"Membership in the family of God is neither inconsequential or something to be casually ignored. The church is God's agenda for the world. Jesus said, "I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it." The church is indestructable and will exist for eternity. It will outlive this universe, and so will your role in it."
- Rick Warren
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Here recently -- meaning in the past couple of years -- the City of Waco passed an ordinance banning smoking inside all restaurants. (I?m sure the ordinance extends to pretty much any public area, but I?m not sure about its scope. I know the law grants immunity -- so to speak -- for nightclubs, pool halls, and places like that.) It?s so nice to walk into a restaurant without having to worry about sitting in a ?non-smoking? section that?s about five feet away from the smoking area, while some thoughtless patron puffs his Marlboro fumes my way.
Although I?m a regular pipe smoker, and an occasional cigar guy, I can?t stand the smell of a cigarette smoke-filled room. Cigar smoke, on the other hand, is like sirloin steak to my olfactory nerves, and pipe smoke is like filet mignon.
All this smoke talk reminds me of a 1994 IHOP meal I had with Rod and a couple of other guys: We pulled up to the smoking section of IHOP and proceeded to break out our cigars. After about five minutes of happy puffing, the manager comes and tells us to put out our stogies because customers were complaining. I couldn?t believe the hypocrisy of the cigarette smokers. They don?t mind puffing away anywhere they can get away with it, but certainly don?t try to smoke a cigar in their presence! In my opinion, cigarette smoke is disgusting, especially compared to cigar and pipe smoke.
Got any good smoking stories?
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/1108.
Comments on "No (Smoking) Jacket Required":
4. Rong
- 04/21/2004 2:38 am CDT
When I was 14 I thought smoking a corn cob pipe was really cool and it fit into my outdoorsman/backpacker image very well. Of course when my Mom found my diary and read my comments about smoking a pipe she thought I was getting stoned. I can still painfully remember the ensuing conversation(s).
5. Chris
- 04/21/2004 3:35 am CDT
My friends and I get together every Thursday night to play poker, and have been doing so for over 9 years now. It's become something of an institution for most of us now.
The guy who owns the house was, until just about 3 years ago, the quintessential bachelor living in the quintessential bachelor pad. :-) We had an old telephone company wire spool that we had turned on its side that served as our card table, and, more often than not, the air was thick with the bluish-grey haze of cigar smoke.
Well, Steve is a theater instructor at a local high school, and one year he took a group of his students to London over the summer, and so he purchased an entire box of Romeo Y Julieta Cuban cigars. Believing that the Customs agents would be in no mood to stop any of the 60-or-so plus people in the group, Steve simply placed the box in the suitcase and walked right through into the US airport with no problems.
Later on, as we smoked them at poker night, one of our friends found the strength of the Cuban, shall we say, a bit overpowering. He begged off early, saying that he wasn't feeling well, and went home. We later found out that the cigar had affected him so much that he was stopped by a policeman on the way home because he was weaving like a drunk man. When the policeman asked Woody what he had been doing that evening, his response was, "Umm, Nothin, officer. Just smoking some cigars."
To which the officer replied, "Sure, son. Just WHAT was IN those cigars, hmm?"
This was about 5 years ago, and Woody still hasn't lived it down. :-)
6. Cos
- 04/21/2004 4:25 am CDT
I remember a time when you went to a rock concert and it was customary to pass the dobbie to your brother next to you. How often does that happen today? Hardly ever! This post-80's MTV generation has no clue and is an example of the continuing decline of American values that created this great nation.
7. Bill
- 04/21/2004 6:04 am CDT
I've never really understood the allure of smoking. Not that I haven't tried it before when I was younger (I suppose almost everyone has), but it seems like kind of a strange habit to get into. Especially since it's not good for you.
Cigar smoke is pretty smelly, but I'm with Bird - if I had to choose between smelling a ciggie and smelling a stogie, I'd go stogie. Pipe tobacco smells pretty good. None of them go very well with a meal, though.
