December 05, 2003

• It's always more fun to do something when it's against the law, and studies have shown that the results of the 18th Amendment were largely negative. Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became 'organized'; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition. I think the smoking ban is well intentioned but misguided. Then again, I think we should legalize prostitution and marijuana use too (and then tax it and regulate it).
• i agree. it's a shame, especially with all the billions of dollars poured into the war on drugs. sigh.
• Sidedish- I was so excited about posting about this this morning, but you were just too quick! Great post.
• And there I was looking for an excuse to finish work and head for the pub. Just e-mailed all work collegues with news that we're having a end of prohibition drink.
• No fair you Brits celebrating an American holiday like that. ;)
• An earnest question: What's the (initial) appeal of cigarettes? I tried smoking 2-3 times, didn't do anything to me, unlike the pronounced effects of various stimulants and psychedelics that I've used.
• Uh-oh, bad news for booze...
• It's good! No it's bad! You'll get cancer! You'll live longer! - my summation of everything
• And Gyan: I honestly think that the initial appeal of cigarettes is entirely social (whether it's friends or family).
• Kimberly: I thought so. Although a few friends say that if you're a regular smoker, the first fag in the morning does give a distinct "high" buzz.
• Yeah. I'm not saying social considerations are the long-term appeal to smoking, but I don't know anyone who just up and decided to start smoking on a regular basis because the cigarettes were just there.
• The long-term "appeal" to smoking would be the urge to avoid the withdrawal symptoms of nicotine.
• i'm convinced a large part of why smokers smoke is it "looks cool." any smokers out there verify that? i'm a nonsmoker myself. but i have to confess, bette davis lighting up cigs in glorious black-and-white is indeed sexy.
• Beyond the social aspects noted above, Cigarettes also provide a sooting methodical diversion to the smoker. Some call it five minute yoga. The yoga claim has some legitimacy to is as the smoking of a cigarette requires one to regulate and be conscious of breathing technique. I am not making excuses for smoking, but just saying that there are reasons we do it beyond 'avoidance of withdrawal symptoms'.
• I'm a light smoker (aprox. 1 pack a week). I started smoking regularly because I was introduced to ones that actually taste good (menthol cloves) and because my best friend is a smoking fiend. It all started at our semi-weekly happy hours and moved on to smoke breaks at work and when we went to clubs. It just kind of turned into a habit. Sexy was never really an issue for me (although I agree that it can be). I'm not addicted to nicotine, I never feel like I must stop what I'm doing and have a cigarette or else. Typically it's situational for me--with friend on break, with friend at lunch, while sitting in traffic and bored, while drinking, after high-stress situations to calm down. The only time I really regret not having cigarettes with me is when I go out for happy hour. There's something about smoking and drinking that makes them go together like cookies and milk.
• And what shotsy said (and I've been known to light up after yoga too. heh.).
• do clove cigarettes actually have tobacco in them? if they made a pumpkin-pie spice cigarette i might just partake. heh.
• DO YOU KNOW? "COCOA CIGARETTE", LONGLASTING TASTE. WE HAVE BEEN PRODUCING IT SINCE OUR COMPANY WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1948. IT IS REALLY A GOOD AND LONG SELLER, A NEWSPAPER SAID. Heh.
• I smoked until I got pregnant, then I just stopped. I was, like Kimberly, probably a pack-a-week smoker, mostly when I was stressed with finals and that sort of thing, or socialising in the "smokers' corner" outside my lecture rooms. I was apparently not addicted because after I stopped, I had no real craving, except for the need to have something in my hand (which became a pen). To be semi-on topic, New Zealand recently legalised prostitution and it seems to be working well. At the same time, a bill was passed two days ago making smoking illegal in bars, a la California. It doesn't take effect until next year, but I personally dislike the fact that the government is essentially treating us like children who can't choose for ourselves. If I could, I'd rewrite the law to allow bars to choose for themselves whether to be smoking or non-smoking.
• that is fascinating, i had no idea new zealand legalized prostitution! was there much controversy over it? the more i hear about new zealand, the more it sounds like utopia.
• Clove cigarettes are actually have quite strong tobacco in them. And then there's that moment after you first light up where you lick your lips and it tastes sweet and spicy. MmMmm. (We'll not talk about how bad they are for our lungs though, ok?) Tracicle: Bars always had the option of choosing for themselves whether or not to allow smoking. I mean, there was no law saying that they had to accomodate smokers (at least not here in the U.S., New Zealand may be different). The law exists because no one ever made that choice. Speaking as a smoker in LA, I'm conflicted. Without a law like this, there typically isn't a choice for people who don't want to be exposed to second-hand smoke. My solution would be to offer a certain number of "smoking" licenses in each city. They do this with liquor licenses in Hollywood. That way, a non-smoking alternative is actually present (and places where bar tenders or servers can work in a smoke-free environment), but there are still places you can go and smoke freely. The Hollywood liquor licenses end up being quite pricey, but they make a higher return in profits.
