Smoking Ban Passes New Hampshire House

After failing for the past few tries, this year it appears we’ll finally get our wish. I just received an e-mail from Representative Marjorie Smith that SB 42, the bill banning smoking in bars and restaurants in New Hampshire, just passed the House (it passed the Senate earlier this year). The only step left in the process is for Governor Lynch to sign it into law, and he has indicated that he will.

Thank goodness! Now all of New England will be smoke free!

Technorati Tags: ,

14 Responses to “Smoking Ban Passes New Hampshire House”

  1. Matt Hoult Says:

    Well, as a smoker I’m not sure I want to be banned from having a smoke outside after a meal, or during a cooling summer beer. That said, as a technician, I sure wish there was a ban on smoking around your computer; eew!

  2. Dom Barnes Says:

    Thats great news. Here in the UK we’re going smoke free in workplaces and enclosed public spaces on 1 July and I’m so happy. I hate the smell of smoke when I’m out, and the persistant odour that follows you around.

  3. Ed Says:

    All is lost! The “Live Free or Die” state has gone the way of nannyism.
    Now let’s get moving on that seat belt law, and anything else Big Health wants.

  4. Dave Says:

    Ya know, Ed, there is a part of me that did mourn yet another chink in our state motto… however, I have to admit my grieving was quickly ended when I started thinking about gigging… about how nice it will be to actually be able to sing during the 3rd set in my home state again… and unpacking my equipment the next day and not having my studio reek of smoke? Well… yeah, I’ll take it.

  5. Ed Says:

    Ya know Dave, I’ve never understood why the smell of smoke turns some people all colors, but the smell of sweat and stale beer is OK.

    I’ve never understood why some believe a wisp of cigarette smoke will cause a horrible death, and about two pounds a day of car exhaust and industrial fumes is real healthy.

    I’ve never understood why the 80 per cent of nonsmokers feel they should prevail in 100 percent of the restaurants.

    I’ve never understood how some folks can cheer about taking the next man’s rights away, and not worry about their own.

    Fill me in, will ya?

  6. Dave Says:

    All I can tell you about is my experience, Ed. Specifically, that of being a musician playing in clubs. If I’m in a club for 5 hours and smell beer the whole time, that’s not going to have any lasting effect on me. However, if I’m inhaling smoke for the same amount of time, it *is* going to effect me, both from the nicotine in the air as well as the smoke itself, of course.

    Yes, I could choose not to play in bars that allow smoking, and I’ve certainly made some of those choices over the past couple of years. Soon, though, I won’t have to.

    As a bonus, I will now feel more comfortable taking my children out to eat at restaurants that previously were simply too smoky for our comfort level. All in all, this is the right move in my opinion.

    As for your question regarding rights: we don’t live in anarchy, Ed, we live in a democracy. The majority’s “right” to clean air has now trumped the smoker’s “right” to light up anywhere they please. If you want to smoke, you need to do it outside or in private (and, indeed, private clubs are still free to set their own smoking policies).

  7. Ed Says:

    Dave, you’re advocating a thing called mob rule, and it’s certain to bite you on your own ass before long. Good luck.

  8. Dave Says:

    Heh… ‘mob rule’ has been chewing on my ass all my life!

    In all seriousness, I agree that it’s insane that we have to legislate this sort of thing. You would assume that common courtesy would apply here, but rarely have I seen that behavior in smokers, especially in large gatherings. Rather, smokers in my experience tend to live in denial of the fact that what they’re doing could possibly harm the people and/or property surrounding them (and my day-after-gig lungs and microphones would disagree — stuff gets trashed by all that smoke!)

    Additionally, it’s crazy that we have to set laws that force us to be healthier! Banning smoking and trans fats shouldn’t have to be a law… it should just be common sense!

  9. Ed Says:

    Dave, this exchange has been fun, but I’m gonna terminate it after this post.

    When Big Health says smelling smoke is deadly, they’re baldfacd liars. When they say proper ventilation doesn’t mitigate it, they’re baldfaced liars.

    When we live in a dictatorship based on the power and profits of the Medical Establishment, we won’t be a bit healthier, but we will have a lot less fun.

    Your amplifiers are a grave threat to the health of my hearing. Keep it quiet, OK?

  10. Dave Says:

    Ed — all I can go on is personal experience. For me this isn’t about Big Health at *all* (though I appreciate you have a different agenda in that regard). After we moved to New Hampshire I couldn’t sing past the second set of any gig. I thought I had something wrong and didn’t put two and two together until we played in Massachusettes and I was able to sing all night long.

    The smoke *is* bad for *me*… I’ve proven it time and time again, and I’ll be happy when it’s not pumped down my throat anymore.

    As for amplifiers… my drums don’t need no stinking amplifiers! 🙂

    Seriously, though, hearing protection is another important issue for me, both as a musician and a music lover. Educating oneself about the acceptable levels/lengths of exposure and, more importantly, what to do when you expect to be in an environment that exceeds them, is vital.

    Take care of yourself, Ed! It’s been a pleasure chatting with you here.

  11. Matt Peschel Says:

    Smoking vs volume?! I hate to be obvious, but you can’t stick earplugs up your nose and expext to live for very long….the smoking ban here in Austin has been great for us musicians, now my singing sucks much less!

    P.S. after a long night of loud music, I still can’t smell the decibles in my clothes and hair!!

  12. Elizabeth Says:

    It is a proven fact even by the cigarette companies that smoking is very hazardous to your health as well as the people around you. I am a social smoker, although I wish I could quit and have tried for years to quit, but I am still very aware of the health issues. Any smoker that can seriously argue that there isn’t a health issue should maybe read the notice that is now on every pack of Marlboro’s, it says “Smoking will kill you…it’s a proven fact”. Even being a smoker I am very curteous of all the nonsmokers around me and I don’t mind at all taking it outside when I am out in a bar.

  13. kirkk Says:

    One of many dissenting voices regarding this issue…

  14. Dom Barnes Says:

    I’ve just cottoned on to the rest of this debate with Ed. I think its apparent Ed is a smoker himself.
    With a similar ban coming into force in the UK for enclosed public spaces, and workplaces, I’ve heard a few smokers moan about this. Why should they have to go outside, why do they have less rights than others?
    Its a difficult mix, where so called “mob rule” does take force, but its not mob rule. The non-smoking population hasn’t been running around chastising smokers, its the government who have made the decision following organised demonstrations and careful arguments.
    While it may be difficult to argue that smokers rights are being ignored, I think in some situations you have to disregard some peoples rights. I mean we disregard the rights of free speech when its hate speech (racial or otherwise). Its seen as dreadful if you support someone who has strong feelings against ethnic minorities (or even majorities). You can’t claim mob rule however, its a greater consideration of those who have no control over situations. Sure non-smokers could go to a different pub, but then you have designated smoking pubs, which will further split society, especially groups of friends. Forcing smokers to go outside is the best course of action amongst a difficult topic. It is better to cause minor inconvenience to a small minority than to the majority who wish to enjoy a night out, without having to deal with smelly clothing (and it takes more than Febreeze to hide it) and without having a dry throat from the smoke.
    Smoking is harmful. Its been proven to smokers that it causes lung cancer and bronchitis, so why is it so difficult to think that it can do the same to passive smokers?
    As a far out argument (not to be taken too seriously), would you force your child to drink, just because you were?
    As said before, I look forward to the smoking ban, although I think it will still take a while for the smoke that’s been ingrained in the furniture to subside. Now, to do something about horribly sticky carpets in pubs! And loud obnoxious crowds….any law we can introduce there? Like a swear box, only on a bigger scale….

Leave a Reply