Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Are you a smoker?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Are you a smoker? (Page 5)

This topic comprises 12 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12

Author

Topic: Are you a smoker?

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-03-2010 07:24 PM

quote: Chris Slycord
2) It is patently false that no bars would decide to disallow smoking if given the choice. Before Washington State issued the state-wide ban, there already were several bars that were smoke-free. Some businesses make money by catering to a smaller, but loyal clientele.

I never said NO BARS would disallow smoking. That's why I included the following disclaimer in my post:

quote: Mike Blakesley
This might not be true in big cities if there was a large enough pool of non-smoking drinkers/gamblers to draw from.

I can tell you that if the ban were reversed here, at least 95% of the bars in Montana would go back to allowing smoking, guaranteed. The only ones that wouldn't are SOME of the ones in the larger towns, where there are enough non-smoking drinkers/gamblers to support them. Lots of small town bars are in serious financial difficulty because of the ban. (NOTE: I still support the ban, however.)

Joe: We can't afford to pay all the taxes, but we're doing what we can with our out-of-sight income and property taxes. [beer]

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 03-04-2010 12:09 AM

quote: Joe Redifer
This is what always confuses me. There may be no proven addiction, but then why do pot smokers worship it? Why do they want it so damn badly?

Probably because they tend to mix it with cigarette tobacco. Nicotine is more addictive than heroin.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 03-04-2010 03:12 AM

quote: Joe Redifer
This is what always confuses me. There may be no proven addiction, but then why do pot smokers worship it? Why do they want it so damn badly? It seems to be almost the only thing some users like to think about. It's not like it's a cheeseburger or something as awesome as that.

You're looking at it in a way that says "the only reason people do drugs is because they are addictive." But the reality is that even with addictive drugs, people often do them because of other reasons. Like people with certain mental conditions will often gravitate towards specific drugs, because the effects of the specific drug offset the effects of their condition. Lots of people self-medicate in this way. Similarly, lots of people gravitate towards pot because of some of the actions it has.

For instance, THC has analgesic properties so it can help people with glaucoma and it helps stop vomiting for cancer patients under chemotherapy. And obviously it helps create a euphoria as well, which lots of people like. In fact, on the euphoria notion, it's been shown that the "runner's high" is not due to release of endorphins, but actually due to our endogenous canabanoid system. Yep, that's right. You create neurotransmitters that resemble THC.

quote: Mike Blakesley
I can tell you that if the ban were reversed here, at least 95% of the bars in Montana would go back to allowing smoking, guaranteed.

And as I said earlier:
Even if it was true that bars were extremely likely to allow smoking due to their clientele, why is it wrong for a business to cater to their clientele?

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-04-2010 09:33 AM

In this day and age it's "wrong" because the business will be exposing itself to various liabilities if it deliberately allows or encourages smoking.

Catering to the smoking customer's wants and needs is besides the point when it comes to smoking bans in public places and service oriented businesses that cater to the general public. The safety of the employees who work there day in and day out takes priority. Some consideration must also be made to other customers who are very sensitive to cigarette smoke, such as people with severe allergies or acute asthma.

If I was jobless and had a choice, I wouldn't work at any of our local casinos, bars, bowling alleys and a number of other places for the virtual fog of cigarette smoke that develops in those places from all the chain smoking customers. But a lot of people don't have a choice. They have to take a job wherever they can get one and worry about the huge amount of second hand smoke they'll be breathing in later.

Even without smoking bans being enacted for certain kinds of businesses (such as casinos and bars) I can see those businesses being forced to go smoke free anyway because of jacked up rates for worker's comp insurance premiums and other liability insurance premiums. It's kind of like having a diving board in your own private back yard pool. Your home insurance premiums go sky high to where you can't afford to have one.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 03-04-2010 10:52 AM

Maybe it's just me but every bar I went to that allowed smoking had staff who themselves smoked.

And sure, letting people smoke opens businesses to possible liability, but that's offset by the fact that they'll be catering to the clientele who will be coming in to buy your stuff. Using the business liability argument, we should ban skydiving businesses because those guys are opening themselves up to liability. And opening themselves up to a liability is a choice the business should be allowed to make.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-04-2010 10:57 AM

quote: Chris Slycord
And as I said earlier:
Even if it was true that bars were extremely likely to allow smoking due to their clientele, why is it wrong for a business to cater to their clientele?

The biggest argument among the smoking opponents is that allowing smoking "forces" employees to work in the smoky environment. Of course they don't consider that most of the employees smoke too.

There is a bar next door to my theatre. I swear, the employees there spend more time outside smoking, spitting and littering than they do working.

| IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 03-04-2010 01:37 PM

My time in the showrooms on the Las Vegas Strip was of course a smoker's paradise. Customer smoke, carbon arc followspot smoke, plus all the pyro smoke we used for many of the acts. Sure, as a non-smoker I noticed all of that, but it didn't particularly bother me (didn't think of secondhand smoke issues, just like I didn't think about all the asbestos we used to literally roll around in when working up above the ceilings in those days).

Then, I took a job in the SoCal aerospace industry and worked/lived in a relatively smoke-free environment for four years. When I returned to working in 'Vegas showrooms, that's when I noticed the smell. In my clothes, and in my hair, every night coming home from work. Never noticed that before. Guess you just get used to it.

