Brad Hollerbach is the Director of Information Technology for the Southeast Missourian. His opinions are his own and do not reflect those of the newspaper or its editorial board. He writes this blog primarily for his own amusement and to parody the absurdities of the world we live in. He lives with his wife and two cats that don't really care for one another in Cape.

Smoking Bans Don't Go Far Enough

Posted Friday, November 13, 2009, at 12:00 AM

I was leaving work at lunch one day this past week and smelled slightly overdone microwave popcorn presumably coming from the company break room. I wrinkled my nose and quickly left the building because this odor offended my selectively-delicate nostrils.

I use the phrase "selectively-delicate" for a reason.

Having grown up "in the country" some odors that I don't even notice make others wretch. For instance, I once helped clean out a silo whose bottom was full of fermenting silage. A co-worker on the job couldn't stomach the stench of the sickeningly sweet-smelling substance, but it didn't bother me. And I'm also not phased by the pungent odors you will find lingering around commercial swine operations. I've been told that fragrance can make a person swear off bacon for life.

While some smells don't bother me in the least, others make me gag.

Such as burnt, microwave popcorn.

I'm also not too fond of burning leaves or the people who feel they must torch them. I think that's an asinine and completely unnecessary process that stinks up an entire neighborhood on a pleasant fall day and is only beneficial to the closet-pyromaniac who started the blaze. Can you tell I really hate burning leaves? Even the smallest fire can be smelled blocks away hours after it's been put out.

I'm also not especially fond of cigarette or cigar smoke, but I have devised an ingenious solution to that problem:

If a smoker is smoking close by and the smoke is bothering me, I move.

That's pretty radical thinking, right? Sometimes I take just a step back, sometimes more, three at the most. That gets the job done for me.

There are folks that have a significantly more extreme solution than mine and believe that smoking and smokers are the epitome of wickedness and should be banned everywhere on the planet and possibly even on the moon.

However, the moon ban is still being debated amongst that coalition and they may make it the "designated smoking section" for any earthlings still wishing to "light up" just to show that they do have a modicum of tolerance.

Some people from this coalition might sneer at my solution -- move away -- as being too simplistic for avoiding smokers. They might point out that the poor waitress or waiter at a restaurant can't move away from any smoking customers because that is their job. Here's my solution to those restaurant workers who are can't stomach the customers who choose to smoke:

Quit.

If the restaurant they are employed at allowed smoking before they were hired then they should have known that there was a risk of encountering smoke while at work. It was an existing "danger" inherent with the job.

Some jobs have innate risk. For instance, I've never once considered applying for a job as a lifeguard because there is an inherent danger of drowning and since I can't swim, that makes it doubly so.

But based on the same logic of some members of the smoking-ban coalition, IF I choose to apply for a lifeguard position and IF I was actually hired for that job despite my one itsy-bitsy flaw -- you know, the whole I-can't-swim issue -- THEN I could request that everyone stay out of the pool since it posed an inherent danger to me as the lifeguard. I suppose sunbathing would be OK.

Recently, the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County voted to outlaw smoking in public places and Illinois has had a ban for the entire state for nearly two years. Apparently, this upsurge in anti-smoking legislation is encouraging campaigns elsewhere including here in Cape.

Whether or not the local movement gets enough traction to put the issue up for a public vote is questionable. Personally, it makes no difference to me since I've already devised the aforementioned and practically foolproof system to avoid smokers whose habit bothers me.

But if the local anti-smoking committee broadens their thinking beyond just tobacco products, I might be convinced to vote in favor of a ban.

After all, burning leaves and charred microwave popcorn does offend my selectively-delicate nostrils.

But please don't think I'm such an intolerant S.O.B. who would want to universally ban the burning of leaves and the charring of popcorn.

Hardly. I would gladly allow any persons who wished to pursue those interests to do so at the same location as the soon-to-be-announced "designated smoking section."

You know, the one on the moon.

Comments

View 20 comments or respond

Community discussion is important, and we encourage you to participate as a reader and commenter. Click here to see our Guidelines. We also encourage registered users to let us know if they see something inappropriate on our site. You can do that by clicking "Report Comment" below.

There should not be a need for a smoking ban, but people lack the common sense to move somewhere else if the smoking bothers them. This is a issue of stupidity. If someone is stupid enough to start and keep smoking fine their problem. If someone else is bothered by the smoke and is too stupid to leave that's their own fault. If I don't like how an establishment is ran, I don't come back. It's not that hard.

-- Posted by mynameismud on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 1:45 AM
Brad, I always really enjoy your blogs and usually agree with most of what you write. However, I have to disagree with you on this one. Scientific studies demonstrate that nonsmoking sections in restaurants and bars provide protection from second hand smoke, which is at best insignificant. In several studies the particulate matter measured was actually HIGHER in the nonsmoking section than in the smoking section. The EPA classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, meaning that there is NO safe level of exposure. In other words it does not work to simply move away from the smoke. You state in your blog that "If a smoker is smoking close by and the smoke is bothering me, I move.

