek to bend the rules and seek loopholes wherever they can and it will cause more bullshit on both sides of the smoking debate.

In Manitoba, the big smoking ban happened sometime in 2003. When I played Toronto in 2004, they still allowed smoking in bars. Even though it had only been a few months since the ban in Winnipeg, I couldn't believe how weird it was to be in a closed area with smoke. Now that a few years have passed, I can't imagine what it would be like to have smoking back in the bars.


----------



## Wild Bill

*More gigs?!!!*



keefsdad said:


> I've actually had more gigs since they passed the legislation. It will no doubt have an effect, but people have a right not to be poisoned in their workplace.
> I am a smoker but I think it's sensible and inevitable.


If this is true then you're the first player I've ever met that can make this claim! 

When the smoking bans were first introduced here in Hamilton we had lots of talking heads telling us that once the bad smell cleared out the non-smokers would come out in droves and the clubs would actually do more business than ever before! Well, once the smoke cleared out you can see all the empty tables.

It would seem that most non-smokers just don't come out to hear a band. Maybe they're all out with Ned Flanders from the Simpsons to a church polka, I dunno. I do know that it all boils down to how much beer is sold. That translates to how much money is available to hire a band. Or pay the rent, for that matter. Anything else is just hot air.

Or more simply, money talks and BS walks.

I haven't smoked in years but when I go out to a club I'd rather sit with the smokers. I find too many non-smokers to be rather preachy and cheerless...

---Wild Bill


----------



## Accept2

Wild Bill said:


> I'd rather sit with the smokers. I find too many non-smokers to be rather preachy and cheerless...
> 
> ---Wild Bill


Its funny, but thats the same thoughts that drug users have when they speak of people who dont shoot up............
I'd rather be preachy and cheerless.............


----------



## Wild Bill

*You prove my point!*



Accept2 said:


> Its funny, but thats the same thoughts that drug users have when they speak of people who dont shoot up............
> I'd rather be preachy and cheerless.............


Now that's what I mean by preachy!

When I was a young hippy we believed in freedom and tolerance. As long as you didn't hurt anyone else no one would criticize you or try to limit your lifestyle choices.

Now it seems everyone wants to tell everyone else what to do, and put the law on them if they won't comply!

This modern idea that if I think it's a good idea for YOU to do then you should be MADE to do it is pretty scary to this old reprobate! Maybe it's the modern world of Gap jeans, Xboxes and the mindless poetry of hiphop that tries to pass off profanity as profundity amidst samples of what SOMEONE ELSE created!

Or perhaps atom bombs, space shots and not enough people in church on Sunday. 

The smoking ban in bars seems to mostly have its support from people that wouldn't go there anyway. They just can't stand the thought that someone ELSE might choose to go there, listen to a rockin' blues band and light up a cigarette! Essentially they have self-proclaimed the right to force a lifestyle choice on a fellow citizen.

The fact that they just can't allow a club to make it's own choice as to being a smoking, non-smoking or "mixed" with a non-smoking section proves that it's not about protecting non-smokers from the noxious fumes. If they saw a sign above the door they could make their own choice. The experience of separate smoking sections always being full with a line waiting while non-smokers sat in empty fields of vacant tables proves their real goal. They're lonely and want to FORCE smokers to sit with them! 

They have other equally specious arguments. "What about the poor waiters/waitresses breathing secondhand smoke?" 'Course, they never ask any such servers if they care or if they like losing their job as the club goes bankrupt. If the clientelle of that industry truly preferred smokefree establishments then it's obvious that industry would be thriving right now. 

No, it's pretty obvious they simply want to save smokers from themselves, like the "Hawaiian Missionaries" that couldn't stand seeing topless natives living in paradise and forced them to cover up, work like a slave all day for white folks and sing for their supper in an Anglican church along with a fresh load of guilt and neuroses. I mean, they had to save their souls, right? Even if they didn't ask it was for their own good, right?

I guess every generation needs somebody to pick on and boss around. The need to express prejudice is still strong in our collective unconscious. Colour or creed will get you in trouble fast but you can say or do anything to smokers with virtually total impunity.

Someone in this thread expressed the view that the fault lies with club owners who are too inept or lazy to market enough strengths to counter the hit of losing smokers. I suspect that this came from someone who's only marketing experience comes from some ivory tower textbook and has never had to put their ideas into practice. You can use marketing to appeal to a demographic but that demographic has to be there in the first place! The smoking bans have been helping to wipe out a facet of entertainment that has survived for generations. The desired social engineering driven change was instituted far faster than simple market forces would have eventually accomplished. These clubs simply have not enough time to adapt.

It's easy to champion social engineering schemes as long as it's not YOUR kids that might go hungry!

"Gee, they died of starvation but at least their lungs were clear of secondhand smoke!"

In my day of hippie protests over 'Nam the saying went:

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it!"

Oh well, this rant is long enough. Next time I'll post what I REALLY think!

---Wild Bill


----------



## Accept2

Your rant is like a Mulder rant on the X Files. Wasnt Wild Bill an X Files character?...........
The fact remains that hiphop dance clubs are the in place to be and they have gathered so much momentum in North America that they have wiped out the rock and country bars. Those dance clubs dont have smoking and they are having no problem bringing the people in. Its just a replay of the disco era, when disco clubs were the in place and the rock clubs were empty. No conspiracy theory needed.................


----------



## GuitarsCanada

have to admit, it was a pretty good rant. :rockon:


----------



## Guest

Wasnt Wild Bill an X Files character?

Wild Bill was the guy in Silence Of The Lambs, who was making the woman-suit....

"It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the hose again..."


----------



## Wild Bill

*Disco???!!!*



Accept2 said:


> Your rant is like a Mulder rant on the X Files. Wasnt Wild Bill an X Files character?...........
> The fact remains that hiphop dance clubs are the in place to be and they have gathered so much momentum in North America that they have wiped out the rock and country bars. Those dance clubs dont have smoking and they are having no problem bringing the people in. Its just a replay of the disco era, when disco clubs were the in place and the rock clubs were empty. No conspiracy theory needed.................


No argument from me about hiphop having become popular. That's part of my point of what's wrong today.

Disco and it's contemporary spawn is appealing in what we hippies used to disparagingly call a "body stone". It doesn't feed your head but rather just f*ks you up in a pleasant manner. It's all about style and not substance; sizzle but no steak.

Hiphop to me is something even worse. If you can't sing, can't play an instrument and can't write good poetry outside of an easy AABB juvenile rhyme scheme with profanity and debasing women as a substitute for true talent then what else can you do but scratch an old LP backwards, mix in some samples done by someone who actually COULD play and call yourself an artist!

I'll conceed there are a few exceptions to my rule but that appears to be all they are - exceptions! About the only one I respect is Eminem.

Rock & roll is about rebellion against the status quo, of questioning authority and the rules in order to make sure we only have those that make sense and are not overwhelmed by those that are simply arbitrary.

The hiphop scene seems to be more about conforming to its own culture. It's about style and attitude - how you look and how you speak. Never what you actually said.

This is all irrelevant to the point of debate anyway. So what if hiphop clubs are thriving? Or polka halls for that matter. 

Nobody is going out of their way to make sure all the polka halls will die...or hiphop either.People with my views are not doing anything to kill off the dance clubs. Your view suggests that the clubs I prefer should just be forced out.

That being said, I'm not sure just why more people are not crying to close hiphop clubs. When's the last time anybody fired a revolver off at a polka party?

---Wild Bill


----------



## cbh747

Wild Bill said:


> Disco and it's contemporary spawn is appealing in what we hippies used to disparagingly call a "body stone". It doesn't feed your head but rather just f*ks you up in a pleasant manner. It's all about style and not substance; sizzle but no steak.
> 
> Hiphop to me is something even worse. If you can't sing, can't play an instrument and can't write good poetry outside of an easy AABB juvenile rhyme scheme with profanity and debasing women as a substitute for true talent then what else can you do but scratch an old LP backwards, mix in some samples done by someone who actually COULD play and call yourself an artist! ---Wild Bill


Wild Bill, if you have something to say I wish you would just spit it out and stop dicking around.

Contrary to what you say, disco to me never resembled a body stone but it did indeed f*ck me up. In fact, the radio stations at the time started spewing such pure unadulterated crap that I had to go into hiding for 15 years. Roy Buchanan and Stevie Ray saved me. It was so bad that I went to a record store to buy a record and I found out that they didn't make them anymore...they were only selling something called cd's.

The good thing about rap is that it too will pass. I somehow can't envision 50 Cent playing CasinoRama 30 years from now. Come to think of it, I probably won't care.

Whenever I become too offended by what is going on around me I take a deep breath, throw on some blues and things become ok. 

This has nothing to do with smoking.


