KalamazooWeekly.com

Topic: Should state government ban smoking in public places?

Anti-Legislative Bans for Smoking By Sam Hubert It’s trendy to bash smokers these days.  People say, “Do whatever you want to do at home, but don’t do it where I can breathe it.”  Legislating behavior is a slippery slope.  What’s next?  Motorcyclists must wear neon?  Obese people must go on diets?  Sports fans not allowed to tail-gate before the game?When the government starts to interfere with individual rights and modifies behavior, isn’t that a dictatorship?     Shouldn’t it be up to the owner of the establishment whether people are allowed to smoke?  When the government takes away the rights of business owners, we’re all in big trouble.  Non-smokers are free to choose where they go, and there are a plethora of options for them.  Many restaurants and bars have decided to be smoke-free.  So non-smokers can go to smoke-free establishments and smokers go to smoker-friendly bars. Legislators should allow restaurant and bar owners to choose whether or not they want their business to be smoke-free.  It’s a win-win situation.    So what about second-hand smoke?  The carcinogens emitted from driving a vehicle around the block is greater than 100 packs of cigarettes smoked in an enclosed area.  No one is trying to pass laws ordering drivers to use public transportation.  So how is it acceptable to modify the behavior of a smoker and not a driver?  Is it simply because smokers are the minority and it’s easier to take away the individual liberties of a few, rather than the masses?  Who is going to suffer from a government-mandated smoking ban?  It won’t be Applebee’s or Friday’s or any large chain restaurant, which can afford to have a franchise or two shut down.  It’s going to hurt the real neighborhood bars that are locally owned and need all the business they can get.  What happens to them when their smoking clientele decide to grab a six-pack and stay at home?  They go out of business and corporate America wins again.  Smoking is not a crime.  It is not illegal to purchase cigarettes, to carry them, or to smoke them.  If anything, it’s a community service.  In Michigan, a smoker pays a two-dollar tax per pack of smokes.  A pack-a-day smoker contributes over $700 to the state for paving roads, building schools and hospitals, providing important funds to our local economy.  Smoking bans could cripple an already struggling state.We should be happy to live in a state where business owners can decide how they want their business run.  They give us options and cater to the crowds they wish to draw.  Smoker-haters can go to their health-nut trend-spot, eat cocoa covered soy beans and sip their martinis of the month and have witty social banter with the person they came with.  Meanwhile, die-hard smokers can go to their classic dive bar, have a beer or a whiskey, chain-smoke until their Zippos are out of fuel and meet other smokers by asking them for a light.  Everybody’s happy.  The simple fact of the matter is you shouldn’t go to a place if you can’t adapt to it.  Don’t jump in the deep end of the pool if you can’t swim. 

Don’t go to a non-smoking business if you can’t go an evening without feeding your addiction.  Don’t go to a smoking establishment if you have to hold a hanky to your face.  Most importantly, don’t let the government make business decisions that can harm the local economy and jeopardize the rights of individuals. 

