New Smoking Policy

[barbu]

Re: New Smoking Policy

as a hardcore smoker of...a variety of substances..., let me assure you that a smoking ban is not a big deal.

I live in Ottawa where the (3 year old) smoking ban means standing outside the bar in -25 C (or worse..) weather to smoke. As a smoker and an adult, i can accept that. I do not smoke in my home either, it has become quite natural to just go outside. I do not know *anyone* who allows cigarette smoking in their house these days. If we can go outside all winter, i don't see how anyone in Las Vegas in the summer can complain, unless it's about the heat :>

Furthermore, I would like to string up whomever was smoking those gawdawful clove smokes throughout BH/DC last year. Everywhere i went that odour made me wretch! Banning all indoor smoking is totally worth it to avoid that stench :X

To sum up, smoking outside is a great way to meet & greet, and enjoy the lovely Nevada summer.

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: New Smoking Policy

Employees have the right to quit if they don't like the environment.

indeed... but that's a bit of a harsh statement (only slightly, though)

the argument i often hear pertains to the "career" aspect... if someone's whole "career" is in the service industry (ok, something probably went wrong in your life if "waitress" is your career from age 18 to 65, but i could sort of see the argument as far as professional bartenders are concerned)

a bartender who works in a state with no smoking restrictions basically is required to be exposed to smoke (often quite a lot of it) without any choice if they want to make a living. now, there's a pretty valid point to mention that they should have known this before they went into that field... but i can see the way a person makes the "forced to be unhealthy to earn a living" claim.

however, again... i think my middle of the road point best addresses the matter: the establishment can be compelled to have adequate air-flow through means of large open windows/half-walls everywhere or they can install a filtration system.

it's fair that the bartenders could be prevented somewhat from working in unhealthy conditions... but their union doesn't have the right to ask that everyone stand outside to smoke just because the bartenders go home at night and have to listen to their sig-o's complain about their clothes smelling.

[Thorn]

Re: New Smoking Policy

Part of the reason (their justification - not mine) for this particular piece of legal intrusion is actually the folks who have to work the establishment don't have the choice of not getting the second hand smoke. Too often the choice to work elsewhere just doesn't really exist.

So this is somewhat a worker's rights issue.

Employees have the right to quit if they don't like the environment.

[renakuzar]

Re: New Smoking Policy

<quote>smoking bans

this is the big one for me, and as many of you know... i don't even smoke.

societies have a valid interest in previnting the choices of one citizen from having an undesired impact on another citizen who is not making the same choices
</end quote>

Part of the reason (their justification - not mine) for this particular piece of legal intrusion is actually the folks who have to work the establishment don't have the choice of not getting the second hand smoke. Too often the choice to work elsewhere just doesn't really exist.

So this is somewhat a worker's rights issue.

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: New Smoking Policy

If they outlaw cigarettes an I do nothing because I do not smoke,
then they outlaw alcohol and I do nothing because I do not drink,
then when they outlaw what I love, who will come fight with me?

precisely.

the creep of regulation happens most often due to the fact that any restrictions or new policies can usually be adopted at one of two levels: the "sensible for a reason" level, or the "laws just for regulation's sake" level.

you may have a scenario where some restriction might actually make a bit of sense on paper. but politicians, lobbyists, and legislators will often do their best to blur the line between those two standards in an effort to either roll over everyone's rights all at once, or to quietly push an accepted restriction even farther down the road with the argument "look, you guys basically already accepted this."

two examples...

seat belt laws

there is a recognized, albeit slightly over-reaching, reason for seat belt laws. we compel citizens to protect themselves while motoring because in the event of an accident involving injury it is likely that they will be the recipients of some sort of public healthcare funds should they lack insurance. in an effort to mitigate such financial impact, society has a valid interest in attempting to compell citizens to wear seatbelts. this encouragement is best given out in the form of small fines, tacked on as a secondary offense to other routine police stops like speeding, illegal turns, etc.

however, while seat belt fines may be defensible as a secondary infraction, in almost ALL states i can think of right now where they were passed as such (often with emphatic assurances from politicians that they would remain as such) they were quietly bumped up to primary offenses. now, law enforcement are capable of of stopping and detaining citizens for yet another reason (and one that's highly flexible... oh, it "looked" like you didn't have that on... "are you sure you didn't just slip that on right now when i was following you?") which oversteps the spirit of the law.

smoking bans

this is the big one for me, and as many of you know... i don't even smoke.

societies have a valid interest in previnting the choices of one citizen from having an undesired impact on another citizen who is not making the same choices. thus, a risky activity like skydiving is perfectly legal for me... but i don't have the right to drag you along if you don't want to accompany me. smoking is perfectly legal for a person to do since we don't live in a totalitarian regime yet and some harmful choices are still allowed. however, society can attempt to make some regulations that address highly-concentrated second hand smoke. however, attempting to ban 100% of all smoke is just silly, in my opinion. it crosses the line from stopping harmful smoke and starts targeting annoying smoke.

look, if i go out for the evening i should expect to encounter some smokers. in this modern world society has deemed certain "vices" as part of the citizen's repertoire of past-times... drinking and smoking among them. don't like to see drinking or smoking because it offends you? stay home or move to utah or the middle east or something. i expect, as should others, to sometimes be near a smoker. i understand that sometimes i'll passively experience some of their second hand smoke. the state has an interest in preventing highly toxic conditions for me (and also especially for employees in places like bars) but they do not have the right to just stamp out an activity by pushing it further and further to the margins.

i can understand laws that require some clean air steps to be taken (i think the most sensible would be "if less than 50% of the walls in any given room of an establishment do not consist of open windows then you need some sort of a regulated and certified air cleaning aparatus" since this would allow smoking where it makes sense -- on patios, porches, and other semi-enclosed spaces -- and help purify the air somewhat indoors for health reasons) but laws that totally rule out smoking 100% anywhere within a football-field length of other humans are crazy, in my opinion.

in the USA you have the right to not be harrassed... you do not have the right to not be annoyed.

