Live And Learn…

I remember how downright pissed I was when the whole thing actually went down, when our mayor-in-charge said, “No more smoking in bars.” How in the fuck can he do this? I thought. How can a guy and some board just kick us in the teeth? This smacks of fascism. It’s like telling a guy with a bowling alley, “No more ugly shirts allowed on your lanes.” It topples tradition!

But the thing that really got my goat, besides how the thing went down, was how his Highness couched it in front of the microphones. “I’m worried about the employees,” he said, with the furrowed brow of concern, “who have to breathe in all that second-hand smoke. It’s not fair.”

Puh-leeze, I raved at the time, this ain’t about us it’s all about you and you know it! You don’t like seeing smoke in your favorite restaurants. That’s what’s going on here. And just for the record, Mein Fuhrer, speaking of those you’re rescuing, this isn’t some town in Wales where the only job is going down a goddam mine shaft. We picked these jobs, we knew the deal, smoking happens in bars so we weren’t just ambushed.

Wow, such outrage! Such righteous abuse from your then un-friendly bartender! But that’s how I actually felt at the time for besides my decline in income (people actually did stay away for a while), I also thought about certain customers affected. For example, how do you tell an eighty year-old woman who’s been coming to your joint forever, who likes a smoke with her Boodles martini before dinner, to go out and stand in the snow to enjoy that smoke? Know what I’m saying? Smoking isn’t illegal… it’s bad but it isn’t illegal… so why make our longtime customers feel like criminals?

But that was then and this is now and this is how I feel in 2010…

It all came flooding back the other night, in a flash and with mixed feelings, when a customer was heading for the door to knock off a Marlboro. He put a bev nap over his glass, winked and waved his cigarette, pointed to his glass while shaking his head meaning, “No, don’t pour that out!”… then smiled when he got that I got what the hell he was doing. ” Marcel Marceau couldn’t have mimed his act any better. But what happened next is what brought back all those memories. He tried to muffle a cough that wouldn’t stay down. It was hackingly ugly.

Christ, I thought, as I watched him go, thank God he’s going outside to blow that smoke! Remember when? Remember those nights when you not only had to breathe in all that shit, but went home every night smelling like you put out a three alarm?

And it was at that moment, silently of course, that I grudgingly had to thank old Mr. Bloomberg. For regardless of what his motivation was and regardless of the fact that he did it with an iron fist, the son-of-a-gun when it’s all said and done was right. The good, as it all turns out, outweighs the bad. And not just because of the major things, of which we are all aware, but the minor things of which you’re about to read…

First off, certain people who don’t smoke (and I’m only referring to a few) don’t get to act like assholes anymore while sitting near those who do. They don’t get to fan righteous noses and squirm like a three year-old child, as though the guy lighting up has just farted.

Secondly, bartenders don’t have to empty ash trays seemingly every ten seconds, especially if they have some “Felix Unger” in their make-up.  As I do.

Thirdly, how about the part where going outside is a great way to meet new people, especially for guys who are strictly in a bar to meet women. It’s a meet-and-greet nexus! I remember this guy I used to observe who, when he spotted an attractive woman heading for the doorway, with his pack in his hand and his mind in his shorts would leap to his feet and follow her out like a cheetah. A cheetah who’d just seen a rabbit stub its toe! And he always had the perfect opener because of the situation. “Man, do you believe this mayor is actually making us do this?” (Instant something  in common as he lights her cigarette!) But it’s also a way for all types to meet because just like back in high school, when the “smokers” would sneak outside to their smoking hideout, whether scholar or major screw-up they bonded as one. They were partners in crime!

Fourthly, smokers are saving money because of this ban. Yes, more than a few have stated over the years, as much as they hated that law, they were grateful because it made them cut way back. “If I’m sitting here smoking at the bar,” they would say, “I could go through a half a pack. Now that I’m going outside it’s three or four cigarettes. Smokes cost a fortune now!”

And finally, perhaps the most important upside to the downside in all this mess… the real gift the mayor has given to Barland … is that unless a splash of Angostura Bitters finds a path to his sleeve, your friendly bartender gets two nights out of a white shirt now!