Pro-Legislative Bans for Smoking By Quinn McTell I recently visited a local restaurant to enjoy a hearty breakfast while reading the Sunday paper.Along with my order of sausage and gravy omelette, hash browns and buttered, whole- wheat toast, I received a heavy dose of cigarette smoke.Everywhere I turned, people were puffing away on after meal cigarettes or taking drags off a half-smoked cigarette in between bites of pancakes dripping with maple syrup. Their smoke formed a swirling, wispy cloud over the dining area before softly settling down onto the clothes and food and into the lungs of non-smoking patrons sitting down for breakfast alone or with family and friends. While the experience did little to quell my ravenous appetite, the ride home had me thinking about the rights of smokers and non-smokers. In this day and age where the health hazards spawned from cigarette smoking are numerous and mostly uncontested and the threat of second-hand smoke is equally frightening, how can we as a society continue to condone the habit in public settings?Though states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Washington among many others currently have smoking bans in restaurants and bars – along with the workplace – other states only have local ordinances if any at all.Michigan currently does not have a smoking ban imposed, though more and more establishments are becoming smoke free through their own accord.I’m a staunch  believer in individual rights, but when those rights allow an unhealthy habit to be thrust upon the general public, it gets me thinking that a public smoking ban isn’t so bad. I’m not in favor of banning smoking completely anymore than I am an advocate for prohibition, but like alcohol, laws need to be in place in order to protect the general well being of the population.Currently, consuming alcohol is not illegal and you’re welcome to drink to your hearts content in the privacy of your own home and even in establishments where liquor is served.It’s when you get out amongst the general public that we have laws aimed at protecting citizens from drunk drivers and obnoxious, combative windbags full of liquid courage.These laws are designed to protect society and smoking bans should be viewed in the same light. Personally, I don’t care if you want to smoke two packs of cigarettes while sitting in front of the TV for the evening; it’s your life and your choice.However, when those two packs are taken out of the house and instead smoked three feet from my once enjoyable meal, that is intruding on my personal space and endangering my health in a way not much different from the innocent family man driving home from work late at night only to be blindsided by a drunk driver. He didn’t ask for the drunkard to t-bone his vehicle anymore than I asked the chain-smoker next to me for lung cancer, breathing problems, asthma and lung infections.We have laws against drunk driving and being intoxicated in public and we should have laws in place for smokers as well. No, I’m not saying smokers should be prosecuted for lighting up in a bar or restaurant, but other than a little inconvenience, how hard is it for smokers to go outside to get their fix? A public smoking ban isn’t a slam against smokers as much as it’s a helping hand for non-smokers. Most individuals that don’t smoke could care less if you fill your lungs with noxious chemicals as long as it doesn’t intrude upon them. The next time I want smoke with my meal, it will be of the barbeque variety.�

Posted in Local News | No Comments »

Cell Phones: A Public Nuisance?

Topic: Cell Phones: A Public Nuisance?

 A Constitutional RightWhat’s the point of having a cell phone if you can’t use it in public?  People might get mad and think that it’s rude, but then again, hasn’t everyone who owns a phone used it while driving or in an establishment at some point or another?  What is the point of having a mobile phone, if it’s not mobile?It is maddening being on the highway and having another driver straddle the dotted lines, taking up both lanes, only to pass them and see they’re on their cell phone. I’ve been known to yell “GET OFF YOUR PHONE” to other drivers, or to jerk my car in front of theirs, swerve from lane to lane, while pretending to be on a cell phone, just to wake them up.  It’s not irrational at all.But it’s not the phone that’s the problem; it’s the idiot who is driving.  Cell phones are no more of a distraction than radios, dvd players, GPS devices, devouring fast food, having a date sitting shot-gun, reading, adjusting the iPod, being a new driver or being a very old driver.  All of these things are horrible behind the wheel.  So why does the cell phone in particular get such a bad reputation?  Some people are so connected to their devices that they are disconnected from the world.  Some people are so blinded by their rage, that they can’t see the good around them.  We all notice the one or two idiots a day that drive poorly while on their cell phone, but we don’t really pay attention to the good drivers on cell phones.  When we’re on the road, it’s easy to pay attention to the bad stuff, because we have to maneuver to keep safe, but the good stuff goes unnoticed.    It bugs me, as much as it does anyone else, seeing someone become an idiot behind the wheel because they’re chatting it up on the phone, but we shouldn’t go the drastic Dutch route and ban cellular phones while on the road.  A person should be allowed to talk when-ever; it’s our First Amendment Right.  It doesn’t say, “Talk only when it’s polite,” or “don’t say anything too loud.”  Granted, most overheard phone conversations are about the latest gossip or what people have done with their day, not some radical political or religious rant.  It is, however, still their Constitutional right to say as they please, wherever they please.   Cell phones get bad raps because of the way people use them in public.  The ringtones are getting more and more annoying now that people can download their favorite M.T.V. pop. song and make the world endure such hits as Bust It Baby or Get Like Me which are all currently in the top ten most downloaded ringtones.  I never heard these songs, but I’m sure I will someday, when I’m reading a newspaper and drinking a coffee at my favorite bookstore, some punk kid will stroll in on his way to buy a double-frothy-extra-shot-mochalaccachino and his phone will become a blaring record player telling me to “get loose.”  The kid will then answer his phone, go up to the counter and tell the counter-help to hold on.Even that rude kid is protected by the United States Constitution, whether we like it or not.  We can’t start limiting Freedom of Speech, even if we don’t like it.  That’s the point of the amendment to begin with.People know that they shouldn’t chew with your mouth open, that they should look a person in the eyes when they shake hands, that if they bump into someone accidentally, that you should say “excuse me.”  Some people are not self-aware enough to realize that no one thinks they’re busy and important, when they talk on their phone, that people just think they’re rude.Car accidents are going to happen, and jerks will always be jerks.  It doesn’t mean that we should ban cell phone use in public, or pullover drivers because they’re on a phone.  Even jerks are protected by The Constitution.