That's pretty radical thinking, right? Sometimes I take just a step back, sometimes more, three at the most. That gets the job done for me." Unfortunately, that "radical thinking" does not remove you from the exposure to the carcinogens. You may not smell the smoke as much but the adverse impact on your health is still there.

-- Posted by Critical Thinker on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 3:55 AM
Brad, what happens if you left your place of work one day during one of Cape's sudden rains -- and found yourself in a flash flood. With water raising fast around you, and being unable to swim, you grab hold of a tree branch, which is slowly becoming waterlogged and starting to sink. You hold on as long as you can...and begin contemplating your death (since you can't swim)...when seemingly out of nowhere four boats emerge from the darkness. One is filled with pig dung. The second is packed with people smoking (though there's still space for you). The third is a "trash" boat for burnt microwave popcorn. And the fourth includes the gorgeous, topless sunbather (woman) from the swimming pool you couldn't be a lifeguard at. Which boat do you get in? (Remember, your wife reads your blog, doesn't she?)

-- Posted by Legend on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 8:20 AM
I don't mind smokers as long as the smoke isn't blowing directly into my face. I normally do move if it's bothering me, but I was in an immovable situation a couple of weeks ago. I was at a stoplight with my windows down, and all of a sudden a cloud of smoke surrounds my face. I look to my left and see the other driver smoking. With each exhale, the wind was carrying the smoke directly through my window. With cars around me, I couldn't move, and if I rolled my windows up, it would just trap the smoke and stench in my own car. I was trapped for a solid minute. Trapped, I tell you!

-- Posted by Sam DeReign on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 8:42 AM
Critical Thinker, that's an interesting study by the EPA. I've always thought the smoking / non-smoking sections at restaurant were something of an exercise in futility. If vent fans aren't involved what's stopping the smoke from going elsewhere? I think this actually helps my case AGAINST leaf burning and smoldering microwave popcorn. Smoke is a carcinogen no matter what is being burned. And did I mention that I really, really, really hate burning leaves?

Legend, while that particular situation is highly unlikely, I have given it some thought. First of all, I would probably not begin contemplating my death, since basically I'm an optimist. I would probably instead think about what I might have for dinner, right after I learned to swim.

Now, if those four boats arrived at the same time, I would be a moron NOT to get in the boat with the topless sunbather. It's the least crowded and least smelly boat. And my wife wouldn't mind, since obviously the sunbather in the boat is probably some kind of a loony-tune. Who sunbaths in the middle of rain storm in a boat? Loony-tunes, that's who. And to answer your question, no, my wife does not read my blogs, but my in-laws do.

Thanks for reading.

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 9:57 AM
MeLange, MO Clean Indoor Air law does not do enough to protect the citizens of MO from exposure to secondhand smoke. This law addresses smoking in public places but the proprietor of that public place determines if smoking is allowed. If smoking is allowed then the Clean Indoor Air Law outlines how the law must be adhered to. Basically the law says public places are non-smoking but hey if you want to designate a smoking section, go ahead.

The law has conditions on how big that the designated smoking area can be - no more than 30% of the total space can be designated for smoking. The proprieter also has to display proper signage.

I can't tell you how many times that I have been in not only restaurants, offices, gas stations, etc. that are not in compliance with the law. Smaller restaurants, offices, etc. seem to think that 70% of their establishment is designated to smoking contrary to what the law states. It is also hard to determine sometime whether establishments allow smoking or not because there is no signage on the door or in the building. So how are people suppose to determine that for themselves.

This law is weak and is not a good argument in this discussion.

-- Posted by mothering4 on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 10:25 AM
Copy and paste this to view the pdf file on the state of Missouri Clean Indoor Air Law. It is a simple brochure to read.

http://www.dhss.mo.gov/SmokingAndTobacco/CIA-RightRead.pdf

-- Posted by mothering4 on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 10:26 AM
I somehow doubt the government reports on secondhand smoke. The EPA has a reputation for making things look the way that they want them to look for their own benefit.

-- Posted by mynameismud on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 12:00 PM
I'm a non smoker. It doesn't bother me if or where others do. My problem is cheap perfume and aftershave lotion that affects my sinuses terribly. It easy to just step away from it.

N?oise polution is another matter. A neighbor never could understand why I refused to attend his weekend parties. He insisted upon turning the "music" up a notch higher than it could go. Today he's deaf in one ear and half so in the other. I still have pretty good hearing.

Was in Texas with a frieend and went to Bennigans for dinner. Place packed as tight as a sardine can. Worse, we were literally assaulted by a wall of noise pressing against us. Got out of there faster than a bat from ....