But seriously… my whole hue and cry a long time ago when I tried to fight that law (a colleague and I were actually going to sell ashtrays with Bloomberg’s image on them, emblazoned with the words “Place your butt here!”) was that to really make this whole thing fair, to totally not wipe out a longstanding tradition, an owner should’ve been able to hang out a sign that said SMOKING ALLOWED or NO SMOKING, then let the customer decide if he wants to walk in. That’s the fair way. And where would your friendly bartender drink in that system? For all his bluster and bull, definitely the latter. Live and learn!

Ahhhh, smell that clean, fresh air, dear reader, that hint of Amaretto… doesn’t this beat drinking beneath Mt. Etna? See ya’ next week-end!

33 Responses to “Live And Learn…”


  1. 1 Petro October 16, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    Hi Scrib, great subject! I too felt the outrage (when it finally arrived in the “wild west” of Phoenix.) I have socially libertarian inclinations, but I was stopped in my tracks by the employee-safety argument. That’s the ONLY argument that holds any water for me, and it’s pretty watertight, as it were.

    That’s why I disagree with your final paragraph. Especially in these difficult times of unemployment, it is somewhat disingenuous to think that people can actually pick where they work, *especially* in the service industries. To make the rent and to “put food on your family,” employees will sacrifice health nearly every time. That’s why there’s an OSHA.

    It’s still a goddamned inconvenience to me, but I defer to the greater community on this one. Sorry to be a bit of a scold, and thanks for bringing us another provocative post!

    Peace & Love,
    Petro

  2. 2 chris October 16, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    I agree more with your old opinion than your new one, although I can appreciate your new one, I just don’t agree. You’re already there drinking which last I checked isn’t good for you, might as well have a cigarette too. The two go hand in hand really, nothing better than a drink and a cigarette after a long day.

    My cousin and I went to a baseball game last week first time he had been in over 15 years. He said where can you smoke inside the stadium, I said no where, you use to be able to smoke in your seat, then you had to go stand by the concessions, then they put down a yellow line away from the mass of people, then the city passed a law that you can’t smoke in any public building. It’s rediculous, the Reds were policeing themselves, but no, all the way up against a wall where you couldn’t even see the game anymore wasn’t enough, in an open air stadium.

    Hell the prudes even complained a couple weeks ago when the Reds won their divison and the players were seen smoking cigars in celebration in their club house, which had been passed out by the owner of the team! Give me a fucking break man, they just won something they hadn’t won in 15 years and the guy who owns the place gave them the smokes in their own club house!!! It pisses me off it should be up to the business to police itself and make its own policies, if the employees don’t like it find another line of work.

    Thankfully in my state of Kentucky you can still smoke damn near anywhere, I can still go into a bar and have a drink and a smoke and sit next to a line of people doing the same without having to get up and run out in the cold, rain, heat etc. I think the people who wanted the law are really just ex smokers who are so jealous that they can’t have one so they want everyone else to be miserable also. Just my 2 cents.

  3. 3 Comrade PhysioProf October 17, 2010 at 6:22 am

    I think the people who wanted the law are really just ex smokers who are so jealous that they can’t have one so they want everyone else to be miserable also.

    Typical delusional fake-ass “libertarian” gibberish. This is exactly the kind of lie that selfish pig assholes tell themselves to justify their selfish pig asshole behavior.

    I have had a number of smokers tell me that they are now really glad about the NYC law, because it has led to them cutting down their cigarette intake quite substantially.

  4. 4 scribbler50 October 17, 2010 at 11:18 am

    Staying out of the fray, repeating what I said in the post. I hated it then, I love it now… it’s the right thing to do!

  5. 5 blue girl October 17, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    I miss the grungy underbelly of New York City. Smoking in bars, seedy Times Square. Everything’s so dignified and Disneyfied now. I know it’s the “right” thing to do, but it’s too grown up and responsible. A girl just wants to have fun sometimes. lol And not the grown up and responsible kind.

  6. 6 blue girl October 17, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    And what is this “Boodles Martini” of which you speak? Sounds fun! I’m gonna have to get me one of those before someone bans ’em!

