Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Strangercrombie Day 1 | War on O'Reilly »

Thursday, December 8, 2005

Smoking Banshees

Posted by on December 8 at 10:45 AM

Many of the hip smoking addicts who bitched and moaned last night about the smoking ban claimed it was a plot by suburbanites to impose their values on city folk. That’s bullshit—as one Stranger reader pointed out in a comment:

Where do people get the idea that the smoking ban is a suburban thing?

It’s not - it’s very urban. Crowded cities are where smoking bugs enough non-smokers to make it an issue. That’s why you now have smoking bans in LA, NY, Dublin - even in Italian cities, the place where cities were invented.

It’s out in hicksville where most of the smoking crowd originally hails from that this idea of smoking as some kind of inalienable right comes from.

Move back to Eastern Washington or Wyoming or whereever it was you came from if you can’t handle life in the big city.



CommentsRSS icon

The mentality is completely suburban. The mentality that would persecute a minority population with a drug addiction at the expense of persecuting, for example, SUV owners who release several times more toxic fumes every day into an average person's lungs, is what truly alarms the disinterested observer.

It's the mentality of the state knows best, and that we will take care of you for yourself.

It's the suburban mentality of hipster young "urban" kids who are really nascent yuppies condemning having to pass a smoke plume on the sidewalk then going home and smoking a joint or inhaling from a bong, which is several times more harmful to your lungs than tobacco smoke, then going to a now-nonsmoking club that hosts a band that drives around in one of those incredibly polluting and noxious monster vans one sees almost daily parked on Capitol Hill (one on Saturday, at rest, was releasing a cloud of smoke that literally engulfed the entire street).

It's a suburban, anti-adult, and noxious mentality that causes one to legally persecute a small minority of the state's population because they find passing acquaintance with the effects of their drug addiction offensive. It's the small-minded mindset that screams "second hand smoke damage" when so-called "scientific proof" of such has been shown to be conclusively flawed.

Soon our hip young yuppies, in concert with placid "concerned" voters who actually live in suburbs, will outlaw smoking in public spaces and on sidewalks and eventually in one's private cars and homes, because together, they know best.

I am a nonsmoker from a family who smoked. I once smoked but no longer do. All the same, I pity those people who think that smoking bans are at all progressive. The funny thing is, it's a completely suburban mindset that thinks it's being progressive, yet it's all about selfishess and hitting the poorest (most smokers tend to come from lower socioeconomic brackets) with your "right" to not inhale a passing plume of tobacco smoke. Most of all it's the suburban mindset that thinks that's one body is so sensitive it cannot withstand a passing cigarette trail, because ultimately you can choose to avoid a smoking establishment and to avoid smokers themselves.

It's all about how precious our serious hipster children are that they cannot even tolerate the ephemeral wisp of cigarette smoke in the air while happily ingesting a drug that completely incapacitates their thinking and ruins their lungs and then hopping into a car that pollutes far more lungs than that poor fellow smoking on the street. Such a "modern" mindset is not only ignorant and appallingly conservative, but actually quite frightening. I shudder to see what our society is becoming. But go on -- celebrate!! Celebrate all ye ultra progressive precious children who have legally persecuted a minority drug population because your bodies and "sensibilities" are so very, very precious. Celebrate your ignorance and your mendacity tonight -- in fresh clean air while you dance intoxicated and oblivious to what you are forming -- a society of fascists!

I second that. If the following link works, you can read about the sentiments that recently sank a proposed smoking ban right in the middle of a deep red swath of central Illinois.

http://www.news-gazette.com/ngsearch/index.cfm?&page=displyStory.cfm&yearfolder=the05news&file=101705%5Fngstory%5F19171%2Etxt&search=smoking%20ban&theorder=asaphrase

Putting in a link to a story on the Italian ban - which also contains a link to a story on the Irish ban.

And people here think they have it bad...the fine there is punitive, and bar owners have to call the cops if smokers don't put it out.

Seattle's just starting to take its place among the major world capitals with this initiative. I hope this trend continues.

In many ways this city bears a closer resemblance to a small town - as Jonathan Raban also observed recently either in The Stranger or Seattle's other weekly.

The URL field caused my pseudonym to become a link...

