Left in the Fishbowl

The most depressing place in any airport is the smoking lounge. This rule applies to our own Hartsfield-Jackson as much as it does to Chattanooga’s Metropolitan at Lovell Field. Without fail, these designated areas are built much like an aquarium, glassed-in on four of three sides. They’re painted the same colors as the rest of the terminal, but the walls are dimmed from the constant and confined smoke. The same goes for the drop-ceiling tiles, giving the room an overall hue of dead yellow. And not a single person in an airport smoking lounge looks the least be happy. For that matter, they barely look alive. Nobody talks to anyone else, even if they know them. The flourescent lights passively discourage conversation with the odd shadows they cast and the pallorous complexions they give. When Sartre penned No Exit, this is the setting he had in mind. “Hell is other people … particularly in an airport smoking lounge.”

So isn’t it just wonderful that one of the few remaining places to take a drag in this state might just be the airport smoking lounge?

As a rule, I don’t smoke. I feel no need to take a break or three during the workday to stand around outside and inhale. Nor do I light up in the car during my morning or evening commute. I figure I get plenty of CO2 from the exhaust pipes of my fellow drivers. If I am going out to eat, I will not sit in the smoking section, particularly if the restaurant in question is in a shopping mall. There are five cigars in our house, all of them sealed in a zip-lock bag that would make the editors of Cigar Aficionado weep. They were purchased for sharing with groomsmen last October, but stayed in my overnight bag the entire wedding weekend. On the same shelf — in the same cabinet — is a dark bronze Zippo lighter and a pack of Marlboro Ultra Lights 100s. The cigarettes are leftovers from last Labor Day weekend and more than three-quarters of the contents remain.

And yet, when I hear news of yet another attempt to ban the practice of smoking in public places, I cringe. I do this because I like knowing that I can smoke if I choose to do so. If I am out with friends and acquaintances who smoke, I can join them. The best time for this is right after a decent meal, when everybody has left the restaurant out of a need to move, but they still have some conversation left in them. So to the parking lot we go and out come the lighters. It’s purely social, entirely unnecessary and probably unhealthy, but so are a lot of other things we all do throughout the day. And I must confess that a cigarette break can be a sanity-saver at events like DragonCon, where you just need those occasional moments to step away from the masses and outside into the daylight.

The way I see it … if you don’t want to smoke, then don’t. If you don’t want to be around those who smoke, then you must realize that there will be places where you just will not want to go. Some might say that such an attitude is infringing on their rights to move freely. To them I point out the difference between what you want and what you can really expect. Also, you can’t expect to have whatever you want wherever you go. Don’t believe me? Go to your nearby Taco Bell and order a double-cheese burger. You won’t get one. But you can get a 99-cent taco, because that is what you should expect to find. Or visit a Starbucks and ask for a root canal. Unless you find a particularly enterprising barrista, the most you’re getting is a caffe latte and maybe directions to a nearby dentist.

The “light” version of the proposed ban will take smoking out of bowling alleys and restaurants that serve children under 18, leaving the bars to decide for themselves. While this rendition is not as Draconian as the initial bill that would’ve also swept butts out of bars and nightclubs, it still feels like the thin end of a growing wedge. What troubles me most about the anti-smoking movement in the Georgia Legislature is that it is backed by my particular party. The Republicans are calling the ban a nod to fascism, while House Dems like Douglas Dean are muttering forboding gems like: “The day will come when we will outlaw smoking in its entirety.”

Damn, Doug. I know you kicked the habit in 1993, but really … I mean … too much Krispy Kreme, Coca Cola and Double Quarter-Pounders With Cheese will kill you too, but I don’t see anybody wanting to outlaw them.

I want a government who trusts me to take care of myself. That seems like a pretty progressive idea, one that the democratic party would get behind. Previously, Dean has supported increased taxes on cigarette sales, and that’s fine by me. Tax the hell out of them, because they’re luxuries after all. Maybe the pinch in the pocket book will cut down on some of of the pack-a-day folks. And make the cigarette companies accountable for the many years that they misled the public about the dangers of smoking or purposely advertised to the under-age market. I’m behind that. But now that we know about the risks involved, let the market determine the fate of the tobacco companies. Furthermore, leave permission to smoke up to the establishments that want to allow it.

Otherwise, we’ll be left with nowhere to go but the airport fishbowl.

March 24, 2005 – 10:16 am | By Thomas | Posted in Politics | Comments (11)
  • http://www.livejournal.com/users/jolefay/ JO

    I have a better idea. How about NOT letting children into those places. Ban the children not the cigarette. I am evil like that. Chris and I just would like to be able to go to a retuarant just ONCE without having a child pitch an everlovin fit…
    Even at melting pot children crawling all over the table. If this rule is solely to protect children then remove the children from the restuarant/bar atmosphere. One reason why I like the Vortex.
    On that ranting not. Time to get coffee and a cigarette.