  7. 7 Anonymoustache October 17, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    Great post Scrib50….and btw, smokers are saving much more than just money by having to cut down…
    I’m surprised someone hasn’t tried to come up with a solution like a separate area (like the porch for some establishments), covered if necessary and with exhaust fans etc, where people cannot get service but where they are free to go take their drinks and sit and smoke if they wish. At the end of the day, when it needs to be cleaned it can be opened up, aired out and then cleaned….of course, a set-up like this wouldn’t be too classy but I have a feeling smokers would take it in a heartbeat…and there’s many an average bar that is a dump to begin with…
    (To clarify—I’m not saying I’m for some circumventing solution like this, just surprised that it hasn’t sprung up yet…)

  8. 8 scribbler50 October 17, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    blue girl: I know what you mean about missing the seedy… the grungy side of New York we all saw in “Mean Streets”… I miss it too. (You naughty girl, you!) That element still exists, but not in a concentrated area like it was on 42nd Street. Same thing with Vegas though, right? Bring the whole damn family, for God sakes! And don’t worry about the Boodles martini being banned any time soon (funny as your line was) Boodles is a British gin as legal as tea.

    Anonymoustache: When the ban first started it was done in the manner you suggested, it was a halfway measure that permitted you to have a smoking section. But that got eliminated for the total ban later on. And it works, people have adjusted.

  9. 9 Comrade PhysioProf October 17, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    I remember all the hand-wringing about “All the bars and restaurants are gonna close down, because all the smokers will just drink and eat at home, where they can smoke”. Yeah, that’s exactly what happened.

  10. 10 JSaw October 17, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    Ah, how times change!

    Not only was I a smoker at the time of the ban, I was doing PR for on of the tobacco companies… talk about a hit to the income.

    But all these years on, I love that I don’t have to shower after a night out, or after stopping in for one drink on a Wednesday. I love that the hacking cough I had is finally gone… the ban actually got me to quit (6 years and counting now).

    Most of all I love the bit of schadenfreude when a (still) smoking friend mentioned he had just paid $12 for a pack… yeesh!

  11. 11 scribbler50 October 17, 2010 at 10:44 pm

    JSaw: Just goes to show you how insidious the habit is. If the price goes up to $15.00 a pack people will still pay it. And they’ll stand outside in the rain if they have to in order to smoke them.
    Tough stuff!

  12. 12 nadine October 18, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    The part about high school smokers brought back memories. My friend Norma and I would pool our pennies and buy a pack of Luckies from the cigarette machine in Hills restaurant in Manchester. 25 cents into the machine, a pack of cigarettes came out with 2pennies in the side and with a book of matches. We then ordered one plate of french fries and two cokes, smoked a Lucky and watched the boys from Arlington and Danby cruise Main Street. And thought we were sooo cool! Our place to smoke at school was behind the Town maintainence garage just off shool property called Butt Alley.

  13. 13 PalMD October 18, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    The evidence (which is not perfect) points toward improved health–specifically in bar workers in one study–with smoking bans.

    More to come.

  14. 14 scribbler50 October 18, 2010 at 6:02 pm

    Nadine, Nadine, what a wonderful recollection… right out of American Graffiti! And “Butt Alley” puts the perfect button on the story. We had a park near our high school and that’s where all the “cats” used to do their smoking. Or the really daring kids would do it in the boiler room. They’re probably all in jail now or working for the C.I.A.
    Thanks for sharing your tawdry past, my friend. 🙂

    PalMD: I’m not surprised the studies reveal a favorable result, I look forward to more. Thanks.

  15. 16 scribbler50 October 18, 2010 at 7:45 pm

    PalMD: Thank you very much for taking the time to do that, I really appreciate it. As you say in your article, sometimes we may cringe at the paternalistic nature of our health laws (which I obviously did), but sometimes that’s what it takes to see the light. Or in this case to see that we don’t “light up”.
    Again, thank you.

  16. 17 Donna B. October 19, 2010 at 4:06 am

    I left a long reply at Pal’s place. But I am one of those who stopped going to bars and restaurants and stayed away. I’m also one of those “delusional” social libertarians Comrade PhysioProf apparently dislikes.

    It seems only fair to me that smokers should be able to establish a smoking bar tended by a smoking bartender and exclude all non-smokers.

    Oddly enough, I also stayed away from the bars that can still allow smoking in my state. The smoking bans have really cut back on my drinking!

  17. 18 Martin Pilkington October 19, 2010 at 5:04 am

    @chris I hear this argument a lot, that alcohol is bad for you so why not ban that too? Thing is, there is a HUGE difference between alcohol and tobacco. If you were to only have a single cigarette in your entire life, it would do some degree of damage to you. In comparison if you were to have one glass of wine/pint of beer/shot of a spirit it wouldn’t damage you and could potentially be beneficial.