Cell Phone Etiquette Lacking

You have to look awful hard to find a more annoying and aggravating piece of modern tech-nology than the cell phone.Oh sure, I get mad at my computer on a daily basis for slow response time.And I’m not too happy every time my satellite TV loses its signal because of a strong wind or a few drops of rain just as the game-winning field goal is about to leave the kicker’s foot.Those annoyances pale in comparison to my growing disdain for cell phones and in particular, cell phone users.When they first hit the market, cell phones were viewed as a convenience for those times when it just wasn’t possible to make a call from home, work or even a payphone.What better way to feel secure when traveling than to have your very own phone right there with you in the car in case of an emergency, right?When I purchased my first cell phone, it was for one reason and one reason only. I wanted to make sure that my adolescent daughter could contact me any time she needed me as my role of father blurred with the role of taxi cab driver, taking her and her friends from one stop to another at a jet-setting pace. Somewhere along the way, the cell phone became a growing entity that invaded our lives in nightmarish fashion.The abusers of cell phones – and you know who you are – have taken all the comforts and trappings of home and moved them into their vehicles.Everywhere you turn, people young and old, male and female, are driving around town yapping into their cell phones like they were sitting across the kitchen table gabbing with a neighbor. As a nation, has our attention span shrunk so significantly that the mundane task of driving to the store for a gallon of milk needs to be filled with trivial talk?And speaking of stores, the negligence and lack of etiquette shown by cell phone abusers in store parking lots and inside shopping markets is enough to make one scream in frustration.Years ago, I lost track of how many times I had to slam on my brakes as a driver – going against the traffic and seemingly thinking the parking lot was their own personal driveway – happily squawked into their cell phone oblivious to the screech of tires just inches from their vehicle.One day, I had had enough and decided to follow the young woman who had just cut me off. As she crossed lanes of traffic without looking right or left, I followed her until she barreled into a parking spot and hopped out of her tiny sports car; her cell phone still seemingly surgically attached to her ear.I startled her when I pulled up alongside her and in so many kind and helpful words, asked her if she may have forgotten to look both ways as she was crossing lane after lane of traffic.Her response nearly set me off more than her actions when, unapologetic, she told me that she didn’t even see me. Didn’t even see me? My huge truck nearly t-boned her tiny and shiny tin can and she never even saw me because she was so deeply engrossed in her phone conversation? Didn’t even see me? I had to wonder how many other close calls she had escaped that she wasn’t even aware of due to the utmost value placed on whatever conversation she was having at the time.Obviously, I didn’t recognize the importance and logic that finding out that Suzie and Chuck had broken up at the prom superseded the high potential for a serious car accident.Opting not to snare her cell phone, toss it to the ground and begin stomping on it until it lay shattered in a million little pieces, I instead simply told her that if she can’t see and speak at the same time, that maybe she should put the cell phone down while driving. The look she gave me had me concerned that maybe I had a second head suddenly growing from my left shoulder. Alas, I did not, but as she hurried into the store – with that damn cell phone still becoming one with her ear and her lips moving a mile a minute – I realized I was battling an enemy that didn’t even know it was the enemy.How do you get through to people so ignorant that they truly believe it’s acceptable to inconvenience others while they carry on a private conversation in public and stare daggers at anyone who suggests that their talk of plans for Saturday night may be better served somewhere other than the middle of Tuesday’s movie matinee at the local CineplexWhile nothing that we as humans do surprises me much anymore, I still stand incredulous every time I see a cell phone user tell a store clerk or a bank teller or, in one case seen on TV, a cop, to wait until they get done telling their friend about their lousy day at work before they can start the business at hand. And you can be guaranteed that nearly every time, they’ll end the conversation with, “Listen, I gotta go now, but I’ll see you in a few minutes when I get to your place.” What the heck? You just inconvenienced how many people in order to shoot the breeze with someone you’re going to be seeing later anyway?  In these times, in order to avoid committing a felony, I usually just shake my head and count to ten.I find that my crusade is far from being a one-man effort and that the majority of people out there find improper cell phone usage a major inconvenience. But, as technology expands and our cell phones become not only phones, but also cameras, computers and sources for music and movies, I realize managing my frustration and anger are really the only things I have control over.Well, wish me luck. I’m off to do some grocery shopping. Deep breath and 1..2..3..4..5…