Here's the Italian story url:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6759566/

Yes, Urbanite, I'm glad you get it. Sophisticated Europeans know what's best for all of us more than we know it ourselves.

I wonder why Germany has not yet implemented a smoking ban. They were once a fascist nation, and I think it would well suit the Germans to assert more state control on private behavior and property.

Oddly enough, the Italians, who practically invented fascism, haven't yet quite adjusted to the state ban. They probably simply do not understand what is best for them.

Who can blame them? We didn't understand it ourselves here, in good old Seattle, which (as you so amusingly pointed out) is still a sleepy little backwoods town for losers.

OK Thaxter, so if I'm pro-smoking ban, yet don't smoke pot or drive a gas-guzzling van, what does that make me? Maybe, after all this time, it turns out I don't actually exist! Bummer!

Too bad your entire argument is based entirely on assumptions about the voters involved that you completely pulled out of your ass. Or is there a poll somewhere that lists the pot-smoking and van-driving habits and hipster tendencies of 901 voters? I'd love to see it.

"oblivious to what you are forming -- a society of fascists!"

Heinous hyperbole.

Smokers are not being percecuted; under 901, citizens are finally free of being subjected to toxins indoors. To paraphrase someone who posted on the Forums, do you think it's fascist to want to have clean drinking water and uncontanimated food?
I don't care if you call me retrogressive, progressive, Hitler, Satan, or worse: I just want to be able to breathe in a club while enjoying music. Sorry for being so demanding.

Ah, pulling the fascist card, Yuppie - whatever will you think of next?

"Seattle, which...is still a sleepy little backwoods town for losers:" you said it, not I.

Banning smoking is a worldwide trend, though - hardly a suburban American abberation.

It seems to have something to do with health.

Italy, where cities were invented???

You know, Dan, History isn't your strong suit. It might be best to stay away from it altogether. FYI, it's generally accepted that the first 'true' cities were in Sumeria (Modern day Iraq.) Although arguements can be (& have been) made for China, Egypt, & Turkey as being the places where the first cities were built. Those places certainly had large, well-developed cities when the Etruscans were still sheep farmers.

"I just want to be able to breathe in a club while enjoying music."

You were free to go to any club of your choice that was nonsmoking. In fact, over 75 percent of all clubs in Washington were nonsmoking. Instead you chose to prosecute a legal minority of drug abusers who chose to associate within a minority of private businesses. The majority prosecution of a minority whose right to indulge in the smoking of a legal drug, and the majority prosecution of those small businesses who will be harmed from the ban (most who cater to bluecollar workers), reeks of suburban fascism.

You voted to kick a minority population of drug abusers who did nothing to directly harm you literally on the streets because you simply don't like their habit. The thinking behind it is quite vile, to say the least.

To the non pot smoker: The fact is most people who go to clubs and restaurants drive to get there. The majority of people who voted for this ban drive cars, and many of those who supported the ban smoke pot as well, both of which are worse for the public health in real terms than cigarettes.

That there is a small minority of people who neither drive nor smoke pot who supported the ban does not negate the argument that the vast majority of those who did support it do one or both of those habits that are vastly more toxic personally and publically.

I don't drive or smoke.

Well congratulations, Dan. You are a member of a proud minority. As of 2004, a mere 8 percent of households did not own cars.

The vast majority of those who voted for the smoking ban, however, own and drive cars that spew vastly more toxic fumes in infinitely greater quantity than the hapless, despised nicotine addict, whose habit is so reviled he has been literally kicked onto the street by citizen vigilantes.

I dont smoke or drive either. and really all the hipsters I know of are against the smoking ban. But since I voted for the smoking ban- id like to meet some of these that you're speaking of! And its nice to know now that when i go see bands play or to go dancing where I want to go, i dont have to get more holes in my skin and clothes from people who dance, drink, and smoke at the same time!

I'd be in favor of banning diesel trucks - and ships - from Seattle until they put in better pollution control systems than they have now.

That shit is toxic.

Ban on vehicles that spew harmful emissions = civilization grinds to a halt. This bad, unless you like anarchic chaos. Of course, it should be govt's highest priority to find alternative energy sources that don't harm environment and humans.

Ban on indoor smoking = vastly improved air quality, better overall health for citizens, increased business for most establishments, mild inconvenience for smokers. This imperfect, but generally good.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).