----------



## Wild Bill

*Stevie Ray saved our souls!*



cbh747 said:


> "Wild Bill, if you have something to say I wish you would just spit it out and stop dicking around."
> 
> Ok, I will! Let adults make their own lifestyle decisions. If you can get laws passed against smoking then it's only a matter of time until your favourite vice is next! Once the precedent is set...
> 
> "Contrary to what you say, disco to me never resembled a body stone but it did indeed f*ck me up. In fact, the radio stations at the time started spewing such pure unadulterated crap that I had to go into hiding for 15 years. Roy Buchanan and Stevie Ray saved me. It was so bad that I went to a record store to buy a record and I found out that they didn't make them anymore...they were only selling something called cd's."
> 
> By "body stone" I meant mindless pleasure, particularly with the dance scene drugs of choice. Ecstasy or roofies are not in the same category as LSD or mescaline. Mind expanding vs. mind deadening, grass vs. chugging hard liquor.
> 
> Can't argue about the benefit to one's soul from Roy and Stevie. I'd add Rory Gallagher and Pat Travers. Then when you achieve nirvana you'd be listening to BB King, Freddy King and Albert King.
> 
> Don't get me started on CDs. That's when the record labels REALLY pulled an X-files trip! They wiped out the single (remember 45's?) so you had to buy the entire album on CD at $24+! And then you found that only a cut or two (the radio singles) were any good. The rest was just filler crap.
> 
> Move ahead a generation and the suits had gone into warp speed to shape young folks by limiting their choices. Funds for artist discovery and development were severely cut. The labels only wanted to back a sure thing. And if you had an Allanis Morrisette going platinum you could sit on your ass and get lazy with your newer bands that needed the help.
> 
> Pop music has become simply a style show. The music doesn't have to be very good if you can deliver it from a naked-bellybutton juvenile pole dancer. Even better, since that young pole dancer's career is based on fashion it's likely that in a few years she'll be old news and you can release a new one. (And if I can play it it must be crap!)
> 
> This is especially sad. Only a very few become established enough to have some clout at contract time to get a fair share of the cake. The labels get almost all of it. In the "old days" the standard contract was for a 3 album deal. The artist got mice nuts initially but if after 3 albums he was a big seller then he'd have good leverage to cut the deal on any further releases. Notice how today there are no young super groups. Where are the modern day Beatles, Stones or Zeppelin? Virtually everbody today makes a LOT less money in the music scene. Paul McCartney is a zillionaire. What's the chances of the Trews ever pulling down that kind of dough? Hopefully they can make a decent living but they're a great band and its a shame that the times have changed and they aren't likely to have the same chance. It's like after Michael Jackson the money well dried up. Just enough left for Christine, Brittany and the like.
> 
> "The good thing about rap is that it too will pass. I somehow can't envision 50 Cent playing CasinoRama 30 years from now. Come to think of it, I probably won't care."
> 
> You're right. This echoes my points about market manipulation. I don't believe the labels WANT today's artists and their music to have staying power! 50 Cent's tunes will quickly become last summer's fashions. Then the labels get to issue all new stuff!
> 
> How much of his stuff will be played after 30 years? Ozzie still sells LOTS and we see lots of young folks wearing AC/DC t-shirts.
> 
> "Whenever I become too offended by what is going on around me I take a deep breath, throw on some blues and things become ok. "
> 
> "The sky is cryin'..."
> 
> "This has nothing to do with smoking."


No, but it's good to vent once in a while...

---Mild Bill (too tired after all my ranting to be wild...)


----------



## Beatles

Accept2 said:


> The fact remains that hiphop dance clubs are the in place to be and they have gathered so much momentum in North America that they have wiped out the rock and country bars. Those dance clubs dont have smoking and they are having no problem bringing the people in. Its just a replay of the disco era, when disco clubs were the in place and the rock clubs were empty.


So let me understand what you are trying to say. 30 years ago disco was the rage and rock clubs were empty (so you say). Disco passed and the rock clubs were still empty? Now 30 years later we have a new fad... hip hop and the rock clubs are empty. When hip hop dies, (and it will) the rock clubs will still be empty. ?????? If you expand on your theory, all thats left after the hip hop crap dies is empty rock clubs. I don't get your analogy. So you are telling me that for the last 30 years rock clubs have been empty? They have been empty for the past thirty years because of dance music? I doubt it. When disco was around the rock clubs had line ups to get in just as long if not longer than the discos. You could smoke in both establishments. And in those days we could get a grand for one night for a gig. Now if we get three or four hundred a night its gravy.


----------



## Marnacious

That was a lot of reading, I have to go have a smoke. :2guns:


----------



## cbh747

*I *was* having a good night....*



Wild Bill said:


> This is especially sad. Only a very few become established enough to have some clout at contract time to get a fair share of the cake. The labels get almost all of it. In the "old days" the standard contract was for a 3 album deal. The artist got mice nuts initially but if after 3 albums he was a big seller then he'd have good leverage to cut the deal on any further releases. Notice how today there are no young super groups. Where are the modern day Beatles, Stones or Zeppelin? Virtually everbody today makes a LOT less money in the music scene. Paul McCartney is a zillionaire. What's the chances of the Trews ever pulling down that kind of dough? Hopefully they can make a decent living but they're a great band and its a shame that the times have changed and they aren't likely to have the same chance. It's like after Michael Jackson the money well dried up. Just enough left for Christine, Brittany and the like.


Never thought anything that I would be reading would have Michael Jackson and Brittany all in one paragraph. I watched a Robin Trower dvd tonight and all was good until this came along. You have dredged up some horrible memories. I will be trying to fall asleep tonight with Rod Stewart's "forever Young" bouncing around in my brain. I thought I was cured.

Remember when MTV / MuchMusic came along? The world imploded! All of a sudden every no talent ass clown was a superstar. 

I watch Robert Cray and Buddy Guy and Walter Trout. These are guys that can bring you to your knees with the passion of their music and yet, for all intents and purposes, they are nobodies. You don't see them dancing across your tv screen, you don't hear them ripping up the charts. They work night after night, year after year but will never perform in front of a crowd the size of a Brittany or a Michael or a Christine. They are only recognized by their peers and by the few people that have had the privilege of watching them perform. And that is so wrong. Gary Moore, Alvin Lee...the list goes on.

And you are right, the supergroups are gone (but not forgotten...). They could no longer emerge in the music world as it stands. It has become a place of packaging and glitter where talent takes a back seat to looks. Can you lip sync and dance? We now live in an American Idol world. And Rod Stewart pisses me off.

This has nothing to do with smoking.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

It may indeed have a lot to do with smoking, just not cigarettes :confused-smiley-010


----------



## cbh747

I can only speak for myself. I was just havin' a beer.


----------



## MaxWedge

I don't know who to quote and this certainly isn't about smoking in clubs. But I'd just like to say that rap is going through the same cycles as everything before it. Until something gets commercialized at retains an aura of being special. The Pepto Bismal ads have placed the mark of commercialism on rap. Now if it will only go away quietly and we will only speak of this era in muted tones. DIE BASTARD RAP DIE. Oh did I mention I'm not a fan of rap.:2guns:


----------



## cbh747

*Not so sure about that...*



MaxWedge said:


> I don't know who to quote and this certainly isn't about smoking in clubs. But I'd just like to say that rap is going through the same cycles as everything before it. Until something gets commercialized at retains an aura of being special. The Pepto Bismal ads have placed the mark of commercialism on rap. Now if it will only go away quietly and we will only speak of this era in muted tones. DIE BASTARD RAP DIE. Oh did I mention I'm not a fan of rap.:2guns:


I would like to believe that what you say is true but I am a bit more of a realist.

Case in point...I was browsing the lineup for the Ottawa Bluesfest this morning.

Here you go... MAIN stage ... final night.....

Sunday, July 16
4:00 pm	Kentucky Headhunters	
6:00 pm	KC's Boogie Blast	
6:30 pm	Tavares	
7:00 pm	Sister Sledge	
8:00 pm	Gloria Gaynor	
9:00 pm	KC & the Sunshine Band

What's with that??? It's like the ultimate practical joke. Spend money for tickets, drive to Ottawa to hear some blues only to be confronted by afro wearing people doing the Night Fever Line Dance. 

Think I'll pass on that one, glad I checked the schedule.

Just to remain on topic, there will probably be smokers there.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

How can they possbily bill that as a bluesfest? And get away with it? :confused-smiley-010 

Smoke em' if ya got em'


----------



## cbh747

*Wait...there's more!*



GuitarsCanada said:


> How can they possbily bill that as a bluesfest? And get away with it? :confused-smiley-010
> 
> Smoke em' if ya got em'


Oh...that's not all.

Check out Saturday night....

Saturday, July 15

12:15 pm	Voices of Praise	
1:45 pm	Kay Morris & the Jewels	
3:15 pm	Prosper & God’s Plan Ministry	
4:45 pm	Dickson Guillaume & The New York Haitian Interdenominational Mass Choir	
6:15 pm	T-Bone	
7:45 pm	Malcolm Williams and Great Faith	
9:30 pm	Papa San

I mean wow!! I haven't seen T-Bone since...well...never! I'm thinking of making it a two nighter...it would be like a bad acid trip without the drugs. 

Might even make me take up smoking again.


----------



## Accept2

You would think the Kentuky Headhunters would scare away some of those fruity bands.............


----------



## MaxWedge

cbh747 said:


> I would like to believe that what you say is true but I am a bit more of a realist.
> 
> Case in point...I was browsing the lineup for the Ottawa Bluesfest this morning.
> 
> Here you go... MAIN stage ... final night.....
> 
> Sunday, July 16
> 4:00 pm	Kentucky Headhunters
> 6:00 pm	KC's Boogie Blast
> 6:30 pm	Tavares
> 7:00 pm	Sister Sledge
> 8:00 pm	Gloria Gaynor
> 9:00 pm	KC & the Sunshine Band
> 
> What's with that??? It's like the ultimate practical joke. Spend money for tickets, drive to Ottawa to hear some blues only to be confronted by afro wearing people doing the Night Fever Line Dance.
> 
> Think I'll pass on that one, glad I checked the schedule.
> 
> Just to remain on topic, there will probably be smokers there.


This is just too funny. I'm going to pi-- myself. Getting down with KC&theSunshineBand. Wow somebody say die already. Stay home and smoke the ticket.


----------



## Marnacious

What an absolutely lame lineup. :zzz:


----------



## Guest

"outside of an easy AABB juvenile rhyme scheme"

Sounds to me like you don't know F-ALL about hiphop.....


----------



## cbh747

*Ooops*



ClintonHammond said:


> "outside of an easy AABB juvenile rhyme scheme"
> 
> Sounds to me like you don't know F-ALL about hiphop.....


Now that's what I call tossing a softball!!

Looking forward to this response.....

*_lights a cigarette and waits..._*


----------



## Wild Bill

*I know more that I want to about hiphop...*



ClintonHammond said:


> "outside of an easy AABB juvenile rhyme scheme"
> 
> Sounds to me like you don't know F-ALL about hiphop.....