    The key with alcohol is that it can be had in moderation. Sure if you’re going out getting plastered every night you’re going to destroy your liver and possibly also be at risk of several forms of cancer. And then if you do something stupid like drive you’re a danger to yourself and society. But that is only in excess.

    Excess for alcohol is maybe more than 2-3 pints of beer in a night. Excess for tobacco is one puff of one cigarette. Also, if you drink in moderation you’re doing no harm to anyone. One puff of a cigarette produces second hand smoke which can damage someone else who may not be wanting to smoke.

    Ultimately it comes down to what benefits most of society VS what benefits a few individuals. In the UK we’ve had a ban for quite a while and it is great that we do. I can head out somewhere and not come back stinking of smoke. My family has been able to head out for a meal with my brother, who is asthmatic, without him potentially having a coughing fit because he inhaled someone elses smoke (yes, even in non-smoking areas, smoke drifts in).

    With things like this, people often get outraged that their rights are being infringed, yet they forget (or possibly choose to ignore) that this is helping more people get better rights, and as the author showed, that can also include those who are outraged. Things that benefit society as a whole outrage a few, but when given a chance can end up benefiting those few as well as everyone else

  18. 19 Luna_the_cat October 19, 2010 at 9:49 am

    Hi,

    I live in Scotland, not NY, but we have the same smoking ban, and had the same kind of outrage when it was introduced. Well, not so much outrage from me, really.

    As a starving graduate, I found a few “service industry” jobs — bartending is a really traditional student job, here — and I didn’t have much say in where because I really really really needed an income and couldn’t afford to be fussy. When you need the money you will take any job you can, regardless of how it hurts you in other ways, I say from first-hand experience. (I was actually advised by my GP that, for purposes of blood clot risk [on the Pill], I should consider myself a smoker even though I wasn’t just because of the environment where I worked.) You really can’t just walk out on a job in hand because of non-immediate concerns like that, or even because you hack your lungs out every morning.

    This is something I *SO* do not miss.

    I’m out of that kind of job now anyway, but it also means that I go on a lot more nights out with friends to places I just wouldn’t have gone, before, and I stop in to enjoy occasional pub lunches, which I would never have done before. There are an odd few pubs here and there which complain that their business has been hit by the ban, but a purely unscientific straw poll of pubs in our area seems to show a thriving number of them, and they are generally pretty crowded. There are probably at least a few other people like me, voluntarily taking business into places we would have avoided before.

  19. 20 scribbler50 October 19, 2010 at 10:00 am

    Donna B.: I read your comment over at Pal MD’s and I appreciate your interest in the topic. I also agree with Pal that a child picking up food from the ground (or a dried cigarette butt) is not the same or as dangerous as him breathing in a whole bunch of second hand smoke. Where we do agree is, and I stated this at the end of my post, I would’ve had no problem with smoking bars and non-smoking bars where both the customer and the owner get to decide. But that didn’t happen and now that I’ve seen the results, both health-wise and financially, I like things exactly the way they are. People have totally adjusted (at least here in New York) and bars are doing just as well as ever. And those that aren’t doing well, aren’t because of the economy and nothing else.
    Thanks Donna.

    Martin Pilkington: From all the way across the pond, thanks for your thorough comment and I’m glad you agree. Moderation for one and moderation for the other (alcohol vs cigarettes) can’t be compared on the “harmful scale”. In fact the previous according to some doctors is actually good for you.
    Cheerio! (Sorry about that.)

    Luna_the_Cat: Thank you as well from all the way across the pond. As your sober comment tells us, and as I stated in my post, the good of this ban FAR outweighs the bad. And your info about “the pill” (a danger I wasn’t aware of) is yet another wrinkle in this already worn out fabric. Thank you for checking in, Luna, and don’t forget to take your pill… er… I mean your vitamins! 🙂

  20. 21 Donna B. October 19, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    Dearest Scribbler, I’m thrilled that the bans have overall done much good and I really do try my best to be a considerate person in all areas, not just about the places I smoke or don’t. I merely wanted to note that the bans have had some strange effects on some people.

    I would personally hate it if the bans were removed and I no longer had a rather handy excuse for getting away from the crowd.

  21. 22 scribbler50 October 19, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    Donna B: I know you’re a considerate person, and I appreciate your input both here and over at PalMD.
    Cheers, my friend!