[astcell]

Re: New Smoking Policy

If they outlaw cigarettes an I do nothing because I do not smoke,
then they outlaw alcohol and I do nothing because I do not drink,
then when they outlaw what I love, who will come fight with me?

[goathead]

Re: New Smoking Policy

Somewhere along my travels, I began having severe reactions to cigarette 2nd hand smoke. I play in a band and it was very common to have severe lung and sinus issues for days after playing on an elevated stage in a bar or club for a single event. It didn't help to have fog machines (mighty nasty) and fumes from metal grinders (extremely caustic) as well. I used to smoke cigs but quit over a decade ago. Back then it didn't bother me at all, but now, well... sucks to be me. I have a family member that has severe hay fever and I can sympathize with him that he has to choose where he's going to expose himself and whether he thinks that feeling miserable is worth the activity. I would not want to hang up my creative outlet or my source of stimulation because of it's environment's effects, but time will tell.

I wish that it could be Porn Theater rules... aka Keep your actions (and mess) to yourself and we're cool... but its not the nature of smoke to be controlled.

However I am a lover of freedom (and inanimate objects when drunked) and would never want to put my preferences above another person. I just wish it was just a matter of preference instead of a physical reaction. Then I could just take solice that it was a choice and that I can get over it.

So a free environment would not sadden me at all, but crushing other people's good time could take away from the good energy and vibe that the Con has. I do miss the setup of the AP for the same reason.

Hail Porn Theater Rules~!

[SrvZro]

Re: New Smoking Policy

Coming from the California perspective, it was nice for those moments it lasted ... It just means that the outside will become the smoking bar. Just hope for shade, cold <cheap?> beer and maybe a mist machine or three.

There wasn't enough ash trays in the corridors anyways.

[owl]

Re: New Smoking Policy

As a non-smoker let me say: Hia!!, that is great! My only complained of the move to the Riviera, was the smell of smoke on the hallways. As an asthmatic, I kept feeling like I was aficiating everytime that I was in the hallway, and even when I went to the sitting are, there would be people smoking seating all around me, that was horrible.

[theprez98]

Re: New Smoking Policy

Despite the fact that the casinos are owned by private individuals or companies, they exist to serve the public and are thus "public accomodations" which essentially means that a whole host of laws can be applied to them.

[reb00tz]

Re: New Smoking Policy

But the casino itself invites members of the public - so I would imagine that it applies to the building not just the convention centre part..

Just my 0.02p/c/$/yen worth

[Rance]

Re: New Smoking Policy

I don't know if I'm right about this but considering you need to pay your way in to Defcon wouldn't that mean that it isn't public?

[Nikita]

Re: New Smoking Policy

Considering how difficult it was to have a central location for people to just mingle, designated smoking areas might help. When I was in Ireland, I probably met more locals smoking than I ever did when I was inside the pubs.

Although I am disappointed that more restrictions are coming to one of the last paradises for smokers in the US, it might make for a more social con this year.

I totally agree with you.

I can say that when they went to non smoking in the bars up here, i was pissed, I was like wtf, it's a bar for crying out loud. But I got used to it, and find that i actually enjoy being outside on the patio drinking and smoking and talking with folks. Ive seen the "smoke break" pack mentality start . (They say addicts never like to use alone. hehe ) Started those single serving conversations and I've developed a few drinking mates because of that, people i probably wouldn't have just gone over to and chatted up before.

[jur1st]

Re: New Smoking Policy

Considering how difficult it was to have a central location for people to just mingle, designated smoking areas might help. When I was in Ireland, I probably met more locals smoking than I ever did when I was inside the pubs.

Although I am disapointed that more restrictions are coming to one of the last paradises for smokers in the US, it might make for a more social con this year.

[converge]

Re: New Smoking Policy

the few, the proud, the free.

This brings a few observations to my mind:

1) This is not a Riviera directive, nor the Riviera saying 'no more smoking for those evil hackers'. This is effective at all hotels in the area and would be the case no matter where the con pointed tail.

2) At Alexis Park the average con experience was 50% outdoors, 35% indoors, 15% offsite. At the Riviera the average con experience is 75% indoors, 5% outdoors and 20% offsite. These are hard numbers crunched by me in approximately 20 seconds of whim, so rest assured they are 101% on mark. You get the idea. 'Passed out' is a state in one of these three specified locations.

3) Riviera smoking control is likely to be heaviest around the outer edges of the con where their security directly interfaces with attendees and generally tries to contain our somber-chaos from spreading to the rest of the institute. Lighting up in the heart of the conference area, during a talking, or passing through the vendor area will likely not gain a swarm of hotel thugs on you with a fire extinguisher.

4) Organizers and security goons will set the rules and overtone for how this is handled. History shows they are insanely liberal and laid back about these kinda stupidities.

5) In this light, if something more strict comes down.. I would suspect it being at a serious threat of getting the event shut down if such activity is not controlled to the satisfaction of local authorities and proprietors.

All my thoughts thusfar .. won't expound on the smoking vs nonsmoking thing, since I already did within memories reach of a similar post.