• "are actually have quite" And I previewed twice.
• Kimberly, the way you've explained it sounds much better than my way. In Santa Cruz there was a specially licensed smoker's pub so you had somewhere to go if you like that sort of thing. That's what I'd like to see. SideDish: it was only legalised in June so there's a ways to go yet, but it seems to be working out well. Individual cities can create their own bylaws to limit where a brothel can be (oh yeah, this is only for brothels, not street prostitution). Most places are now bickering over whether it's okay to have a brothel near a church or school, and of course no one wants one in their neighbourhood to drag down house values. It's working well for the workers in the industry because now they can claim ACC for work-related sickness or injury (although how that will work I don't know) and things like age limits are strictly regulated, after police found a 16-year-old working at a brothel recently. This article's pretty good.
• "smoking licenses"... brilliant! of course that makes far too much sense for a government to actually do that. sheesh.
• This'll never happen, by the way - the Government likes its cigarette duty a bit too much for that to happen. The odd thing is, if the 80% figure (of the population not smoking) is true, there is surely less reason to ban it - its just not a big enough health risk anymore to justify a ban.(especially as the reason given is that non-smokers have the right to avoid smoke they arent responsible for - less people smoking, less smoke - maybe, as a non-driver, I should use that logic to demand a ban of cars in Britain) (obviously the less people who smoke, the less opposition there would be to a ban, so maybe if the number of smokers keeps dropping, they might try. But then, I don't smoke, and would still be opposed to a ban)
• I don't really have a problem with the smoking ban in California. I love smoking and drinking, but whenever I visit my parents in chilly Indiana, I step out of the bars and smell god-awful. Additionally, the ban is partially in place for customers, but also for bar employees. I think you can rationalize a customer putting him or herself at risk by entering a smokey room, but it is not as easy to do so for an employee who needs to work. That being said, i think the license idea is a great one, and would solve this issue. I don't see it happening though, because not too many legislators are anxious to leap to the smokers defense. (Big Tobacco being another side of the coin)
• Meanwhile, in present day Kansas, growing mushrooms is a worse crime than murder (via Drug WarRant.)
• Prostitution is legal in Victoria (Oz). Has been for some years.
• On the other hand, there are cities in California who have pretty much banned smoking anywhere but on your own property. (Maybe even there, but I haven't been following it.) I think St. Louis Obispo was the first. Sorry for the lack of links, but I haven't figured out the html thing, yet.
• I believe the best solution to the problem is to ban smoking in public places, as in California. Then, at least, you're only killing yourselves, and your children. Working in a pub, I hate smokers, I really do. By the end of a busy night, you can taste the smoke in the air, you can see it filling the air in the light of the spotlights, you can smell it, it stings your eyes... It's horrible. And dng: That's a bad analogy. For one thing, cars are an intrisic and almost indispensible part of our society. Also, I'm sure you either get lifts off friends, or use public transport and taxis to get around. Of course, if you use a pushbike to get everywhere, then I guess that's fair enough.
• It's governmental nannying, and as one of the squalling brats I demand cookies and milk before I'll even think about giving up my cloves.
• And dng: That's a bad analogy. Yeah, I know. Sorry
• As a non-smoker, I have to say that for me the smoking ban in NYC bars and restaurants has been fantastic. I've rediscovered bars. I hadn't realized how much the smell and irritation kept me away.
• Wow, okay, here's another topic to revisit 2 years later. How has that non-smoking movement worked out? I believe there's talk of it hitting DC.
• They took down Austin. Thank God. And naturally it ruined the live music scene. That's right folks, no more music in austin. None at all. Keep moving.
• Prohibition Returns! Teetotaling do-gooders attack your right to drink
• Damn cryptonephalists...
• The title is unwarranted. It's an article about drunk driving laws, with some related alcohol legislation stories tacked onto the end. It says nothing about the drinking habits of those who support and pass them. And it doesn't attack the "right to drink" in any way whatsoever. Drink at home, or within crawling distance of same. Twit. Alcohol nannies also have targeted sporting arenas, blaming alcohol for every brawl or other instance of misconduct by fans. Alcohol involved in a sports-related fight? Wow. That, like, never happens. We should be promoting that, even. I demand a 5-drink minimum at all football games. Especially for women. Waaah. What a pissy jerk.
• The title is unwarranted. "Link from SideDish"?
• *kick*
• What's with the kickin', Petey? Been drinking again?
• Well, kicks just keep getting harder to find.