Speaking of habits that aren't good for you - I drink WAY to many diet cokes!
8. Bird
- 04/21/2004 7:08 am CDT
Bill, I think there is a world of difference between cigarette "smoking" and pipe/cigar smoking. I think cigs are deisgned to addict you (heck, just look at how many people are addicted), whereas, as far as I know, cigars and pipes are quite different. In all of my 27 years, I've never, ever, seen someone go out for a "smoke break" and bust out a cigar or a pipe.
Personally, I've been smoking cigars/pipes since 1994, and I've never felt like I need a smoke or anything. I've gone months without smoking, and I regularly go weeks without smoking as well. However, I love the way a pipe relaxes me, so when I think about it, I try and smoke a pipe as often as I can. Of course, even then, it's only one pipe that lasts maybe 30 minutes. It's good stuff. :-) I actually read some doc's report that claims that "moderate" pipe smokers live, on average, two years longer than non-pipe smokers. The idea was that pipe smoking relieves stress, and stress kills. :-) The guy may be a quack, but it's a nice thought.
9. Shrode
- 04/21/2004 7:16 am CDT
I can just here you sighing Cos. Those were the days.
And I know the discussion thus far hasn't been political, but I must say that the no smoking ordinance bothers me. I don't smoke cigarettes, and I too don't like the smoke while I'm eating. (Though it bothers my wife much more.)
But imo, the city has no business telling private businesses whether or not to allow smoking. Let the free market decide that! I can vote with my feet and choose not to patronize restaurants that have smoking in them. Think about it. We should allow the restaurants to decide. Some may have non-smoking and smoking sections. Others may be a "no-smoking whatsoever" establishment. Others may allow smoking all over the restaurant and so become a smokers haven/hangout. Others may cater to cigar smokers etc... People can choose where they go. And restaurants will respond according to how much money they make.
I think it's ridiculous that the city should dictate whether or not private businesses allow a perfectly legal practice like smoking. What's next?
Telling restaurants they can't serve coffee because caffeine harms the stomachs of acid-reflux patients?
Banning the use of peanuts in cooking because so many have a severe allergy to peanuts?
Banning the playing of loud rock music so that it doesn't damage the ears?
Dictating optimum lighting in restaurants so people can read menus?
Look, if people enjoy a particular restaurant they'll go. If they don't, they won't. Let the customers decide. It's one thing for the city to pass an ordinance affecting public property. But they've got no business telling a private business what to do.
Now go put that in your pipe and smoke it.
11. Bird
- 04/21/2004 8:11 am CDT
Telling restaurants they can't serve coffee because caffeine harms the stomachs of acid-reflux patients?
Banning the use of peanuts in cooking because so many have a severe allergy to peanuts?
Banning the playing of loud rock music so that it doesn't damage the ears?
Dictating optimum lighting in restaurants so people can read menus?
All these examples are pretty poor. :-) There's a huge diff between smoking, which -- most would agree, is not healthy for either the smoker or the second hand inhaler -- and the unlikely scenarios you presented, Shrode.
Personally, for the well-being of the community, I have no problem with what the Waco City Council decided. It's nice to know that no matter what restaurant I go into, I won't be subjected to someone's secondhand smoke.
Shrode, I can't say I agree with your "let the market decide," lais·sez faire approach to this subject.
I don't know that City Council's have this authority, but what if the San Antonio City Council decided to ban all abortions? It's a "perfectly legal" practice that they'd be banning. Would you be against the ban?
12. Cos
- 04/21/2004 8:26 am CDT
Shrodie baby, ya needs a little smoke. I am detecting a rise in the ole feathers on this subject. But of course I may be wrong. As for me, I am divided on this issue. I too am averse to having Big Brother dictate personal preferences in a proverbial free society, yet freedom without responsibility seems to always lead to some group’s disparity.