  22. 23 Cory Albrecht October 20, 2010 at 8:58 am

    It’s a bit of naïvèté on the part of the libertarian-minded to think that some bar owners would have made their establishments no smoking.

    Up here in Ontario, before our own smoking bans came into effect (first county by county in the 90s, then provincially in 2006) there were no non-smoking bars. The owners all went with the money – letting people smoke inside. I wasn’t a big pub-goer because of the smoking and I knew of no non-smoking establishments (other than teen clubs) in my region.

    In Canada 30-35% were smokers were when the municipal bans started in ON, but 2/3rds of bars and restaurants were not non-smoking – you could smoke anywhere. I would be very surprised if it was significantly different in New York City.

    If the ban had not come into place how much do you want to bet that there would still be few (if any!) non-smoking bars anywhere in either ON even though smoking rates have dropped to 20-25%? Any reason to think it would be any different in NYC?

    Not to mention that complaining about smoking bans is really more complaining about a loss of an entitlement than complaining about an infringement of rights.

  23. 24 scribbler50 October 20, 2010 at 9:49 am

    Cory Albrecht: Thanks for the word from up north and all that information. And in answer to your question… at least here in New York… if the smoking ban had not come about I doubt that even ONE bar would do it on its own. Owners are business people first, so why take a chance on alienating even one customer?

    And as to your last statement, yeah, there is that loss of entitlement thing but it’s certainly more than that. To the smoker who drinks, the cigarette goes with the cocktail like butter on toast. We’re talking about a ritual, a conditioned, addictive correlation that’s hard to undo. And I sympathize with them for that.

    Thanks again for your comment, Cory.

  24. 25 P Smith October 23, 2010 at 1:12 am

    Whenever I encounter someone not enlightened enough to grasp the damage of cigarettes and the inconsiderate nature of buttheads doing it in front of others, I use noise as an analogy.

    Imagine that instead of a law against smoking that there was a law about the loudest permissible noise. What would happen if constant noise within earshot of others, like music, were be limited to 85 decibels. Intermittent and temporary noise, like a car horn or construction zone, would be excluded.

    http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html

    There would be less noise pollution. Unwilling listeners would be less irritated. There would not be damage and discomfort to children. And the amount of long term hearing damage to both active and passive listeners would be greatly reduced. There would be less long term medical costs as well.

    ALL of these benefits and improvements have a direct parallel to the issue of smoking. Even if second hand smoke isn’t an issue, the selfishness and utter lack of consideration for those who don’t want to breathe garbage – or go deaf because of someone’s crappy music – is enough reason to ban or control both.

    Just as smokers turned out NOT to be inconvenienced by a ban on indoor smoke, so would people not be hurt by a reduced noise level. There would be less hearing impairment in the long term, and people would be able to socialize and have conversations at a speaking volume, not have to yell or go outside to talk.

    And when a bartender goes home and lies down on his pillow, his ears aren’t going to be ringing as he falls asleep.

    If governments really wanted to cut back on smoking, they would have the credit card reader adapted to accept medical care cards – buyers of cancer have to present one and have it swiped at the store. Those who smoke can pay higher health insurance, and those who don’t can pay less. It would have a 100% direct relationship between those most and least likely to get cancer.

    Those who don’t smoke shouldn’t have to pay for the health care of buttheads. Let them pay for it themselves through higher premiums.

  25. 26 Felix October 23, 2010 at 5:30 am

    “Secondly, bartenders don’t have to empty ash trays seemingly every ten seconds, especially if they have some ‘Felix’ in them like I do.”

    Since my name is Felix I was intrigued by this sentence.
    And, though I fear I may not like the answer, I would be grateful if you could explain the background.

    Thanks

  26. 27 scribbler50 October 23, 2010 at 8:28 am

    P Smith: Sure appreciate your take on this and the data you gave us as back-up… noise is indeed another pollutant these days. A big one! I don’t patronize nor could I work in a bar that blasts TV and music. If that was the trend years ago, music at top decibels, Bogey in Casablanca would’ve had to say to Ingrid Bergman, “Here’s trying to hear you, kid!”
    Thanks.

    Felix: Funny you should ask. A friend at the bar, just last night, asked me the same question so I guess my reference WAS too obscure. I was referring to Felix Unger, the neatnik half of “The Odd Couple”, Neil Simon’s play which later became a movie and then a television series. If you’re too young to remember all that rent the movie, it’s perfect! Meanwhile, because you’re the second to ask, I’m going to add Unger right now to the text. (In case there are more of you.) Thanks for your query there, FELIX!