Posted in Head to Head | No Comments »

Rothbury Festival

Day two at Rothbury Festival was one for the senses. The crowd continued to filter in throughout the day Friday, but as of Saturday afternoon, it looks like those that are coming are here. No estimates on crowd numbers, but it’s going to be staggeringly high from what I can see. Started Friday’s concert viewing with Snoop Dogg on the main stage. In all his gangsta-smooth rap glory, Snoop wowed the crowd that three times he referred to as East Lansing, where he plays in a few days.  Snoop drew the biggest crowd of the day with at least 40,000 people filling the grass field/hill, on their feet and hands waving in the air. Entering the stage on a pimped out kid’s bicycle, Snoop had the crowd eating up every word and movement. Took in some of 311’s show as we waited for Widespread Panic to come on. Panic played  two strong sets of jam jams in front of a huge crowd and capped it off with a 4th of July fireworks extravanga. From the main stage (Odeum Stage), we left Panic and strolled through the Sherwood Forest. The Forest is a trippy, multi-colored light show in the middle of the woods where concert goers have set up hammocks throughout the trees. With lights flashing, strobing and basically messing with your senses, you walk through a path with a canopy filled with more lights, inflatable random shapes and white, wispy sheets blowing through the lights and wind. Once through the beautifully trippy forest, over to the Ranch Stage to see Primus and Les Claypool. With huge inflatable astronauts flanking the stage, Claypool took the stage with a Cyrano-nose mask and began riffing bass beats all over the Ranch grounds. The Ranch Stage is a smaller stage, but the ambience is fantastic as the grounds are surrounded by trees, which come alive with the continuous light show flashing from the stage. Crowd is still doing it’s part to make this a festival for the ages. The multitude her at Rothbury couldn’t be a more peaceful, help-your-neighbor bunch. More than once, I witnessed one concert goer unwittingly drop money on the ground only to have a complete stranger hurry up, grab the money and chase the person down to return the lost cash. With this many people, safety can be a concern, but from what I’ve seen, there is no sign of flaring tempers, fisticuffs or anything other than keeping the vibe cool. Checking out a few shows tonight including headliner, Dave Matthews, so we’ll talk to you later. PeaceTN

Posted in Local News | No Comments »

Rothbury Festival

After technical and logistical problems, I’m finally able to bring you an update on the Rothbury Festival. Arriving Thursday morning, a constant, steady stream of concert-goers entered the sprawling, wooded Double JJ Ranch where nearly 80 bands will perform through Sunday. Talked to Kyle Gass from Tenacious D and spoke with Paul Hoffman of Greensky Bluegrass immediately after he left the stage Thursday night. Greensky officially opened the festival and the crowd, waiting around the huge campgrounds all day, ate up their first taste of live music.