No, sometimes it goes ABAB, as in:

"Oh my name is Hap

I can't play or sing

I sound like crap 

So I do the rap thing..."

As I said, I'll grant you the odd exception. Eminem is a TRUE poet! Still, when I cruise past a hiphop video on TV I usually see no one playing a instrument and the vocals are just chanted. A few (cute, I'll admit!) female asses shake in wide angle, there's a lot of distinctive style clothing and once in awhile a cop or a police cruiser.

ANYONE CAN CHANT! ANYONE CAN HAVE THEIR MOTHER DRESS THEM NICE! ANYONE CAN SHAKE THEIR ASS OR CUSS OUT A COP!

Still, it's all personal taste. You're entitled to yours and me to mine. I just think that if rock and roll were to die out from lifestyle laws in clubs such as smoking we'd all be the poorer for it.

Not just because there'd be no music to feed our heads but more for our society making any such thing happen in the first place!

I would never advocate banning hiphop. Once you set a precedent it eventually will come back to attack your own faves. Rightly so! Anyone who advocates removing a fellow citizen's choice deserves to lose his own!

---Wild Bill


----------



## Accept2

I always love it when someone rants that certain people have no talent, yet they have all kinds of CDs out and are certified platinum artists. The ranter usually lives in their parents basement clutches lottery tickets, and always says they could be millionaires too if they really wanted too. Man if it was that easy I'd just release one rap album under a false name, then use the millions to finance CD releases of "legitimate" music. For those who think rap is a fad, its actually been around a very long time and evolved from the talking blues. I'm not a fan, but I'm not a geezer ranter either...............


----------



## Wild Bill

Accept2 said:


> For those who think rap is a fad, its actually been around a very long time and evolved from the talking blues. I'm not a fan, but I'm not a geezer ranter either...............


Geezer ranter? Hey, I'll admit it! 

You might also have mentioned Screaming Lord Sutch. 

Actually, you can define any music as a fad. Some styles just have more staying power than others. I'm not a fan of classical music but if you measure by longevity...

So only 20% of geezer ranting is positive/useful. I just want rock & roll to survive! I spent an evening at a benefit featuring 5 "hardcore" bands last summer. Privately I call the genre "cookie monster" metal 'cuz the vocalist just snarls like Cookie Monster!

My fave metal style is more Randy Rhodes but I was impressed by the musicianship. Harmony guitar riffs played at machine gun speed with never a note dropped. Still, I can't believe that one word vocals such as "RAWWK!" squawked like a frog will give a song staying power.

The music was great for generating primal angst for slam dancing but the songs that last almost always have a vocal to paint images and/or a story line. In this light hardcore would be the polar opposite of hiphop. Hiphop indeed tells a story, it just takes musicianship for granted.

Geezer rants do have a valid social/cultural purpose. They're attempts to let succeeding generations know that they may be abandoning something positive. You still have to apply the 80/20 Rule, however. That's the one that says that 80% of everything is crap! That includes the words of this old geezer.

When you're younger you rarely listen to these rants and that's a survival trait as well. The reason for 80% of geezer rants being crap is that the geezer usually doesn't truly understand modern situations. He/she tends to morph it into something from his/her own past experience. It would not be useful for younger generations to swallow everything they're told. We'd never get any progress that way but rather just stagnate with repetition.

Ah, but there's still that 20%! When we're young Nature makes us rash, impetuous and impulsive. This makes us tend to try dangerous or negative things indiscriminately. A lot of us get hurt but Nature doesn't care as long as there's a lot of us in the first place! 20% of those young folks discover something better and the entire race moves ahead a step.

I just don't believe it will be a hiphop artist who discovers a cure for AIDS or cancer. Whereas it was rock and roll that brought down segregation in America, the Iron Curtain in Europe and the Berlin Wall...

---Wild Bill


----------



## cbh747

*That was worth the wait*

I just _knew_ that I wouldn't be disappointed!!


----------



## GuitarsCanada

Accept2 said:


> For those who think rap is a fad, its actually been around a very long time and evolved from the talking blues. I'm not a fan, but I'm not a geezer ranter either...............


Blondie was doing that back in the early 80's no? I am not sure what classificaton some of the stuff my kids listen to falls under... rap, hip hop, whatever.... but it is almost total nonsense in terms of the lyrics and the musical portion of it consists of mostly sampling and massive bass played by just about anyone with four strings. I always get a charge out f blowing the kids away when I pull out the original album they stole the song from.

However, looking back I remember my Father saying "what is that crap" when I was wearing the grooves out of my red vinyl copy of Hemispheres at full volume.

I admit that some of these tunes do get your toes tapping and they are fun to listen to sometimes. But the musical talent level is not there, does not need to be really. 

Finally, in keeping with the theme of this thread.... smoking can cause erectile disfunction. So they say.


----------



## Accept2

Talking blues predates Blondie by decades. Take a listen to One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer, its a great talking blues song. Also The Devil Went Down to Georgia.................


----------



## Wild Bill

*Erectile dysfunction?*



GuitarsCanada said:


> Finally, in keeping with the theme of this thread.... smoking can cause erectile disfunction. So they say.


What a vivid mental image! To gather stats to support such a premise they send out some preachy, cheerless woman into a rock & roll club. She's supposed to let herself get picked up by some smoker in the audience so that later if they hit the sack together she can tell if he has any problems raising the flag, as it were.

Whatever data such an emissary could collect would only be bogus. After all, with the usual personality of the common "nico-nazi" who would WANT to get it up in such cranky company?

That's why we invented alcohol, I guess...

---Wild Bill


----------



## sneakypete

rap...not really my thing, didn`t like it when it first came out don`t like it now BUT...I think the message is valid and vital, it`s just that I don`t like the way it`s delivered. Wouldn`t mind buying a book on rap lyrics but I don`t want to have to listen to it. As usual record companies took an art form and made it corporate, gangster rap and styles like it don`t appeal to me however I think some rappers write well. 
As usual I speak solely for myself and opinions I state do not necessarily reflect those of any other human being...or life form.


----------



## Guest

"Take a listen to One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer"

Take a listen to ANY Sea Shanty or any other ancient "Working" song.... They're ALL 'rap'

It's most likely the OLDEST form of music


----------



## cbh747

*Reminds me of when I smoked in bars....*

Very nice!

Here, let me give it a try....



> Originally Posted by Wild Bill
> "Oh my name is Hap
> 
> I can't play or sing
> 
> I sound like crap
> 
> So I do the rap thing..."


[Intro]
Stand up! Stand up!
Stand up! Stand up! 

[Chorus: Ludacris and (woman)]
When I move you move (just like that?)
When I move you move (just like that?)
When I move you move (just like that?)
Hell yeah! Hey DJ bring that back!
(When I move you move) just like that?
(When I move you move) just like that?
(When I move you move) just like that?
(Hell yeah, Hey DJ bring that back!) 

[Verse - 1 - Ludacris Lyrics ]
How you ain't gon' F*CK! bitch out me?
I'm the GOD DAMN reason you in VIP
CEO you don't have to see ID
I'm young, wild, and strapped like Chi-Ali
BLAOW! We ain't got nothing to worry about
Whoop ass, let security carry em out
Watch out for the medallion my diamonds are wreckless
Feels like a MIDGET is hanging from my neckless
I pulled up wit a million trucks
Looking, smelling, feeling like a million bucks-ahh!
Pass the bottles, the heat is on
We in the huddle all smoking that Cheech & Chong
What's wrong?! The club and moon is full
And I'm lookin for a THICK young lady to pull
One sure shot way to get em outta them pants
Take note to the brand new dance, like this

This is fun....


----------



## Accept2

The vile lyrics arent sole domain of rap........

Lets kill that kid,
Cause he's a jerk,
Lets kill his friends,
Cause they look worse.

Let's kill, kill, kill, kill, kill the hosers,
Let's beat, beat, beat, beat, beat the shit out the little ****ers,
Let's kill, kill, kill, kill, kill the hosers,
Lets not leave the others any leftovers.

Lets rape that chick,
Cause shes a ****,
Were really really horny,
And we wanna get ****ed.

Let's kill, kill, kill, kill, kill the hosers,
Let's beat, beat, beat, beat, beat the shit out the little ****ers,
Let's kill, kill, kill, kill, kill the hosers,
Lets not leave the others any leftovers.


----------



## cbh747

*I agree*

Have to agree with you there....I never really liked the Beatles.

They did, however, smoke.

And they did actually sing and actually play musical instruments.

Requires a little more talent than playing drum loops and talking.


----------



## cbh747

*Right*



> The vile lyrics arent sole domain of rap........


Also agreed. Idiocy has no boundaries, musical or otherwise.


----------



## Wild Bill

*You can't plot a curve with only one point...*

The fact that there's one or two examples of good poetry in hiphop proves just that - there are one or two good examples!

Again I quote the 80/20 rule: "80% of everything is crap!"

The percentage varies, of course. My contention is that with hiphop it's more like 98%. That doesn't mean that someone can't find a good example. It means that I'd rather they had to spend their time looking than me! I just don't have that much spare time available.

Shall we compare Zep's "Stairway to Heaven" or Pearl Jam's "Jeremy" with "My Hump"?

I rest my case...

---Wild Bill


----------



## cbh747

*You're right about that*



> The percentage varies, of course. My contention is that with hiphop it's more like 98%. That doesn't mean that someone can't find a good example. It means that I'd rather they had to spend their time looking than me! I just don't have that much spare time available.


Actually, the example that I posted was the one that required the least amount of work to make presentable to the forum. 

I just wandered over to http://www.hit-rap-lyrics.com/ and selected something that wouldn't take 20 minutes to sanitize.

Made me long for the days when I smoked.