Unfortunately, smoking (all types, and even the kind for medicinal purposes ;-) ) are always harmful. It is one thing to set ordinances that regulate your behavior on private property not for general public use, but it is another to set governance for the good and protection of the public.
As with everything in a democratic society, there is room for compromise. I think San Antonio has done just that. The ordinance requiring restaurants to shield smokers from non-smokers by requiring a separate, physical room satisfies both parties. Yes, it is an additional cost to the business owner, but in the long run, the investment will pay off.
Personal observation: I tend to notice people who don’t want the government in their business, are sometimes the same ones that want government to interfere on other personal issues that are close their heart……..like prayer in public schools…….(ducking)
14. Bill
- 04/21/2004 8:59 am CDT
Bird: I'm amazed that you somehow worked an abortion reference into an argument about smoking. That's a real apples and oranges thing.
I'm with Shrode - I believe restaurants without smoking sections would close down. Because most people don't smoke. Let the market decide.
Because if you don't, pretty soon you won't be able to buy that thick-n-juicy double cheeseburger you like. Because it's bad for you. And you're an idiot (I don't mean you, whoever's reading this. I mean that's how the government thinks of you).
I'm firmly on Shrode's side. I am currently lifting my diet coke in his honor.
Shrode's the man.
15. Bill
- 04/21/2004 9:01 am CDT
" I believe restaurants without smoking sections would close down" - sorry for the confusing statement. I meant to say that I believe restaurants that allowed smoking everywhere would close down.
Note: I'm ALL FOR restaurants saying "We're smoke free!" - because that's their business decision. I'd go to those restaurants over ones that allow smoking. Definitely.
16. Shrode
- 04/21/2004 9:05 am CDT
Bird,
You are right. Those were poor examples. I couldn't think of anything that affected non-consumers seconhand, like smoke does.
As for the "good of the community" arguement, I don't really think the city council has any right dictating whether or not you can smoke in a privately owned business, even if it is open to the public. People can choose not to go there.
In terms of abortion, that's different and here's why:
Abortion is a moral issue and smoking is not.
Abortion is immoral and does harm to an innocent third party who has no choice in the matter.
Smoking is not immoral. There is no command in the bible forbidding the use of tobacco. (Though one could argue it's unhealthy or unwise, it is still not immoral and therefore should not be banned by gov't from privately owned facilities.)
17. Bill
- 04/21/2004 9:12 am CDT
Bird - you said smoking is unhealthy in one post, and then lauded the health benefits of pipe-smoking in another post?
What is up with that? :-)
I just think you're an anti-cig-ite.
18. Shrode
- 04/21/2004 9:18 am CDT
Cos wrote:
Shrodie baby, ya needs a little smoke.
Yeah, probably.
I too am averse to having Big Brother dictate personal preferences in a proverbial free society, yet freedom without responsibility seems to always lead to some group’s disparity.
Perhaps so. But you can only legislate responsibility so far, and in this case, I think banning smoking from restaurants is too far. I agree with Bill. I think eventually, on their own, more and more restaurants will become "no smoking", and I too am more likely to patronize those establishments. But I think a restaurant ought to have the right to cater to smokers if it wants to, especially as there are less and less places where smokers can go.
Unfortunately, smoking (all types, and even the kind for medicinal purposes ;-) ) are always harmful. It is one thing to set ordinances that regulate your behavior on private property not for general public use, but it is another to set governance for the good and protection of the public.
I agree. But I don't think the city Gov't should have the power to set governance in places where the people can protect themselves by NOT GOING THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
As with everything in a democratic society, there is room for compromise. I think San Antonio has done just that. The ordinance requiring restaurants to shield smokers from non-smokers by requiring a separate, physical room satisfies both parties. Yes, it is an additional cost to the business owner, but in the long run, the investment will pay off. .
I agree. This is at least more reasonable to me.
Personal observation: I tend to notice people who don’t want the government in their business, are sometimes the same ones that want government to interfere on other personal issues that are close their heart……..like prayer in public schools…….(ducking)
I also agree. There are many conservatives who are inconsistent on these and other issues. I, on the other hand, try very hard to be consistent. (Though I may fail on occasion, where I am wrong, I will honestly want to change my position.) Would it surprise you to know that I don't think that there should be organized teacher/school official led prayer?
I think students ought to be allowed to pray voluntarily, as they already are. But I am not for "putting prayer back in schools" as many phrase it.
No, need to duck. You couldn't avoid the forces of nature anyway, even if you wanted to.
Bill and Chris,
Thanks for the props!
19. Bird
- 04/21/2004 9:30 am CDT
pretty soon you won't be able to buy that thick-n-juicy double cheeseburger you like. Because it's bad for you.
Thick-n-juicy double cheeseburgers can be bad for you if eaten in excess, but they don't have the addictive quality of cigarettes. I think that's apples and oranges as well. :-)
Again, I stand by my argument that the "good of the community" is really what matters here. City Councils are, in fact, representative of the community, and if the community doesn't like what they decide, then they can vote them out.
I praise pipe/cigar smoking, and I condemn cigarette smoking. Some may see that as paradoxical, but I don't think it is. Actually, it's not cigarettes smoking, per se, that I condemn. I actually think smoking cigarettes is a poor health choice because, from my casual observations, I think better than 90 percent of people who start smoking cigarettes end up getting addicted. Then the addiciton eventually erodes their health.
Abortion is immoral and does harm to an innocent third party who has no choice in the matter.
Couldn't it be argued that secondhand smoke does harm to innocent third parties? Should I be forced not to frequent a restaurant I enjoy because the cloud of smoke is so thick? Or, the way most restaurants handle it, with a smoking and non-smoking side . . . should I be forced to sit in a "non-smoking" section that really isn't a non-smoking section because the smokers' secondhand smoke keeps wafting my way?
Of course, I know, no one is forcing me to do anyting.
20. Cos
- 04/21/2004 10:38 am CDT
Shrode, you have made some very good points, and I do not disagree with any of them. Maybe it is why this is always a rocky subject. And YES, I am surprised that you have that view on school prayer.
FYI, I think you should have the right to pray, to Jesus, God, Allah, Buddah, Jason Kidd, or whomever you want at school so long as you don't interfere with other children’s right to fail and get passed on to the next grade.
21. Bird
- 04/22/2004 7:14 am CDT
Ironically, this was in the news today . . .
April 22, 2004, 11:16AM
Court upholds smoking ban in tobacco's heartland
Associated Press
FRANKFORT, Ky. - A ban on smoking in bars, restaurants and many other public buildings in Lexington, the heart of the burley tobacco belt, was upheld today by the Kentucky Supreme Court.
The court, in a 6-1 ruling, said the city had acted within its authority to "promote and safeguard public health." It also said the ordinance could be enforced immediately, and city officials said it would go into effect next Tuesday.
The local government passed the ordinance in July following a task force study of the health effects of secondhand smoke. The ordinance had been on hold while a group of bar and restaurant owners sued to block it.
22. Shrode
- 04/22/2004 7:21 am CDT
Fascinating. I'll bet the lawyers for the bar and restaurant owners made arguments in court quite similar to mine above.
I still stand by what I said.
Oh and about my poor analagies...
The more I think about it, the prospect of peanuts being banned from kitchens is not that far fetched.
There are already airlines that have stopped passing them out because of the complaints of allergy sufferers.
Food products with peanut oil now carry "Allergy Alert Warning" labels.
I wouldn't be too surprised to find people lobbying to have peanuts and peanut oil removed from restaurant kitchens, with the argument that its possible for the oil to get mixed into someone's food who is severely allergic.
And for the record, I am allergic to Peanuts, but I think restaurants ought to have the right to serve them, and cook with the oil if they want to.
24. Shrode
- 04/22/2004 7:28 am CDT
Bird writes in response to my response about his abortion comparison:
Couldn't it be argued that secondhand smoke does harm to innocent third parties? Should I be forced not to frequent a restaurant I enjoy because the cloud of smoke is so thick? Or, the way most restaurants handle it, with a smoking and non-smoking side . . . should I be forced to sit in a "non-smoking" section that really isn't a non-smoking section because the smokers' secondhand smoke keeps wafting my way?
Of course, I know, no one is forcing me to do anyting.
Exactly. This is why abortion and smoking are apples and oranges. The unborn child has no choice in the matter. That is the third party with no choice. But as far as cigarette smoke in restaurants, you do have a choice you can leave. Is that a bummer for you? Sure. But you have the choice. The unborn child has no choice.
And you are not forced to sit in any restaurant you don't like for whatever reason: prices too high, food is lousy, room is too dark, waiter is rude, music is too loud, customer next to you is a racist etc... You can choose to leave or not to go in in the first place.
And yeah, its sad that you might not be able to go to a restaraunt you enjoy because of the smoke. But you can always tell management why you will no longer be attending, and perhaps they'll listen. As I've said elsewhere, I once stopped frequenting a restaurant I enjoyed very much, just because the music was so loud you couldn't hear yourself think. Management refused to change the volume. So we stopped going, and told them why.
You can do the same about cig smoke or anything else.
25. Shrode
- 04/22/2004 7:33 am CDT
I wonder why peanut allergies are so common . . .
Brandi once watched a kid who had severe peanut allergies. If he had any peanut products he'd have to be rushed to the ER. Scary stuff.
I have those sort of food allergies. I am allergic to all nuts, all beans (except green beans), and some kinds of shellfish.
Because of this, we have learned that you can minimize a person's risk of food allergies by NOT exposing them to certain foods until after 3 years of age. We are doing this with our children. Apparently giving children peanuts, milk, and other foods that people are commonly allergic to when they are very young increases the risk...
I used to carry a snakebite kit around with me (with epinepherine) so that I could give myself a shot if I ate something that might kill me.
I was rushed to the ER several times as a kid because of my food allergies. And once it was in a restaurant that served me nutbread.
26. Bird
- 04/22/2004 7:48 am CDT
But as far as cigarette smoke in restaurants, you do have a choice you can leave.
Absolutely, but that choice would typically not be executed until after you've already arrived at a restaurant, been seated, ordered your drinks, etc. It's amazingly annoying. :-) I think the nature of smoke is invasive to people who don't want to be exposed to it. Smoke doesn't obey signs that say "no smoking," it floats that way anyway. The odor carries over. It's annoying.
I know that this isn't in the same league as abortion, but I was just trying to bring an analogy between two totally "legal" practices that could, theoretically, be banned by City Councils.
Also, you said that smoking was not a moral issue. Are you sure that it's not? You also said there's no place in the Bible that bans smoking, but do all "moral issues" have to be specifically banned in the Bible? I think morality does come into play when you know that you're subjecting yourself to a vicious habit that has the potential to kill you. What do you think?
About peanuts. That's whacked. When we do finally meet in person, I won't offer you a peanut butter sandwich.
27. Bill
- 04/22/2004 7:53 am CDT
Peanut allergies are scary. We are a "peanut-free" church, because we have several kids with severe allergies. It's kind of cool that we've been able to minister to families in that situation, although it does take discipline to make sure peanut-based products don't enter the church or go on church trips.
Shrode - regarding your take on liberty and the free market. I stand once again in your honor, holding aloft the diet coke of freedom. You rule!
28. Bill
- 04/22/2004 7:57 am CDT
Bird, you wrote: I know that this isn't in the same league as abortion, but I was just trying to bring an analogy between two totally "legal" practices that could, theoretically, be banned by City Councils.
