That is, apart from shameless (read: irrelevant) propaganda value?
This one really baffles me. Like a can of light beer, it’s an example of something that may seem significant at first glance, but doesn’t survive scrutiny (or, in light beer’s case, actually swallowing the insipid liquid). As a prelude to what follows, I know who Gary Creamer is, but I don’t know him personally.
New Albany mayor urged to sign smoking ban, by Dick Kaukas (C-J).
Gary Creamer, a New Albany resident, said the city is losing restaurant business because residents have so few smoke-free places to go for meals.
Creamer said he and a group of friends eat together once a week and spend $17,000 to $20,000 annually. He said he and his friends have gone to New Albany restaurants only twice during the past year because so few are smoke-free.
Admittedly, that’s a lot of money to pump into Little Chef’s coffers, given that it might be the very last restaurant hereabouts that doesn’t actually have a non-smoking seating area. There may be others, but of course the obvious question is this:
Given Gary Creamer's eagerness to publicly advertise the amount of money that his group withholds from still-smoky New Albany restaurants, are those establishments really the sort of place that Creamer’s party wants to be seen patronizing?
Consequently, it seems fair to ask why on earth Gary Creamer and Company’s discretionary spending habits have been made part of this noble campaign to protect workplace health?
Is there even the remotest connection between worker safety and conspicuous consumption of this sort?
I’m searching in vain for a causal relationship, and I’m open to assistance in locating it. Surely it’s fair to ask: Where and to whom is Creamer’s party constrained from transferring wealth because of second hand smoke? To put it bluntly, if Little Chef suddenly was smoke-free, would Creamer's party be dropping dollars therein?
And: Isn’t is somehow unseemly that even the ban’s proponents can’t stick to their own magic bullet of science, and must instead hoist an example of personal preference for us to lacerate?
Why again is it that in the midst of scrum of this magnitude, political interpretations are somehow off limits to contrarians?
I’ll have more to say a bit later on that particular angle.
If this truly is a measure of worker safety, why does it seem that the supporters of the ordinance, namely the Aebersold set, rarely if ever mention the workers?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to be a revolving pattern of " me, my friends, my money, my food, my music...."
Astute observation, Chris. Too bad you'll get no credit for making it.
ReplyDeleteThe refrain of George Harrison's "I Me Mine" has been wafting over the discussion from the start. We see it in Mr. Creamer's public elucidation of his spending habits. and in Jamey Aebersold's desire to play music in establishments who won't be hiring him after his jihad against the customers frequenting those establishments.
Brutal ironies abound, and in the end, the most ironic twist of all is that local progressives are oblivious to the irony. See, I was right all along: It's in the water. I'm forever grateful that I drink beer. It's boiled first.
I haven't gotten the impression that the ban is strictly to address the worker safety issue, although that's a big part of it. I think it's an overall public health issue--that the indoor air of smoking establishments contains unacceptable levels of carcinogens.
ReplyDeleteAnd I see the point to Gary's statements, because of the concern of business owners that their revenues will drop--he's providing the counterpoint that they are actually losing some sales to customers who avoid smoky restaurants.
I've seen Gary and his wife dining both at La Rosita and Treet's, so yes, they do patronize New Albany restaurants.
Annie, I think it's a perfectly legitimate question for me to ask.
ReplyDeleteMr. Creamer says he doesn;t spend as much money in New Albany as he would if more restaurants were smoke free.
Which restaurants is he talking about? Apart from Little Chef and the bars that serve food, which restaurants in town don't at least have a non-smoking area?
Is he saying that a non-smoking area isn't good enough?
Is he saying that there aren't enough restaurants in NA to begin with?
If I now calculate the amount of money that we spend dining out in New Albany, and say that for us, smoking is irrelevant ... isn't that still irrelevant to the conversation?
I think he's saying what he's saying. And that's that he chooses non-smoking businesses to patronize over ones that permit smoking. And that in Louisville and Jeffersonville, he doesn't have to make such a distinction. And that he wants New Albany to be like that, also.
ReplyDeleteSure, you'd be just as relevant as he, in stating that you don't mind if businesses allows smoking and that you do spend money at them.
I usually pick non-smoking venues: my husband dislikes cigarette smoke, I try to avoid it for health reasons, and I don't want Rosie around it. If I had to choose between 2 places to eat, one smoking and one non, the non would always win.
If Mr. Creamer is capable of making that decision, then so be it! He has access to his preferred venues, and those who dont care, or wish to smoke at a bar has access to the venues they prefer!
ReplyDeleteWhy should we pass a law, with out the man power to properly enforce it to cater to him? It should be up to the business owners!
Is he saying that a non-smoking area isn't good enough?
ReplyDeleteSomeone once asked me:
Isn't having a smoking section in a restaurant like having a peeing section in a pool?
Off the top of my head: Sam's, Rich O's, Tommy Lancaster's and Studio's all have walls separating smoking from non-smoking sections. We've had almost no complaints since we provided even more non-smoking seating away from the bar area.
ReplyDeleteMost of the restaurants in town don't allow smoking indoors at all, so, again I ask: Which places is he referring to? Only by naming names can we see whether the comments are valid, wouldn't you say?
It's every bit as relevant as at least 95% of the arguments against the ban heard at council meetings. Anyone there for all(wink)the meetings knows that it was it mostly an economic argument against. Heck, some of them even prefaced their remarks by saying that we all know smoking is bad but my business will suffer. (And they deserve kudos for their honesty)
ReplyDeleteAs for serperate areas in the same building, many see it as Ceece put it.
Irony? Oblivious?
ReplyDeleteAlmost all of my comments on this subject have been in the areas of worker safety. Perhaps I don't qualify as progressive?
IAH -- you drink beer, too, eh?
ReplyDeleteYou've indeed been consistent. Now you'll be punished for it, lol.
Isn't having a smoking section in a restaurant like having a peeing section in a pool?
ReplyDeleteWell, keep in mind that millions of people swim in rivers, lakes, oceans, and other natural bodies of water, all of which contain copious amounts of fish pee.
Wasn't it W. C. Fields who said he didn't drink water because fish f*** in it?
ReplyDeleteYes! It was William Claude Dukenfield himself.
ReplyDelete