----------



## david henman

Wild Bill said:


> The fact that there's one or two examples of good poetry in hiphop proves just that - there are one or two good examples!
> Again I quote the 80/20 rule: "80% of everything is crap!"
> The percentage varies, of course. My contention is that with hiphop it's more like 98%. That doesn't mean that someone can't find a good example. It means that I'd rather they had to spend their time looking than me! I just don't have that much spare time available.
> Shall we compare Zep's "Stairway to Heaven" or Pearl Jam's "Jeremy" with "My Hump"?
> I rest my case...
> ---Wild Bill


...we used to do that in school. song "a" is better than song "b". band "c" is better than band "d". and so on. we don't do that anymore.

i remember older folks, like our parents and teachers, complaining that our music was just noise.

fifty years later i find many of my musician friends saying exactly the same thing about music made by the...er...younger generation.

plus ca change, eh?

-dh


----------



## Marnacious

looks like this one drifted a bit off topic


----------



## MaxWedge

Violent lyrics have always been a subject in popular music, 'Hey Joe' has to be one of the most covered songs in history. However the references to rape are new (I think) and disturbing. Twenty five years ago if you bragged about raping anyone you would have been shunned, and if you were convicted of rape and went to prison you did "rough time", not anymore. Now, we have had a local youth street gang that required rape to get in. There is a creeping acceptance of what was once considered vile. There is almost always a demand for "respect" from such individuals, it's impossible to respect scum. I apologize for the rant but man it's freakin' sickening...Max


----------



## Guest

So much for getting back on topic.....

"the references to rape are new"
Not at all...


----------



## Chito

Going back on topic  We've been smoke-free here in Ottawa since 2001. Some bars, mostly the ones frequented by "bums" are gone but majority of the pubs are still around. A lot of the bars who were complaining at that time that they would lose business are still around. Honestly I think attendance in bars has got nothing to do with whether people are allowed to smoke in them or not. Their main business is to sell alcohol not tobacco. All these concerns and reasons that people are giving right now in areas where there are still smoking in bars are not good enough reason to stop the "smoke-free" ban. One thing I've noticed in Ottawa too is that there are more people who have quit smoking after the ban took effect, at least with people I know.

People go to bars because they want to have a drink, socialize, hear some music, etc. People don't go to bars because they can smoke in them.

Just my 2 cents...


----------



## Wild Bill

*Maybe your town is different...*



Chito said:


> Going back on topic  We've been smoke-free here in Ottawa since 2001. Some bars, mostly the ones frequented by "bums" are gone but majority of the pubs are still around. A lot of the bars who were complaining at that time that they would lose business are still around. Honestly I think attendance in bars has got nothing to do with whether people are allowed to smoke in them or not. Their main business is to sell alcohol not tobacco. All these concerns and reasons that people are giving right now in areas where there are still smoking in bars are not good enough reason to stop the "smoke-free" ban. One thing I've noticed in Ottawa too is that there are more people who have quit smoking after the ban took effect, at least with people I know.
> 
> People go to bars because they want to have a drink, socialize, hear some music, etc. People don't go to bars because they can smoke in them.
> 
> Just my 2 cents...


Well, it's your town and I have no experience to argue with you about Ottawa.

I CAN say that Hamilton has had a LOT of closures over the past few years and there are a LOT fewer clubs that book bands. Some of those that remain pay as little as $150 per night. That's the total - they don't care if you're 3 pc or 6 pc! It would seem that once the smoke cleared out you could see many empty tables.

One factor that cannot be denied is that the clubs are NOT seeing the huge increase in business that was promised! 

"There are thousands of non-smokers who are panting to come out to your club and only the smoke is keeping them away! Kill the smoke and you won't lose business, you'll GAIN far more!"

The above is a line I actually heard trumpeted from anti-tobacco activists as they were calling for the new stricter regulations. All you have to do is visit a few clubs on a Saturday night and look around to see that this has turned out to be a crock.

It's plain as day that the people who complain the most about smoke in bars don't want to go there anyway. Otherwise you'd see an increase. We can debate in this thread forever but money talks and bullsh*t walks, as the saying goes. As someone had said earlier, new clubs catering to the young folks are springing up. What we see is that an existing demographic of 30+ has taken a permanent big hit. If you're 22 you likely aren't even aware there's been a problem and if it's pointed out to you don't likely care. All I can say is that someday it might be YOUR pet form of music/entertainment that gets hurt! 

Already there seems to be a growing attitude about not caring about the other guy's lifestyle freedoms if nobody cares about yours. I don't think at all that this is a good thing - in fact I deplore it. Nonetheless, I think it's truly happening...


----------



## GuitarsCanada

I can buy that Wild Bill. A town like Hamilton, hard core, hard working blue collar town. On a Friday or Saturday night these people want to go out and have a beer, check out some live music. Now they dont go anymore. I can assure you they did not quit smoking because of it. I notice that many of the bars (that have the room) have now installed huge outdoor patios to accomodate smokers. This works great in the summer time, not so good in the winter.

It's a debate that has good and bad points on both sides. Who knows where t will wash out.


----------



## Wild Bill

*It's worse...*



GuitarsCanada said:


> I can buy that Wild Bill. A town like Hamilton, hard core, hard working blue collar town. On a Friday or Saturday night these people want to go out and have a beer, check out some live music. Now they dont go anymore. I can assure you they did not quit smoking because of it. I notice that many of the bars (that have the room) have now installed huge outdoor patios to accomodate smokers. This works great in the summer time, not so good in the winter.
> 
> It's a debate that has good and bad points on both sides. Who knows where t will wash out.


Well, funny you should mention that. Hamilton has decided that this summer smoking is no longer allowed on outdoor patios!

Already some clubs are trying to get around the laws. One local councillor was quoted in the paper indignantly crying that these clubs had no right to defy the city!

Didn't look to me like defiance at all. More like desperately trying to stave off bankruptcy!

I mean, the nerve of those clubs! They should just die quietly so as not to cause any embarrassment to the politicians who voted to kill them off...


----------



## zao_89

I think smokers should be able to smoke. Of course not everybody wnats second hand smoke, so a section probably the best idea.


----------



## Lester B. Flat

There's been a lot of diverse opinions, ideas and inspired rants expressed in this thread both on and off topic. Whether you think its a good thing or not, the smoking ban is affecting people's lives and I doubt if we'll ever go back to smoking in bars. It's the end of a century long cultural phenomenon that's been slowly declining since the 80's. The smoking ban is not the only factor affecting this decline. 29 styles of rock&roll, 15 styles of jazz, blues-funk-rock-acid-hiphop-country-speed metal.... the audience is divided into camps and no one draws a big crowd. Maybe a couple of nights a week at the successful bars, but I remember when they were packed six nights a week with line ups on the weekend, and that was for a local band. 

Cigarettes are often referred to as "coffin nails", but it could be said that the smoking ban is the last nail in the coffin for, if not the bars, many jazz, blues, rock and country musicians who: were inspired ,created, worked, found love, made friends, payed their dues, and learned their craft in these establishments. Bars have traditionally been the proving ground for musicians for nearly a century. As an old geezer once told me (actually told me over and over again) at a bar in 1974, "the drinking establishment.. is the number one.. communication center.. in the Dominion of Canada!". Now, I'm the old geezer, and I think its the internet now. 

Some have suggested the bar owners need to get a new business plan. Some of them will and they'll make a living. Becoming a new "type" of bar such as the very successful hip-hop variety might be the answer for bar owners, but what about musicians, guitarists in particular, which is what this forum is about? How many famous hip-hop guitar players do you know? Life goes on...

:smilie_flagge17: :food-smiley-004:


----------



## SinCron

Total ban or dedicated smoking section AWAY from all the fun. I saw some bitch of a mom drag her kids back in the smoking section at a Tim Hortons so they wouldnt be too far away. Talk about twisted priorities. Im asthmatic so I dont want to be anywhere near the stuff, let alone smell it.


----------



## Wild Bill

*Why not a choice for both sides?*



SinCron said:


> Total ban or dedicated smoking section AWAY from all the fun. I saw some bitch of a mom drag her kids back in the smoking section at a Tim Hortons so they wouldnt be too far away. Talk about twisted priorities. Im asthmatic so I dont want to be anywhere near the stuff, let alone smell it.


Why not let the club post a big sign over the door saying "Smoking", "Non-Smoking" or "Mixed" where they have dedicated sections? That way everybody gets a choice.

Sadly, it will never happen! That's because the real goal is not to protect non-smokers at all. It's to force smokers to quit. 

Of course, the official line is that they're not forcing anybody! Nobody wants to be a blatant fascist, after all. In reality the goal is to give smokers no place to smoke. Some towns ban smoking outdoors anywhere on the street. There are voices crying to ban smoking in your own home if you have children. In California a few years back there was a motion in the state legislature to ban smoking in any road salesperson's auto, since it was by definition a "workplace". The fact that he owned the vehicle and that he was alone didn't matter.

These and many other examples are why I believe that what's going on is simply the chance for those who want to tell their neighbours how to live their own lives to get the power of local law behind them. Similar voices call for putting overweight folks or drinkers to the back of the line for medical procedures.

Social engineers do believe in freedom. Only they think freedom is the freedom to agree with them!

It's enough to make an old hippie cry sometimes...


----------



## GuitarsCanada

Dragging the kiddies into the debate always makes for good fodder. To tell you the truth I would much rather see Mom AND Dad with the kids in the smoking section at Tim Horton's. See, the government won't tackle real issues like the divorce rate which is over 50% in Canada. They won't tackle the issue of thousands of kids under the age of 20 living on the streets in all of our major cities. But they will pour a ton of money into no smoking bans. Do you feel the same way when you see a parent beating the shit out of a 3 year old at Walmart for crying? If they lit up a smoke in there you would maybe call the police.

I grew up in a house where both my parents smoked. This is back in the 60's and 70's when practically everyone smoked. Way before we realized or woke up that this shit can kill you man. My parents did not think they were harming us. I recently went for a full stress test which included a breathing test and lung exams. I have the lungs of a teenager and I am 44 years old.