-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 12:24 PM
Non-smoking sections simply don't work. Would you eat in a non-asbestos section of a restaurant is you knew that asbestos was circulating in the space 10 feet away? I certainly would not. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) studied the issue of smoking and non-smoking sections. In its 2005 report titled "Controlling Tobacco Smoke Pollution" this conclusion was reached:

"The conclusion is that ventilation technology cannot possibly achieve acceptable indoor air quality in the presence of smoking, leaving smoking bans as the only alternative."

Anyone can certainly locate and find this report. Here is the reference information.

ASHRAE IAQ Applications, (Vol. 6, No. 3, Summer 2005).

-- Posted by southeast on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 2:17 PM
You do not have ANY reliable sources listed in your paper of your so called "foolproof system". How can you write about something when you have no apparent knowledge of the topic?

So, why do we have such strict rules for drinking and driving? Alcoholics aren't allowed to get behind the wheel because they "might" kill someone. If an innocent person dies due to someone that was drinking and driving they go to jail. Then, tell me why smoking is different? Science has proven that secondhand smoke kills 3,000 nonsmokers from lung cancer every year due to secondhand smoke. Here's the site if you don't believe me. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm

In addition, the percent of adults 18 years of age and over who currently smoke cigarettes is 21%.

Source: Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2008, table 25

So, you are telling me that the other 79% of the population has to deal with other people disgusting habit.

Right now, smokers are taking my freedom away because I have to inhale dangerous toxins. We are not taking the freedom of smoking away from anyone. They can simply step outside. They can STILL smoke! They can still have the freedom of getting lung cancer, NOT ME!

-- Posted by Blah on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 3:12 PM
Smoking / non-smoking I could care less if anyone smokes or not. If you don't want to put up with it don't frequent an establishment that allows it.

What miffs me is the littering by smokers, cellophane, pack tops and butts out the window. My peeve is cigarette butts on the ground especially within 10 feet of a butt container. Next time you walk across a parking lot count the number of cigarette butts you see, its astonishing. Smokers can't figure out why people want to take away their privileges to smoke, all I ask is that you be responsible about it.

-- Posted by Cutlass1964 on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 3:14 PM
Blah, perhaps you haven't noticed the title of this blog. It's called "The Irony Of It All." Don't believe everything you read. I certainly don't.

Thanks for reading.

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 3:26 PM
Don't ban smoking entirely in the workplace. I take breaks when the smokers do.

Wholly crap do you realize how many breaks a day they take just to smoke.

So if you stay on this bandwagon of a total ban do you realize the detrimental effect you will have on me getting to take my additional non-smoking (smoke) breaks throughout the day.

-- Posted by Cutlass1964 on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 3:29 PM
Sorry it is not about the current law not being enforced. That law only determines the guidelines that proprieters have to follow when they have a designated smoking area, what the fines are if they break the law, and who to report those to.

Thanks for posting that link. I had forgot you had.

-- Posted by mothering4 on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 3:36 PM
That's certainly something to consider, Cutlass. Not to mention, just imagine how cranky your smoking colleagues might be if they could not partake in their vice on a regular basis? Wouldn't that make work joyful?

TFR

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 3:39 PM
It does still all boils down to choices, doesn't it? No amount of common sense is going to convince some people that they DO have a choice when it comes to avoiding places where smoking is permitted. They'd prefer legislating such a thing ... until the time comes when something they want a freedom to do is prohibited.

I've seen a lot of 'choices' (or freedoms, if you will) taken from us over the decades, always with some sort of 'justification.'

Next? Perfume so voyager's sinuses stay clear (same thing happens to me in proximity with someone wearing musk cologne). And yeah, the leaf burning (people were angry in an IL town declared a burning ban).

As far as the believability of EPA (or any other government agency) statements ... one really needs to read everything, from the beginning of the 'second-hand smoke' crusade, and then use the old grey cells to see the actual truth (or non-truth). That however isn't the issue ... the issue being choices. No one can force me to go to a strip joint or a restaurant I don't like; no one can force anyone to frequent or work in a smoking-permitted business.

Can't anyone just stop depending upon the governments to protect themselves from ... themselves?

A very good, ironical article, Brad!

-- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 5:18 PM
Let's get on with the public vote to ban smoking in public places in Cape County,

-- Posted by Yankee Station on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 5:30 PM
I have said it time and time again. I only patronize places that are smoke free. This also goes for gas stations. Nothing like going in to pay and have your self smell like you just stepped out of a bar. Oh and the guy at the pump putting gas in with one hand and a cigarette in the other is just plain dumb. Their lack of concern for their saftey as well as others getting gas just amazes me.

-- Posted by gman on Sun, Nov 15, 2009, at 7:54 AM
I am sick of looking at banks, car lots, and churches on every corner.

Let's ban those too!

Let's ban everything!!!!

Well, everything except good chiristian folk who have the good sense to tell us how we SHOULD be living our lives.

You know, those unjudgmental folk who love everyone no matter what....

-- Posted by the_eye on Sun, Nov 15, 2009, at 9:04 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires a subscription.