And about Mike's comment on smoker breaks, I kinda sorta envied the smokers in our lab. Seemed like they took breaks every hour. I took breaks too, but not like that. Fortunately I loved the work I did (as I generally do) - it didn't seem like work to spend hours on end in my cube.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 03-04-2010 01:58 PM

If you smoke, you get extra breaks that non-smokers are not privy to. Smokers NEED more breaks. Therefore smokers are less efficient human beings.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-04-2010 04:00 PM

quote: Chris Slycord
Using the business liability argument, we should ban skydiving businesses because those guys are opening themselves up to liability. And opening themselves up to a liability is a choice the business should be allowed to make.

There's a big difference. If someone visits a sky diving business or most any other business helping its customers engage in an inherintly dangerous activity the customer usually signs at least one or more release forms.

I've never been asked to sign a legal release form upon entering a bar, casino, bowling alley or any other place liable to be infected with copious amounts of second hand cigarette smoke.

| IP: Logged

Bruce McGee
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1776
From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular.
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 03-04-2010 10:43 PM

<----Does this face look like a smoker?

I'll answer that: Never.

My dad was a heavy smoker, but my two sister and I never took up the habit.

| IP: Logged

Carey Barber
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 143
From: Newport News, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 03-05-2010 07:33 AM

quote: Joe Redifer
If you smoke, you get extra breaks that non-smokers are not privy to. Smokers NEED more breaks.

Thank you!

Here is another case where the actual smoking is less annoying to me than the other irritants that inevitably go with it.

I have always said that the non-smokers should get a 5-10 minute 'nose-picking break' every hour or so. We should just go out back and put our fingers up our noses, while we stand in a huddle and chit-chat. No company would entertain that idea, but it seems just as fair to me as the constant smoke breaks.

I have a very poor sense of smell, so I guess I am lucky regarding smoking. (Not sure if I have a deviated septum or something, but I also have trouble breathing through my nose when I go to bed). Unlike some others here, the smell of someone actively smoking does not bother me too much. Perhaps because I have known so many friends and family members that smoked I have become less aware of it.

| IP: Logged

Sean McKinnon
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1712
From: Peabody Massachusetts
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 03-05-2010 10:00 AM

[QUOTEIf you smoke, you get extra breaks that non-smokers are not privy to. Smokers NEED more breaks. Therefore smokers are less efficient human beings. [/QUOTE]

I always allowed my employees to take a 5-10 minute "Fresh Air" break one at a time if they chose to every couple of hours or so. This stopped the issue of why do the smokers get to take extra 5 minute breaks that I don't. The only thing was you had to go outside you couldn't just hang around the lobby. Most of the non smokers realized right away that freezing your butt off in the middle of January because you have an addiction is no real prize!

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 03-05-2010 10:29 AM

NYC has had no smoking regs now for a decade and has extend them to bars in the last few years; they originally were exempt. When the ban was extended to cover them, the owners cried and moaned about how much business they would loose. It was all, do I dare say, a smoke screen -- business dropped slightly here and there at first, but that was just and adjustement bump and then it leveled off and was back to normal. Most registered BETTER business -- all those who stayed away from bars because they couldn't stand smoke now were free to patronize them.

Like I said, I react really badly to second hand smoke. I don't drink, but bars and clubs were the places you had to go to meet people but I just couldn't do it. On the occasions when my friends dragged me to a bar or a club, within 20 minutes my eyes would get so irritated and inflamed that I would be squinting thru swollen lids with the eyes tearing profusely within 45min my throat was horse and lungs burning, feeling like I was suffocating. It wasn't fun and it certainly wasn't an attractive sight. It sure didn't get me dates. So I gave up on it. Why put myself through that torture just to get some?

Now that smoking is banned in every business in the city and in every public building, on occassion I MIGHT be persuaded to go to a sports bar or the like. I imagine there must be lots of people who are in the same boat who now can go to those traditionally smoke-filled establisments where before they couldn't.

As for the casinos, that seems like it would be a great experiment -- two addictions, let's see which one is stronger! Those who have a gambling compulsion have no choice but to go to the cassios; if they are addicted to cigs, then they would be forced to go outside and break up their game maybe in the middle of that high they get from winning. What would be really fun are the people who have really bad addictions to both -- you could make it a game with your friends -- just wait and watch to see when their heads would explode...hehe.

| IP: Logged

Richard Hamilton
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1341
From: Evansville, Indiana
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 03-05-2010 02:55 PM

When I was about 10, me and my cousin took a cigarette to try. I took almost 1 puff and coughed and gagged, that was it. Reminds me of a few years ago in China. I was sitting outside a shop, enjoying a beer, and the shop owner had to go inside. His son (about 5 years old) found his cigarettes and sat down and lit one up. He coughed and gagged for about 30 seconds, then threw up in the street. I was sitting there silently laughing my ass off. He then started stomping on the pack [Smile]

Second hand smoke doesnt bother me. My mom smokes about 3 packs a day, I'm used to it. If you really want to experience second hand smoke, go to an AA meeting.

| IP: Logged

William T. Parr
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 823
From: Cedar Park, TX
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 03-05-2010 04:03 PM

Never have have smoked and hopefulyy never will.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 12 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.