In terms of the debate here... you can't bring your kids into a bar so the point is mute. You can however bring them to a casino and gamble your mortgage money away,, while smoking I might add (to the goverment coffers) and leave your kids locked in the car and recieve a relatively light punishment if caught. They don't want to keep you away from the slot machines for too long. :smilie_flagge17:


----------



## Accept2

The smoking ban is alot like the hand gun ban. Both the smokers and the hand gun owners will claim their freedom is being trampled on by a bunch of nazis. The victims of both didnt ask to be shot or be subject to second hand smoke but they got it anyway. Personally I'd rather have a hand gun than a cigarette. Maybe if we used the English language like they do in the UK, smoking wouldn't be so popular over here, as in "Hey you smoking guys like to suck on **** all day?"................


----------



## Guest

" the government won't tackle real issues like the divorce rate which is over 50% in Canada"
How is that even remotely an issue concerning the government?!?! It isn't, that's how.....

"mom drag her kids back in the smoking section at a Tim Hortons"
There isn't a Tims anywhere NEAR me that even HAS a smoking section.... 

"That way everybody gets a choice."
It's a worker safety issue.... as I've said before, if the garbage coming off the burning end of a cigarette was in the air of a mine-shaft or a foundry, no one would ever be allowed to work there... And you cannot take that right away from 'wait-staff'. If you as a bar owner want to set up an independently ventilated, separate room that no staff ever enters during business hours, for people to smoke in, I agree that should be an option open to you.

"ban smoking in your own home if you have children."
There shouldn't HAVE to be... if you're a parent, you should be smart enough to grok that on your own....


----------



## Wild Bill

*Where is Richard Feyman when you need him?*

---" "ban smoking in your own home if you have children."
There shouldn't HAVE to be... if you're a parent, you should be smart enough to grok that on your own...."

You imply that the hazards of passive smoke are a given, that absolutely second-hand smoke in a home will damage the lungs of the children.

I've been hearing this for 30 years and I've never yet been able to see any evidence that shows good scientific methodology. It all stems from an American Attorney General of Health in the 70's named Koop, who issued statements that later even he himself admitted were based on "inferential" evidence. Once some young woman fresh from a philosophy course at Brock told me that I wasn't sufficiently educated enough to understand the evidence. I simply smiled and asked if she could be good enough to provide some for me.

It took a few weeks but she eventually came up with a book from the Ontario government (No simple pamphlet! It was a nice, expensive looking bound volume.) dealing with the hazards of tobacco.

I dutifully read the thing from cover to cover. I had no quarrel with most of the chapters as to the negative effects of tobacco use on the human body. Most everything is bad for us, particularly if over used. A teaspoon of salt swallowed by a baby can seriously harm or kill the infant. I would have liked to see more study on how much being in good or bad physical shape contributes to the risk factors but hey, it's easier to get people to quit something dangerous than to get them to stay in good enough condition to handle it better. I also couldn't argue about not smoking near oxygen tents although I was curious about the need to even mention it. Are people really that stupid or was the author paid by the word?

What DID strike me was the chapter on passive, or second-hand smoke! The style of writing was so different I suspected it wasn't the same author. It had pages and pages listing all the substances found in tobacco smoke. That was no big deal. I once worked in a materials testing lab where we could measure over 15000 different substances in a glass of municipal tap water. When your machines can detect levels in parts per quintillion that's the kind of list you get!

No mention was made for any substance on the list as to whether the level was dangerous or trivial. It didn't seem to be important. The author used lots of words like "should", "could be", "may" and "potentially". Such words are mostly meaningless in true science. 

It doesn't matter. Today you can say anything negative you want about nicotine and it will be accepted in most quarters as gospel. Particularly about passive smoke as it is just too good a tool to force smokers to quit. No matter how isolated smokers might be there's always a chance that someone, somehow might get a sniff and promptly die.

Better yet, you can be as fat and as out of shape as Gilbert Grape's mother but you get to blame all your ills on that smoker next door. 

Any bets on how long you'd keep your funding if your lab published some results of tests that contradicted the assumptions about passive smoke?

Any guesses on how much funding the anti-smoke labs receive?

Lately there've been a string of ads in the media featuring an old waitress claiming her lung cancer came from second-hand smoke on the job. This kind of crap is about as scientific as the I Ching! Thousands of people get lung cancer every year that never smoked or had any significant passive exposure. The great comedian Andy Kaufman never smoked and rabidly avoided the smoke and yet lung cancer took him! You can't plot a curve with only one point and claim even the pretense of being scientific. 

It's just a sad fact that doing all the right things doesn't mean you will never get the disease. 

I've stated before that I haven't smoked in years but that doesn't mean I think I know the gospel about science. And I wager I understood the source of the word "grok" some years before you heard of it. Michael Valantine Smith understood better than anyone what happens if you don't sing the same hymn as your neighbours. Frankly, I resent your implication that to be a good parent I must accept your view on passive smoke as true and accurate.

I would however be quite interested if you can direct me to some truly scientific evidence to support your premise. I do stipulate that just as you would not likely accept anything from me that was funded by the tobacco industry I would not waste my time reading anything funded by the anti-nicotine jihad.

Lastly, shouldn't the government invade the aboriginal reserves and forcibly shut down their cigarette factories? After all, they are thriving by providing death at a cheaper price than the government and thus defeating the goal of encouraging more smokers to quit. These factories are producing far more cigarettes than their own people could ever possibly consume so the intent is obvious. Perhaps we should respect their right to self-determination on their own reserves but in the interest of protecting us from ourselves shouldn't we erect walls around them and stop any nicotine from leaving their land?

I'm just trying to be consistent with the illogic of the other side. Myself, I admire the aboriginals for their enterprise! What's more, has anyone else seen some of the really great blues music shows on APTN? Some of those native guys are truly exceptional blues artists. We should support them. It looks like the reserves may soon be the only place we can go to have a beer and hear such music played.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

*Grok*

Good riff Wild Bill. I happen to agree with it.

This is interesting...

Grok
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grok (IPA [gɹɑk], rhymes with rock) is a verb roughly meaning "to understand completely" or more formally "to achieve complete intuitive understanding". It was coined by science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein in his novel Stranger in a Strange Land, where it is part of the fictional Martian language and introduced to English speakers by a man raised by Martians.

It should be made clear that there is no exact definition for grok; it is a fictional word intended not to be "understood completely".

In the Martian tongue, it literally means "to drink" but is used in a much wider context. A character in the novel (not the primary user) defines it:

"Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science—and it means as little to us (because we are from Earth) as color means to a blind man." 
Using the broad meaning above, the term gained real-world currency as slang among counterculture groups including hippies. A popular t-shirt and bumper sticker slogan for 1970s Trekkies was I grok Spock (often showing the Star Trek character using the Vulcan salute).


----------



## Wild Bill

*You grok it, GC!*

Good definitions, but the use of it in the post to which I had replied suggested a wider context.

In the book "Stranger in a Strange Land", Michael Valentine Smith was the first human born on Mars when an expedition had failed and all the adults perished. Michael was raised by an ancient Martian race and like a feral child raised by wolves thought of himself as a Martian. 20 some odd years later a second expedition returns to the red planet and the Martian Elders present him to be returned to the planet of his parents.

The character was perhaps the best instrument for showing the human condition of all written by Heinlein, who was fascinated with the traits and quirks of human societies. These quirks rarely have a rational basis but seem to be universal expressions of human psychology.

The book deals with Smith's long and convoluted trek to finally be able to think like a human rather than a Martian. Our sexual mores are at first totally uncomprehensible to him. Afterwards he becomes a true expression of hippy "free love" and leads a movement.

Like all such Heinlein characters he comes up against the dirty tendency of humans to have a fanatic faith in their own assumptions and a need to crucify any who don't agree. By the end of the book he is crucified by evengelicals, and like Jesus is resurrected and leaves for Heaven, leaving behind a "church" or movement.

It still sells a zillion copies a year. It was THE book on campus immediately before Lord of the Rings broke in the early 60's. Some say it changed American culture into that of the swinging 60's and there seems to be some truth in that!

The reference seemed apt after I was challenged by such a blatant assumption about my parenting skills and morals. There was little or no room for my having a different belief about the hazards of passive smoke. They were accepted as firmly as the sun rising in the east...


----------



## david henman

...this discussion has suddenly become very interesting.

i love reading the thoughts of people, like wild bill (and george carlin), who have made a conscious decision to stop drinking mainstream kool-aid.

-dh


----------



## Guest

""should", "could be", "may" and "potentially". Such words are mostly meaningless in true science."

Bull.....

They, and the questions they imply are the ROOT of all science....

"This kind of crap is about as scientific as the I Ching!"
As are your disjointed, unsupported rants.... 

You sound like the main character from "Thank You For Smoking" when he's singing The Party Line... before his awakening... 

"george carlin"
You mean the guy who quit smoking 20 years ago????

"direct me to some truly scientific evidence"
Might I suggest you visit the NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health)... They have determined that secondhand smoke may cause lung cancer in exposed workers. I'd imagine that http://www.cdc.gov/ can lead you to them.....

Or is that too biased for you?


----------



## david henman

ClintonHammond said:


> ""should", "could be", "may" and "potentially". Such words are mostly meaningless in true science."
> Bull.....
> They, and the questions they imply are the ROOT of all science....
> "This kind of crap is about as scientific as the I Ching!"
> As are your disjointed, unsupported rants....
> You sound like the main character from "Thank You For Smoking" when he's singing The Party Line... before his awakening...
> "george carlin"
> You mean the guy who quit smoking 20 years ago????
> "direct me to some truly scientific evidence"
> Might I suggest you visit the NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health)... They have determined that secondhand smoke may cause lung cancer in exposed workers. I'd imagine that http://www.cdc.gov/ can lead you to them.....
> Or is that too biased for you?



...i dunno, i think wild bill raises some interesting points and poses some intriguing questions regarding the effects of second hand smoke. i, for one, would like to know the answers.