  27. 28 P Smith October 23, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    scribbler50 –

    Noise levels are a sore spot for me, moreso than most people which is why I notice it more. My old man is deaf, my brother is losing it, my uncle on my mother’s side, both grandparents on my mother’s side (my father’s parents never got to go deaf because of German bombs) , and a few others on both sides have hearing problems. If someone screams within ten feet of me, my ears ring all day. And I’m only in my early 40s.

    I could live without vocal conversation since I enjoy reading and writing to people online. But to lose the ability to hear music would be devastating.

  28. 29 Cory Albrecht April 9, 2013 at 9:45 am

    Scribbler50: You talk about smokibng bars versus non-smoking bars. Really? Here in Ontario, before smoking bylaws staretd popping up, the smoking rate was 1 in 4, but there was smoking *all* the bars, not just in 25% of them. Virtually nobody built separately ventilated rooms for smokers, nobody had non-smoking nights or “no smoking during happy hour” schedules. All of those suggestions were naïve in the extreme. The invisible hand of Adam Smith wasn’t going to intervene and make this happen – otherwise it would have already happened.

    So given that it didn’t, how the heck would you make bylaws or laws to make it happen? If the smokers thought that no smoking bylaws were “fascist” (good grief!), how much more so would they think of the conditions neccsary to make an effective set of regulations to ensure that there was the right mixture of smoking and non-smoking bars? That key word – ‘effective’ – well, I can only

    As for the idea of bartenders, servers, etc… having chosen to work in a smoke bar or restaurant, that’s naïve as well. You and I can always abstain from going to smoky bars and restaurants, but people have a limited ability to get training and find a job. People’s choices are often quite limited – they need to find a job, and that’s not always easy to do. Most poeple who are professional servers can’t just decide to go back to school and get better training because they can’t afford it, for example. Or the analogy that roofers or high-rise construction workers choose to work high up. Well, employers of those crew have to provide things like harnesses, rails on walkways, and other safety precautions. Unless the employers in the bars & restaurants are going to supply gasmasks, or build in strong fans to blow away the second-hand smoke before it can be breathed in, or free health insurance for when that server 30 years from now comes down with lung cancer after working in a bar for 10 years, th eonly other safety precaution is no-smoking bylaws.

    Or would you rather force the bar and restaurant owners to build sepaqrately ventilated rooms and not be able to force the styaff to work in the smoking room or penalize them in any way for that?

  29. 30 scribbler50 April 9, 2013 at 11:48 am

    Corey Albrecht: I appreciate your response (your screed actually), and the only things I’ll disagree with are these…

    1) How hard is it to post a sign that says “Smoking Permitted”. Or “No smoking Allowed” outside a bar? If non-smokers choose not to enter, so be it. The owner will take the hit over that or he won’t. And as far as building ventilated rooms, etc. I never said a word about that as it’s clearly not realistic, you’re in or you’re out and let the customer decide. To offer a bad example here, some bars have topless dancers and some bars don’t, enter or not at your own, dare I say, peril?.

    2) As far as employee safety goes, if you got the whole point of my piece where I did come to sympathize ultimately with the servers (and myself who is one!), at the time this first came down I felt it was bullshit. Yeah, “Fascist was an unfortunate term and of course I shouldn’t have said it, I only meant it was “edict” and not something voted on. People have been working in smoke-filled bars (like it or not) since bars have come into existence. So as I said, they knew that going in and still took the job. And this particular mayor (whom I’ve come to respect, by the way, especially of late for his activism on gun control), I felt was only thinking of his own dining pet peeve. I knew of some of his haunts at the time and he always made a big deal about second hand smoke.

    Bottom line, I praise the change and everyone’s far better off.

    Thanks so much for taking the time to send along your opinion.


  1. 1 Smoking bans are good for barkeeps | White Coat Underground Trackback on October 18, 2010 at 6:36 pm
  2. 2 Quick Links | A Blog Around The Clock Trackback on October 20, 2010 at 8:34 am
  3. 3 Looking Back And Then Moving Forward… | Behind The Stick Trackback on March 29, 2013 at 11:46 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Archives


%d bloggers like this: