I think that the anti-smoking enforcement is easing up just in time for the chilly weather.I've noticed a few new areas de fumadores in bars/cafes that don't impose the "gas chamber" effect that I see in the law.
Here's one for you in microcentral! Buller's/Microcentral at Paraguay 428. The entire loft-like upstairs is open to smokers.
18 comments:
Why do you think the law is in place? Perhaps it should be an eye opener to smokers - if you won't stop killing yourself at least stop killing others. Latest research says heart damage occurs in 20 and 30 year olds - not just reserved for the older smokers. You smoke, you have a 50% chance of a painful death. Think about that when you are lighting up and getting the nicotine rush!
/ex-smoker
That's a TREMENDOUS question, Ano!
"Why do you think the law is in place?"
Wow! fear fear! kill kill! death death! 50% 50%! Malo malo el que fuma!
Anonymous/ex-smoker wants to show what he learnt on tv.
I say live and let live.
I think the law is not that bad.
Smoking is bad for our health, even smokers know that. Now, being places where you can smoke... well, there should be no big problem, appart from the fact that we were used to smoking anywhere, and now we have to choose a "special" place.
Would you like to be in a bar where a lot of people is farting? It's just democracy (or some hint of it at least...)
Best,
S.
Yeah, I never thought the law was that bad either.
As a smoker, of course, I was inconvenienced by it but not much else. I get the feeling, however, that some people think I should fall to my knees in gratitude for legislation designed to save my life. I can only imagine how those same people would react to legislation designed to save them from their own individual peccadilloes.
As for farting, you can find writing that goes back to the Ancient Greeks that shows it to be socially unacceptable. Por eso, I reject the comparison.
On the other hand, smoking not only is legal... but was considered fashionable and even encouraged within the lifetime of everyone able to leave a comment here.
But Ano's question is still valid...tho he meant it in a rhetorical way:
"Why do you think the law is in place?"
"if you won't stop killing yourself at least stop killing others. "
Funny, how come the people who preach that don't preach as much about enacting pollution/emission standards on buses, municipal trucks, and old cars that emit so much large particle soot and toxic chemicals that probably a couple breathes on the street does as much damage as one hour of minor second hand smoke?
When you hear most people complain about smokers the first thing they mention is the smell of smoke and how it disrupts their eating or makes their clothes stink.
You see a lot of people shouting hurrah for anti-smoking laws but where are they when it comes to emission standards? Ooops that probably means I'll have to pay higher taxes or higher bus fare. Oh never mind just keep it the way it is.
It's a weird thing, the smoking ban, when it comes to people's opinions about it.
I'll bet that Ano doesn't feel that way about anything else. But... he feels that way about smoking. And there are lots of normal, rational people just him. But the idea of banning smoking, for reasons I can't explain, will make them do things they ordinarily would not.
Emissions standards is the perfect example... at least among that group that drives.
What fascinates me in particular about the debate is: how far do these people think that the ban should go?
But his question still remains:
"Why do you think the law is in place?"
Can't answer that Mike but I fear one day some wacko is going to try to ban bbq grills for causing lung problems. Either that or blame them for causing global warming.
Yanqui Mike,
I would love to see some sort of control or monitor on emissions in Argentina. Now that the smoking thing is out of the way....
Seriously though, I am biased becuase I hate smoke. It doesn't mean that I hate smokers. Most of my friends smoke.
I am going to venture a guess as to why more and more countries are putting these bans into place. I think it's the high cost to society in terms of medical complications to an x % of their population.
They should also look into trying to civilize the driving culture over here if you look at it that way. It's gotta have a huge toll to have so many people die as a result of car accidents. Just like it must be a huge toll to take care of people that have lung disease; both of which are preventable and the preventive means are not as costly.
The medical burden is always brought up as one of the biggest reasons for the ban. I'm not really convinced that is the case (but it's tough nowadays in that everyone has their favorite science/statistics ready in their pocket with which to defend themselves.)
My particular favorite "science/ statistics" is that living to 80, 90, 100 is the greatest burden on a nation's health care system.
But since there doesn't seem to be too very much evidence that we actually give a damn (in my opinion) about the future... I'm having trouble believing any of the "burden" explanations.
I suspect that the reason for the bans has more of a social/societal explanation.
Just to make it clear: I truly DON'T believe that tobacco smokers have ANY rights to smoke.
I DO, however, believe strongly that people that wish NOT to be exposed to tobacco smoke DO have a basic human right not to be subjected to it against their will.
Making smoking illegal in pool halls at midnight, however, sort of shoots the "protect me!" argument in the ass.
There's got to be a better explanation.
"Why do you think the law is in place?"
Here's some typing masquerading as thinking:
1) The Cromagnon factor. The Gob had to do something that had the appearance of licensing, or at least came vaguely under the rubric of 'crackdown'. It had to pick a battle it could win and - whatever the pros and cons – it seems to be winning this one.
2) Unlike seatbelt, speeding, drink-driving 'crackdowns', this law has the beauty of being largely self-enforcing. It's pretty tricky for individuals to flout it.
3) Unlike Dublin it doesn't rain here every day. I quite enjoy popping out for a pucho.
4) Everyone else is doing it.
It's worth remembering that if, like me, you are disgusting, and like to smoke and eat simultaneously, you just need to cross the General Paz. For meat and Marlboro, I recommend Doña Emilia on the Panamericano.
Plan B (Brasil y Defensa, San Telmo) is a good smokers bar.
Hi Mike,
Another reason why I think that the main incentive is still health related is that they are also cutting down on that industrie's advertising. Kind of like what happened in the States with the Alcohol industry. That would explain why they would create a blanket law covering everyone instead of making exceptions like the pool hall or discos, etc.
I also agree with you that this has a social/societal influence. The question is why is it showing up now? It could be becuase there are more and more people that are against smoking or the idea of being around smoke without a say so in the matter. It could be that it is becoming something that is looked down upon. I mean you see less of it in the movies even (not the theatres but within the movies themselves). Could it be that it is starting to be uncool to smoke?
I actually have no idea if that is true right now. That is most likely seen at the teenage level. How many teenagers are smoking, quitting, not smoking, etc.
On the other hand I did like your point regarding the aging population. However, that is mostly a new challenge that no one has faced. We are in for a learning curve on that one I think.
I also agree with you about how we tend not to worry too much about the future. We tend to think that if it's something that is going to happen when we are not even around anymore then why bother.
Having children does tend to erase that nonchalant attitude.
The exceptions to the smoking ban are interesting – prisons, mental hospitals and specially licensed premises or events. I went to a wedding party in a non smoking restaurant recently and everyone, quite legally, was lighting up. I haven't been to a prison or a secure psychiatric facility yet, but it's probably only a matter of time.
Frank is right; there are very few smoking role models left and none in the mainstream. Christopher Hitchens in the US. Jorge Lanata here.
Clooney's Murrow biopic Goodnight and Good Luck is almost like a paean to the golden age of tobacco. Every scene of that movie is choked with smoke. Cigarette smoke looks beautiful in black and white; it's an essential decorative component of just about every good movie from 1935-1950.
Bill Hicks was the Last Great American Smoker.
Well, thank you for rejecting my comparison, that's very kind and open-minded from you.
Maybe in a future post you can post some of those writings you allud e to, to teach us all how to behave, and what kind of things can and cannot be done in order to be "socially unacceptable".
Regards,
S.
PS: As I see you are fond to writings: try to see if your most loved and very acclaimed writers were, in their times, "socially acceptable".
I didn't mean to offend you... but I've heard the smoking/farting and smoking/masturbating and smoking/"fill-in-the-blank" thing too many times.
It's cute but doesn't really apply.
I did, however, agree with you that the law is not all that bad.
As for it being "democracy...or at least a hint of it", let me take issue with you again: do you think it would have passed a referendum?
(I replied to this a few ago, but apparently blogger still has some problems)
The answer is: Absolutely. Not only are smokers a minority in this city and the world, but also many smokers, you can take me as an example, would have voted in favour of the law, because we believe that is a good way to respect other people.
Regards,
S.
"I say live and let live."
I say smoke in the privacy of your own home. Live or die, it's none of my business as long as you don't blow the smoke in MY face, limit my choices or give me your disease. By all means, people can eat rat poison for breakfast if they choose to, as long as they don't put it in my food -I won't complain. In a big scheme of life this could be one of the ways nature gets rid of weak links aka idiots. Smoke on.
I live in a jurisdiction where a complete smoking ban was enacted almost 2 years ago. Since then I have had only 1 cold, as opposed to the many previous years where I would get 2-3 a winter and at least one bout of bronchitus(sp?) a year. Needless to say, smoke-free air is glorious to me.
Post a Comment