-dh


----------



## Guest

Once again then I'd imagine that http://www.cdc.gov/ might have some good info for you....

"Better yet, you can be as fat and as out of shape as Gilbert Grape's mother but you get to blame all your ills on that smoker next door."

Ya... that's a REAL interesting "point" and/or "intriguing question".... 

*rolls eyes*


----------



## Guest

Don't forget their tin-foil hats!

LOL


----------



## GuitarsCanada

According to Wild Bills posts he does not even smoke, he quit years ago so he has no vested interest in any smokers rights IMO. He is simply stating the facts as he sees them, according to information he has read and gathered. He has stated his opinion, rather eloquently and has asked for more info. Sounds like he is debating the issue in a reasonable and adult manner. There has not been one person on this thread that has ever said smoking is good for you. That is an established fact. There is some debate on the second hand smoke issue. Certainly lots of "data" on both sides of that one.


----------



## Guest

"you can be as fat and as out of shape as Gilbert Grape's mother but you get to blame all your ills on that smoker next door."

Ya... very reasonable and adult....


----------



## GuitarsCanada

Teleman, your amazing. You read but you do not see. Go back and read my posts. I know you have because you deleted all your other posts on this thread, but go back one more time and find anywhere in my posts where I support smoking in ANY public place. You wont find it because I do not support smoking in public places. I dont think anyone that does not smoke or even those that do should have to sit in a smoke filled room if they dont want to. I smoke and I can't stand being in an enclosed room filled with smoke. That includes bars. 

The thread is "Smoking legislation is killing the bars" and I agree that it is. I also think, as I pointed out previously that a lot of them went out and spent money to build these smoking sections and then got shafted.

I also agree that a lot of the data on second hand smoke is just that... smoke. Do I think that we as humans should try the best we can to eliminate smoking from the face of the earth? Absolutely. As I stated before I have two kids that do not smoke and I hope they never do. I don't smoke in the house and I have tried to slow it down as much as I can. Believe me I curse the day I ever picked one up.

So once again, I have to say I don't have a clue where you are coming from. Other than the fact that you hate smoke and apparently, smokers, as well. We know that already.


----------



## Wild Bill

*Same old, same old...*

---"How would you feel if somebody stood next to you in a bar and repeatedly spat in your face all night? That is exactly how offensive I find someone blowing smoke in my face. What would you think of someone who crusades for their "right" to spit in your face?"

Well Mr. Teleman, it would seem that indeed you read but do not see. Do I have to spell it all out in capitals? I have made this following point a number of times already.

If you're offended by smoke then how are you at risk if you can see at the entrance to the club that it's a smoking bar? You can then choose to go to a non-smoking establishment. Do you think that the smokers will follow you, crash your bar and then blow the smoke in your face?

What has happened is that there ARE no smoking bars! You got your choice and the smokers had theirs taken away. From libertarian standpoint this is bad enough. This thread got started however dealing with how it has affected the club scene and musicians' opportunities. My major beef is that the antismoking movement denied negative effects would ever happen and now refuses to admit that they DID happen! Let alone taking any responsibility. I would have had more respect if they had said from the start that the side-effects of their actions were obvious but that they thought it was worth it in the long run. That never happened. They were either blinded by fanaticism or simply liars. What other possibilities are there?

Have you ever considered that the smokers would cheerfully avoid you, if they had any choice? The law in effect forces them to sit with non-smokers. The fact that the bars promptly emptied out shows what the smokers thought of that idea! 

I'm old enough to remember how in the 70's we began to see buttons that said "Smokers Have Rights Too!". Even smokers supported the idea. Those were closer to hippy times and most folks would cheerfully support the rights of others. Little did the smokers know that by the 90's the buttons would read "Smokers Have NO Rights!".

Maybe that's part of why today we see less respect for the other guy's right to choose. Those who get kicked in the teeth for doing something nice...

I don't see how it can possibly be denied that passive smoke is a red herring. All solutions that would protect non-smokers from passive smoke are ignored. Only an absolute ban is accepted.

Except in government casinos, of course.

They now have moved into old age nursing homes. People in their 80's or older are being forced to quit. They are too frail to go to an outside smoking area and the excuse is that "staff should not be exposed to smoke".

To do this to senior citizens is a dispicable act! I have no respect at all for anyone who supports such action. I fervently wish that someday they will be treated in kind.

I will read your link later and tell you what I found. If I didn't, what would be the point? This would not be a reasoned debate but simply shouting between people whose philosophy is more like a religion than based on reason.

Unlike some, I actually pay attention and absorb what I read...


----------



## SinCron

I just dont see what the issue is. Government is trying to get people to smoke because its bad for them. If you stop smoking, the government loses the money that they're making from the raised prices. Why would someone go out and buy a box of poison and then use it on themselves when they could get the patch, the gum or whatever else there is? Dont try to tell me its too expensive for those things because look at what smokers are spending on cigs now. I just cant see the point in smoking ones life away. Break the addiction with the above tools and some other help as well and you will make it through it. Remember, its not only for you, but those close to you.


----------



## Wild Bill

*Do unto others...*



SinCron said:


> I just dont see what the issue is. Government is trying to get people to smoke because its bad for them. If you stop smoking, the government loses the money that they're making from the raised prices. Why would someone go out and buy a box of poison and then use it on themselves when they could get the patch, the gum or whatever else there is? Dont try to tell me its too expensive for those things because look at what smokers are spending on cigs now. I just cant see the point in smoking ones life away. Break the addiction with the above tools and some other help as well and you will make it through it. Remember, its not only for you, but those close to you.


There is a big difference in trying to persuade someone and FORCING someone! If some anti-nico militant truly believes that after taking away a smoker's right to choose they will in a few months "sober up" and thank them for saving them from themselves then that militant is dreaming in technicolour!

Smoking is not the only lifestyle war happening in our society. Eventually EVERYBODY will be pissed off and resentful!


----------



## david henman

SinCron said:


> I just dont see what the issue is. Government is trying to get people to smoke because its bad for them. If you stop smoking, the government loses the money that they're making from the raised prices. Why would someone go out and buy a box of poison and then use it on themselves when they could get the patch, the gum or whatever else there is? Dont try to tell me its too expensive for those things because look at what smokers are spending on cigs now. I just cant see the point in smoking ones life away. Break the addiction with the above tools and some other help as well and you will make it through it. Remember, its not only for you, but those close to you.


...its an individual choice. in a free society. i smoke for pleasure. i have been smoking for close to fifty years. i'm still not physically addicted and can go for weeks without smoking and not experience any sort of withdrawal. i almost never take them with me when i leave the house. i could quit tonight and get killed by a red light runner tomorrow (which almost happened on wednesday night).

we all have to eat, and yet most of the food that is available in restaurants and supermarkets is just as poisonous and, ultimately, as fatal as cigarette smoke.

-dh


----------



## GuitarsCanada

SinC my friend, your heart is in the right place but smoking is an addiction. A tough one. I would wager that you have never smoked, and that's good. Don't do it !!!. I don't drink, so it would be easy for me to look at an alcoholic and say "why do you need that booze? what's the attraction? just stop it !.. look at all the money you have wasted and look what you are doing to your family"

It's not as simple as that. Like I said before. Through education and changing social trends some day smoking may be a thing of the past, and thats a good thing. But you have to remember the culture I grew up in and many like me. We were pounded with advertising. All our movies and TV hero's smoked. Smoking was everywhere. So when you turned 16 or 17 you picked up a smoke and joined the club.

If I had a nickel for every person I knew that quit smoking and went back to it I could retire today. Those that have stayed off it will likely tell you that a day does not pass that they don't crave one. An Alcoholic will tell you the same thing. I feel for them. But there is something to say for a comment Wild Bill made about seniors. These poor people grew up in that culture, back then they were not doing anything that everyone else was not doing and now, at the end of their time on earth we are going to force them to stop smoking. Let them be.... educate our kids and eradicate this thing for future generations. That's the only way to do it. My kids 18 and 21 know the dangers, they had the benefit of education and parents (although a smoker) to make them aware of it.

When you are an addict, you will always be in recovery. An alcoholic does not stop drinking today and thats the end of it, they fight it for the rest of their lives, so do smokers. My Father quit about 10 years ago and he craves the friggin smell of the stuff.... it's no joke.

The thing that bothers me the most is the way smokers get treated as lepers. For example. We like to go on cruises. Cruise ships are all divided smoking and non smoking by port and starboard. Now a cruise ship is fairly wide so if some geek is smoking on the port side NOBODY on the starboard side is going to smell it. So after dinner or whatever we go to the lounge on the port side to enjoy a nice cocktail and a smoke. We will sit there through a steady stream of poeple walking through with fake caughs, snide comments and very rude remarks. Do we deserve that? We are in a designated (well marked) smoking area. If I were to go over to the starboard side and light up then I would expect that. But I have enough brains and courtesy not to do that. We realize that in time things are just going to get worse.

The moral of the story is what's next.... what thing will be deemed socially unacceptable next, maybe something that will make you a leper? Here's one.. why dont we enact a law that say's the youth of this nation can't sit in a public place and use every filthy word in the english language at the top of their voices in front of women and children? Thats one I would like to see. Here is another. Lets enact a law that say's anyone that sits on a cell phone blabbing at the top of their lungs to some jerk while I am trying to enjoy a dinner I am paying $100.00 for is to be taken out in the middle of the street and flogged to death. I would sign up for that one tomorrow.


----------



## SinCron

All things considered, Id take the food because Im a glutton at heart. Now for the facts, Im 6'2 and I weigh 135. I can keep eating as long as I can without gaining a thing and it annoys me. If I actually manage to get at a healthy weight, I'll manage my eating a lot more. The only time I gained weight is when I had drums. Now my eating doesn't affect anyone so thats good (unless I have massive farts on public transportation). I forgot where I was going with this. Oh well.