  • http://www.radicalgeorgiamoderate.org Rusty

    Good call. Many of our almost bi-weekly trivia night comrades would disagree, but, well… if you don’t have anything nice to say…

  • Nikki

    Enh. I don’t object to it very much so long as it leaves “adult establishments” (or whatever they’re calling bars and strip clubs now) the option to be smoke-friendly. I go out to a bar, I expect to be able to smell my clothes from across the room the next day. ::shrug:: But I have to admit, I won’t miss being totally nauseated by the smell of someone smoking while I’m trying to eat.

  • http://yarg.org Krispy Kreme

    We object to the slanderous nature of this article. Our products are both healthful and delicious, and that’s a guarantee!*

    * not a guarantee.

  • http://pushthepulldoor.com Bill

    Hm. I can see some pretty big holes in your argument about smoking. But I can also see that I’m outnumbered here. I think I’ll stay out of this one.

    I will say that I’d rather have noisy kids in my dining presence than someone who’s smoking. But I agree with Jo that Melting Pot (with all the burn hazards and sharp implements) seems like a strange place to let your kids go nuts.

  • Thomas

    Admittedly, there are holes in my rant.

    I just don’t appreciate the intrusion of government into activities that bring little harm to anyone but the individual participating. (Yeah, holes even there.)

    Since the problem all too often concerns a distinct lack of division between they that smoke and they that don’t, with fumes floating over into the non-smoking section, here is a workable solution: Rather than banning smoking in privately-owned restaurants, urge those proprietors to install commercial-grade smoke-eaters. If you’ve never witnessed these contraptions in action, you really should. I always use the Chattanooga Billiard Club near my hometown as an example. It’s a cigar bar with smoke-eaters above each table that orbits the bar. You can walk within a yard of any tableful of cigar tokers and not even know they’re smoking at all. These things are expensive, but if people want to keep their smoking clientelle as well as their non-smoking clientelle, the ROI should work out in their favor. The state could even provide a tax break or other incentive. Furthermore, your waitstaff are no longer involuntary participants in the individual smoking habits of others, as the smoke-eater is consuming the second-hand smoke.

    (Not that I’ve known too many waiters that didn’t smoke …)

  • Nat

    Athens has recently passed a law stating that “you can not smoke in ANY establishment until after 11pm.” I think this is a nice compromise. It is late enough so that children will not be subjected to the smoke, and early enough so that I can have a Camel and a Strongbow at a decent hour. Of course people are still getting around the law. They simply ask the bartender for a cup of water to ash in and the bartender looks the other way.

  • http://pushthepulldoor.com Bill

    I’d never even heard of smoke-eaters before. Sounds like a good solution, at least for places like restaurants where the smokers are stationary. Are they noisy?

  • Thomas

    Smoke-eaters produce a kind of white noise or not-noise. It’s like a well-maintained air conditioner, one that you’d only hear if there was absolutely nothing going on in the restaurant.

    (What a nice string of commentary we have here ….)

  • http://www.livejournal.com/users/jolefay/ JO

    Smoke eaters never work.. I worked several bars my college years and it became almost pointless to turn them on.. but if you leave them off it can be nightmarish.. That says alot for Manny’s…the Highlander or any of your other Virginia Highland are haunts. I smoke but I do not sit in the smoking section when I eat. I don’t want the two 2 mingle. Mainly because the enjoyment of food is also in the smelling it before tasting it. I just think if you know you are going to a TGIF or some other OTP bar/ grill you should expect to have some sort of smoking around you. It is a bar-grill after all and less of a family restuarant.. Making the save the chilren from a smoke free enviroment less of a point cause they shouldn’t be in there anyway.. And Bill you’d be amazed at how nuts kids get in there…

  • Darrell

    I’ll bite.

    I can’t tell you how much more pleasant my bars and restaurants here in NYC are since the smoking ban went into effect. Admittedly, I’m a fan of the ban, but whenever I visit friends in New Jersey or in Nyack, I hate the bars and restaurants. The smell, once a necessary annoyance, has become vulgar, especially while I’m trying to eat. Tell me there’s a no smoking section that keeps out the smoke. And no giggling this time.

    No, my cyber-compatriots, smokers will be (and should be) relegated to parking lots and stoops. For too long have they affected my meals and drinks and boozy chats. If I smell my bar clothes the next morning then it’d better be because I spilled my eighth glass of Bushmills on them.

    We all know that smoking is bad for you, and even tobacco companies admit that about 30 seconds of second-hand smoke begins to affect you. Is this a good thing?

    I don’t begrudge you your privelege to smoke. So don’t begrudge me my right to clean air while I’m trying to have a good time. Take it outside. I’ll still be able to smell you poison yourself, but you don’t have to take me with you. A college friend used to have this sign in his dorm room:

    “Please do not smoke. Smoke is the residue of your pleasure. It gets in my hair and on my clothes; this is without my consent. My pleasure is having a beer. The residue of my pleasure is urine. How would you like it if I stood on a chair and urinated on your hair and clothes without your consent?”