I defy you to find any City Council in the United States that would be able to ban abortion within its city.
They can't - it's (sadly) Supreme Court-protected activity.
That being said, where do they get off telling private businesses what perfectly legal activities they can't allow on their premises?
Again - I'd be all for all restaurants choosing to ban smoking. That'd be great. But on principle it bothers me when the Government tells them they have to. When we allow the Government to do that, we are giving away our own rights (such as the right to be adult, to make good or bad choices, to sway restaurant-owners with our $$$ rather than via legislative fiat, etc.)
29. Shrode
- 04/22/2004 10:26 am CDT
My good friend Bird writes:
Also, you said that smoking was not a moral issue. Are you sure that it's not? You also said there's no place in the Bible that bans smoking, but do all "moral issues" have to be specifically banned in the Bible? I think morality does come into play when you know that you're subjecting yourself to a vicious habit that has the potential to kill you. What do you think?
I agree that morality does come into play in how we treat our bodies. They are gifts of God and we should be good stewards of what we have been given. And our bodies are Temples of the HS. That is the explicit teaching of scripture. That is moral. Now how we work that out, I think falls under the area of Christian Liberty. If we are going to call smoking a moral issue because it is a viscious habit that has potential to kill you, as you do above, what about cheeseburgers, fastfood, and no exercise? I agree how we treat our bodies is a moral issue, but how we work that out ought to be up to the individual Christian.
So I don't think smoking itself is a moral issue, no. The moral issue is how we treat our bodies.
And yes, I think all moral issues/principles must be given in Scripture. If the principle is not commanded or forbidden in Scripture, then it is not a moral issue. Of course, many applications of moral issues are not in scripture. But the moral principle itself needs to be in there.
About peanuts. That's whacked. When we do finally meet in person, I won't offer you a peanut butter sandwich.
And I wouldn't take it even if you offered it! meets 
30. Shrode
- 04/22/2004 10:30 am CDT
Bill writes:
Again - I'd be all for all restaurants choosing to ban smoking. That'd be great. But on principle it bothers me when the Government tells them they have to.
You nailed it dude. I agree with Bird, smoking in restaurants is irritating and annoying. Bird says Absolutely, but that choice would typically not be executed until after you've already arrived at a restaurant, been seated, ordered your drinks, etc. It's amazingly annoying. :-) I think the nature of smoke is invasive to people who don't want to be exposed to it. Smoke doesn't obey signs that say "no smoking," it floats that way anyway. The odor carries over. It's annoying.
You are exactly right! But my point is the principle of a City Council telling private business what they can do (that is otherwise legal). I don't think the City Council should have the power, or authority to make these kinds of ordinances. When and where will it stop?
You and I may agree with this rule, but what about the next one? They should not have this kind of power. It's wrong.
31. Bird
- 04/22/2004 10:40 am CDT
what about cheeseburgers, fastfood, and no exercise?
I don't really have time to say anything, but I appreciate your thoughts, Phil. I'm too busy right now ironing out details for all these freelance photo gigs that the BGCT is throwing my way. (Yay!)
About the cheesburgers, etc. I think the main difference is that cheeseburgers are not addictive in the same way that cigarettes are . . . at least I don't think they are. :-) We let our 4 year old son eat cheeseburgers, knowing full well he's no going to become a burger junkie, ballooning out to 500 pounds and dying young. If burgers could do that to a person, then I'd lump 'em in with cigs for sure.
Let's all calm down now and take a smoke break . . .
33. Bill
- 04/22/2004 11:15 am CDT
Bird,
Don't worry - you're not hooked. Pipes aren't addicting. As you said yourself, you've been smoking for 10 years and you're not addicted at all. :-)
The other night, a bunch of friends and I went out to the park that's by Waco's suspension bridge and smoked clove cigarettes. My first time and probably my last (my parents weren't exactly pleased, lol). I had brought my guitar and we sang some praise choruses while we were out there.