----------



## david henman

SinCron said:


> All things considered, Id take the food because Im a glutton at heart. Now for the facts, Im 6'2 and I weigh 135. I can keep eating as long as I can without gaining a thing and it annoys me. If I actually manage to get at a healthy weight, I'll manage my eating a lot more. The only time I gained weight is when I had drums. Now my eating doesn't affect anyone so thats good (unless I have massive farts on public transportation). I forgot where I was going with this. Oh well.



...i love to eat, too. who doesn't? and, at 58, i have managed to stay slim, as well. however, i recently began a program of eating ONLY food that has nutritional value, and avoiding sugar, fat and the "white factor", and the difference it has made in my health and well-being is nothing short of astounding. a real eye-opener, for sure.

-dh


----------



## david henman

GuitarsCanada said:


> Lets enact a law that say's anyone that sits on a cell phone blabbing at the top of their lungs to some jerk while I am trying to enjoy a dinner I am paying $100.00 for is to be taken out in the middle of the street and flogged to death. I would sign up for that one tomorrow.



...amen to that!

:2guns:


----------



## cbh747

teleman said:


> Where I'm coming from is that my mother died 2 years ago this July of lung cancer at the age of 59. She was not a smoker and had no history of cancer in her family. My father, though, was a heavy smoker for the entire 35 years they were married. Can I prove that the cancer was caused by second hand smoke? Of course not. How could I possibly prove that? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, though, that it was a contributiong factor. Not only do I find it offensive that people think they have the "right" to blow poisonous chemicals in my face and that if I have a problem with it _I'm_ the one who should have to leave, but I also find it offensive that people like you and Wild Bill spout your nonesense about second hand smoke being perfectly healthy and that all the medical evidence to the contrary is just "smoke" or part of some grand conspiracy started by the U.S. Surgeon General.


I am pretty sure that GuitarsCanada and Wild Bill are not saying that second hand smoke is perfectly healthy, they are just pointing out the lack of evidence with regards to the extent of the effects. 

They are not campaigning for the right to blow smoke in your face, they are simply asking for the right to make a choice just as you have the right to make a choice.

At least that is what I gather from what I have read. And I tend to agree.

There are a lot worse things out there than second hand smoke.


----------



## Guest

I find it most laughable that the people who chose to defend the actions of companies whose products kill more than half a million of their customers every year then have the audacity to try to infer that the people who oppose them are the equivalent to being against free-speech.......


----------



## GuitarsCanada

Whoa..... pull back bro... where did I or anyone ever say that they have the "right" to blow smoke in your face... and I personally never said that second hand smoke was perfectly healthy.. that would be nonsense. I said I dispute "a lot" of the data on it. I am intelligent enough to know that if you smoke in a contained area that people in that area are going to breath in the smoke..... and if that smoke is bad for the guy with the cig in his hands, which we all know is fact, then there must be an effect on others. It's the degree of that effect that I question. In all cases I support the division between smokers and non... Again, you should not have to breathe in my smoke and I would never expect you to. But don't look at me like I'm a leper because I smoke.

I am really sorry to hear about your Mother, I lost my Mother two years ago as well. She smoked her whole life and I know that was a contributing factor in her death (massive heart attack) at 72 years of age. She was on Vioxx as well which I think had something to do with it. However I am sure that your dad never thought for one minute that he was harming your Mother, if he did, and thought that he caused her death I can imagine how he would feel now. 

Cancer is a bitch of a thing. How many times have all of us been in a conversation with a friend or family member that went something like this. "hey did you hear Joe Blow died? Yeah of lung cancer...he never even smoked". The reality is that we have so far been unable to pinpoint all the causes of cancer.

Here is another example for you. All my Mother's family is from Cape Breton. They were raised in what I would call fairly poor conditions. Everyone of the men in that family worked in the coal mines, everyone of them smoked like chimney's..... I can't recall a death on that side of the family from cancer. There is a history of heart problems but no cancer. Go figure that. And these buggers worked in those coal mines with nothing more than a mouth full of chewing tobacco to catch some of the shit in the air.


----------



## david henman

teleman said:


> Not only do I find it offensive that people think they have the "right" to blow poisonous chemicals in my face and that if I have a problem with it _I'm_ the one who should have to leave....


...i doubt that anyone here would disagree with this, do you?

-dh


----------



## MaxWedge

Smoking does kill those who do not smoke. It's surprising that there is any debate on subject of public smoking. As someone earlier stated, if the substances on the burning end of cigarette were found in an industrial workplace, there would hell to pay...and a law I would like to see is a 'No Spitting In Public' law. Try walking around Prince Albert, Saskatchewan sometime. It's really quite gross to see some goof emptying the contents of his/her nasal cavity in public, sans benifit of hanky/tissue. Or spitting just to give the sidewalk a nice sheen. Makes my day to step in gob.


----------



## cbh747

*Then let's go further*



ClintonHammond said:


> I find it most laughable that the people who chose to defend the actions of companies whose products kill more than half a million of their customers every year then have the audacity to try to infer that the people who oppose them are the equivalent to being against free-speech.......


Then we should ban alcohol because it ruins your liver or could cause you to have a car accident.

We should ban automobiles and trucks because every breath that we take contains hazardous exhaust fumes.

We should ban pesticides, they are killing our lakes and rivers and, by extension, us.

You can oppose any or all of the above and that is your right. However, anti smokers often lean toward zealotry. Smoking is an addiction and to condemn people for that addiction or to condemn them for simply wanting to have a cigarette is wrong. Anti smokers often feel that their opinions are the only valid ones and that those that don't share those opinions are deluded in some way.


----------



## david henman

teleman said:


> They want the right to choose to blow poisonous and offensive chemicals in my face.
> 
> 
> 
> ...sorry, no one here is suggesting that.
> 
> -dh
Click to expand...


----------



## david henman

MaxWedge said:


> Smoking does kill those who do not smoke.


...if you have insputable proof of that, you should contact the scientific community.

-dh


----------



## david henman

...as most of you are aware, roughly 1/3 of highway fatalities are caused by drunk drivers. this means that roughly 2/3 of highway fatalities( ie TWICE as many!) are caused by sober drivers. i suggest we start a campaign to get sober drivers off the road!


----------



## MaxWedge

david henman said:


> ...as most of you are aware, roughly 1/3 of highway fatalities are caused by drunk drivers. this means that roughly 2/3 of highway fatalities( ie TWICE as many!) are caused by sober drivers. i suggest we start a campaign to get sober drivers off the road!


Geez there the logic I would expect from the goof clearing his nose.:sport-smiley-002:


----------



## Guest

"Smoking is an addiction"
Awwww... muffin..... Explain to me please, why we should have to make allowances for peoples negative, anti-social behaviour?

"if you have insputable(sic.) proof of that"
Ask the CDC.... or the American Surgeon General.... They have ALL KINDS of proof.... The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists 2nd hand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, a rating used only for substances (i.e., asbestos) proven to cause cancer in humans.

" Then we should ban alcohol"
With the exception of drunk drivers (Which is a whole different kettle of fish) the numbers of people who die or are injured from 2nd Hand Alcohol are statically insignificant

" We should ban automobiles and trucks because every breath that we take contains hazardous exhaust fumes."
No... but we surely need to limit the toxins that come out our tail-pipes

" We should ban pesticides"
The ones that kill rivers and lakes, yes we should.... 

"But don't look at me like I'm a leper because I smoke."
No... cause lumping you (US.... ) in with them is insulting to the leper....


----------



## cbh747

teleman said:


> They want the right to choose to blow poisonous and offensive chemicals in my face. And you figure that's fair because I can always choose to leave. Don't you think that's a little screwed up?
> 
> Should I have the right to choose to spit in your face, because you can choose just to stay away from me?


That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if a facility has a smoking section or permits smoking then you have the option to not patronize that facility.

What you are saying is that smokers should have the right to go nowhere and that you should have the right to go everywhere.

Don't you think that's a little screwed up?


----------



## flyontoast

(sorry I did not read ALL the post)

One thing I think you guys are forgetting is this: yes there's smoking sections in some bars/restaurants that are closed off to the public and keep non-smoking CUSTOMERS safe from smoke. But don't forget there are waiters, waitresses, bus boys, and bartneders that have to go into that area to serve and clean-up after the smokers. Those people DON'T have the right to choose. It's their job, and if they don't want to go into the smoking areas than they are going to lose their job. You can't say "fine, than just hire smoking waitresses to go into the smoking area" because that is discrimination against non-smokers (because they don't have an equal chance of getting the job).

Night life isn't going to come to a crashing hault. Maybe it'll be rough for the first few months, but honestly, are there really any smokers here who think smoking is making their life better? hypothetically: If NOBODY in the world smoked, you wouldn't give it up too? And it's much easier to quit smoking when you're not watching other people smoke and smelling the smoke in bars/restaurants when you're trying to have a good time. This should REALLY HELP those people who want to quit smoking because they will no longer have that temptation.

(sorry, I tried to keep it short and sweet)


----------



## Guest

" What you are saying is that smokers should have the right to go nowhere"

Not at all... they just can't SMOKE everywhere.....

We got them (us) outa the movie theatres..... we got them out of the airplanes.... outa the subways.... restaurants and bars and clubs are next.....

"quit smoking when you're not watching other people smoke"
Windsor goes total ban, June 1st, and that's my excuse to kick this stupid, filthy, paying-people-to-kill-me-slowly habit in the head for good!


----------



## GuitarsCanada

*Maybe Lock The Thread*

I may have to lock this thread out. Clearly, it cannot be debated on a level ground. There are those that have to put it on a personal level, which just turns it into a fight, which is not what we are looking for, I think we all would agree on that. It's a debate that will probably rage on for a few years yet.

If you guy's want to debate it without getting personal, I will leave it open. But I am not going to let it degrade too much farther down the name calling road.


----------



## david henman

MaxWedge said:


> Geez there the logic I would expect from the goof clearing his nose.:sport-smiley-002:


...so you don't think it makes perfect sense?


----------



## david henman

GuitarsCanada said:


> I may have to lock this thread out. Clearly, it cannot be debated on a level ground. There are those that have to put it on a personal level, which just turns it into a fight, which is not what we are looking for, I think we all would agree on that. It's a debate that will probably rage on for a few years yet.
> If you guy's want to debate it without getting personal, I will leave it open. But I am not going to let it degrade too much farther down the name calling road.


...good call. i think we can agree to keep it civilized. once it becomes personal, its no longer a debate.

-dh


----------



## david henman

flyontoast said:


> (sorry I did not read ALL the post)
> One thing I think you guys are forgetting is this: yes there's smoking sections in some bars/restaurants that are closed off to the public and keep non-smoking CUSTOMERS safe from smoke. But don't forget there are waiters, waitresses, bus boys, and bartneders that have to go into that area to serve and clean-up after the smokers. Those people DON'T have the right to choose. It's their job, and if they don't want to go into the smoking areas than they are going to lose their job. You can't say "fine, than just hire smoking waitresses to go into the smoking area" because that is discrimination against non-smokers (because they don't have an equal chance of getting the job).


...this is a very sensitive issue, i agree. no one should be forced to breathe second hand smoke. i have not seen anyone here suggest that they should.

-dh


----------



## Guest

"I am not going to let it degrade too much farther down the name calling road."
Might I suggest you PM those who you see as offenders......

"no one should be forced to breathe second hand smoke"
Hence the ban in public places


----------



## MaxWedge

david henman said:


> ...so you don't think it makes perfect sense?


ah man I know you were only joking. The rest of the fatalities are cell phone related...:rockon:


----------



## david henman

MaxWedge said:


> ah man I know you were only joking. The rest of the fatalities are cell phone related...:rockon:


...i never believed the claims of people eating a bowl of breakfast cereal or reading a newspaper/book while driving until i saw it with my own eyes. 

simply amazing.

-dh


----------



## cbh747

GuitarsCanada said:


> I may have to lock this thread out. Clearly, it cannot be debated on a level ground. There are those that have to put it on a personal level, which just turns it into a fight, which is not what we are looking for, I think we all would agree on that. It's a debate that will probably rage on for a few years yet.
> 
> If you guy's want to debate it without getting personal, I will leave it open. But I am not going to let it degrade too much farther down the name calling road.


It's ok. We're all going to go have a smoke and settle down.


----------



## Wild Bill

*You just don't listen at all, do you?*



teleman said:


> Where I'm coming from is that my mother died 2 years ago this July of lung cancer at the age of 59. She was not a smoker and had no history of cancer in her family. My father, though, was a heavy smoker for the entire 35 years they were married. Can I prove that the cancer was caused by second hand smoke? Of course not. How could I possibly prove that? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, though, that it was a contributiong factor. Not only do I find it offensive that people think they have the "right" to blow poisonous chemicals in my face and that if I have a problem with it _I'm_ the one who should have to leave, but I also find it offensive that people like you and Wild Bill spout your nonesense about second hand smoke being perfectly healthy and that all the medical evidence to the contrary is just "smoke" or part of some grand conspiracy started by the U.S. Surgeon General.


I'm sorry about your mother. However, on one hand you admit that you have no proof your father's smoke was at fault and immediately after you state you don't need any!

Where did I say that second hand smoke was perfectly healthy? I don't believe I ever did and a review of my previoius posts bears this out. Whatever! I just don't believe it is nearly as harmful as the anti-smoking lobby claims. Since I was born during the years that smoke was everywhere I cannot understand how myself and so many of our contemporaries are still alive today.

I will admit to a "conspiracy theory" as to the anti-smoking lobby. However, I argue with reason. You seem to argue from a more faith-based standpoint. You accept that second hand smoke is bad because you hate smoking. My points must be wrong because ...you REALLY HATE SMOKING!

Meanwhile, I went to your link and read the article there from the OMA. It's a long one so I don't think I should quote the entire thing here. What I will do is make my rebuttals in a Word .doc and I'll email it to anybody that wants it.

The short answer is that I suspect that you never actually read it yourself! I doubt if even you would go along with saying that "an addicted smoker is not exercising his/her "rights" by smoking but rather is satisfying a craving for a highly addictive drug, nicotine."

What, smokers cannot make a choice because of "addiction"? Are their brains so awash with nicotine that they can no longer think for themselves? 

The inference is obvious. They cannot make the right choice (the one the OMA thinks they should) so therefore the choice should be imposed on them.

As for bars, the article only mentions them once. They do talk about restaurants a lot but for "entertainment facilities" they suggest separately ventilated smoking rooms. The paper was written in 1996. They've come a long way since then!

I saw no mention of how a bar with a band is different from a restaurant. Or any estimate of impact on these venues. I suspect it's because few if any of the people involved with the paper ever actually go to bars! I can't prove it, of course. Still, if you have the right to believe without proof then don't I?

Anyway, just as Teleman has deleted his previous posts I think I might as well do the same with his new ones.

Before reading them!


----------



## GuitarsCanada

ClintonHammond said:


> "I am not going to let it degrade too much farther down the name calling road."
> Might I suggest you PM those who you see as offenders......
> 
> "no one should be forced to breathe second hand smoke"
> Hence the ban in public places


did you get my PM?


----------



## Guest

"What, smokers cannot make a choice because of "addiction"? Are their brains so awash with nicotine that they can no longer think for themselves? "

Sort of, yes.... It's undeniable that an addiction strongly influences ones thought/behaviour patterns... Whether that addiction be to heroin, nicotine (actually nicotine is WAY less addictive than the JUNK that tobacco companies lace cigarettes with to make them MORE addictive) or the sound your S.O. makes when she.... nevermind... I digress.... 

As a smoker I can speak anecdotally about 'smoking without realizing it'.. about coming home from the pub having smoked WAY more than I thought I did.... partially out of habit and partially out of addiction..... 

Addicts do NOT think rationally about the source of their addictions..... such is the very nature of how addiction changes the chemical behaviour of an addicts brain....

" did you get my PM?"
Nope... I can only imagine who did...


----------



## flyontoast

I'm just curious, don't any of you smokers see this as a great opportunity to quit smoking? I know my mom has tried many times to quit but seeing other people smoke always made it harder for her to resist the craving. Now I think that the people willing to quit stand a better chance, don't you?


----------



## GuitarsCanada

Actually, I did not send any... I think we can debate it without getting too personal. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. It's a tough question, lots of emotion to it so have to expect some tough stuff. Let's just all stay friendly. :food-smiley-004:


----------



## Wild Bill

*Maybe we should just end the thread...*



cbh747 said:


> It's ok. We're all going to go have a smoke and settle down.


Well, I won't join you in that smoke but I do agree that the thread seems to have become pointless. 

The original theme was the effect on bar gigs for musicians. Somehow it just keeps veering over into the evil of tobacco in itself. I'm guilty as well - if someone just refuses to argue from reason you really shouldn't bother. You can't possibly change such a point of view.

What's more, everyone is entitled to their view! Sadly, with nicotine the price for allowing one view to take precedence is the death of an entry path for professional musicians. 

If the only bars to survive are going to be hiphop then what the hell! I've got a great collection of CDs and vinyl and everyday some of the best players anywhere test out their amps after I've worked on them! Enough great playing to last until I die and when I die, the world ends! 

One neighbour commented on the great riffs he heard me playing Saturday. I was honest and admitted that if it sounded good it had to be a customer - it couldn't possibly be me! 

Anyhow, this will be my last post to this thread. There's lots of other stuff we can chew over!


----------



## david henman

flyontoast said:


> I'm just curious, don't any of you smokers see this as a great opportunity to quit smoking?


...speaking for myself, a non-addict who rarely smokes more than 3-4 per day, no. like i said, i could quit tonight and get hit by a red light runner tomorrow.

-dh


----------



## GuitarsCanada

flyontoast said:


> I'm just curious, don't any of you smokers see this as a great opportunity to quit smoking? I know my mom has tried many times to quit but seeing other people smoke always made it harder for her to resist the craving. Now I think that the people willing to quit stand a better chance, don't you?


Absolutely.... if I could just turn it off I would have years ago. The change in society is a great help. Just wish that everyone understood that it is not easy. So don't look down on people is all I say. It's kind of like people that are morbidly obese.. you know that given the choice these people would choose to be slim and trim, especially in the society we live in where we teach our kids, especially the girls (through advertising and TV) that if you are not "perfect" you are in some way not acceptable. These people have a real issue with eating, it's not fun.


----------



## Xanadu

well I'm asthmatic, and I'm glad for the smoking ban in public places. I don't need other people ****ing up my air and my life too.


----------



## Guest

"Everyone is entitled to an opinion."

Ya... but not all opinions are equal....

By way of an example.... ask me about a painting.... What I know about art is that I really love a good velvet version of "Little Help" (Dogs playing poker).... That 'opinion' ain't worth squat next to someone who, say, has studied art-history at The Smithsonian....

There are opinions, and Opinions.....

(Just to keep this off topic tangent alive! LOL )

"this will be my last post to this thread"
So, the CDC, and the Surgeon General aren't 'evidence' enough for you? 


"It's kind of like people that are morbidly obese."
Watch Supersize Me, or tv shows like "Honey We're Killing The Kids" or "Jamie Olivers School Lunches".... they're next on the chopping block....


----------



## david henman

Xanadu said:


> well I'm asthmatic, and I'm glad for the smoking ban in public places. I don't need other people ****ing up my air and my life too.


...and most smokers, at least the considerate ones, agree with you. i don't want my grandchildren unwillingly exposed to cigarette smoke, for example. i really don't think that has been at issue on this thread.

-dh


----------



## GuitarsCanada

It's been a great and heated debate... but I think we will retire it and move on to some other issues. :thanks5qx:


----------