The 30-50 thousand estimated attendees is well under estimated as the festival is turning into a mass of humanity. Brightly colored people cover the ground and tents of every shape, size and color has turned the grounds into a sea of brightly colored hues.

Despite mounted police patrolling the grounds (all very cool and hardly noticeable as they look right in place travelling the wooded, picturesque grounds) and news helicopters buzzing the skies, the atmosphere is extremely laid-back, friendly and anxious for four days of live music.  

Zappa Plays Zappa was extremely impressive and today’s lineup features Snoop Dogg, WideSpread Panic and Primus as must-sees. I’ll keep you updated as often as possible as the festival continues. TN

Posted in Local News | 1 Comment »

Rothbury Updates

I’ll be heading up to the Rothbury Festival Thursday morning for a weekend of diverse and eclectic music. During my four-plus days at the Double JJ Ranch, I’ll try to keep you as updated as possible on festival goings-on including performances, crowd festivities, artist interviews, etc. Be sure to check out KalamazooWeekly.com next week for dozens of photos from the weekend and I’ll have a complete wrap-up of the event in next week’s Kalamazoo Weekly Newspaper. If I don’t see you at the show, I hope to hear from you on my blog. Until Thursday, rock on Brothers and Sisters, TN

Posted in Local News | No Comments »

More = Less?

If I eat less I’ll lose weight.  Everyone knows that if you want to lose weight that’s what you need to do.  And of course exercise regularly.  Unfortunately for most of us (myself included) it never works out that way.  You start off right and skip breakfast before you shove off to work.  Grab a salad for lunch, and by the time you get to Dinner you are so hungry you eat way beyond the points for the day, or calories.  In all actuality the best way to change your diet is by eating more often.  When you get hungry your body expects food.  When it doesn’t get anything it goes into hibernation mode and and starts producing fat.  Just like bears in the fall who eat a ton so they can sleep through the winter.  If you eat often and in smaller doses your body doesn’t see the need to store fat so it burns what you feed it knowing there will be a steady supply.  It will actually speed up your metabolism and cause you to lose fat because your body has no need for it. 

                I know it doesn’t seem like a lot, but by doing this small change in the way you eat you will have vast results.  It can also be hard to know what to eat during the day.  When you head to the office, or worksite for the day make sure you pack snacks with you.  Start with simple things like a banana, or an apple.  Maybe a breakfast bar for after lunch.  If you HAVE to eat chips, get the baked ones.  Get the lemonade at the sub shop instead of the pop.  Don’t try to do it all at once either.  One change a day can do a world of difference. 

                So to review:

-Eat more often

-pack those HEALTHY snacks

-and don’t try to do it all at once

Posted in Health & Fitness | No Comments »

Cheers to a Responsible Legislature Keeping the Drinking Age At 21.

Recently, there has been discussion about lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18. Looking back, when I was 18 years old, my friends and I were very irresponsible and in no way can I imagine us ever drinking at a bar, legally that is. I feel that we need to keep the drinking age right where it is due to personal experience and research by various reputable governmental organizations.

According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), research shows that people are most likely to drink the heaviest in their late teens and early twenties.

Now, if research shows that kids drink more in their late teens and early twenties, why should we allow them to drink legally? In my years before becoming a writer, I was a waitress at a local bar and I cannot imagine having to wait on a bunch of drunk 18-year- olds. I guess I would compare it to to being a waitress at one of the fraternity parties that I used to attend. No thanks!

Also, if kids are able to drink legally at a bar, it would bring about new liabilities for area bars. Sure, there would be positives and negatives: more drinkers equals more business and less stress about losing a liquor license due to underage drinking. However, it would also open a whole new can of worms. Kids who are just starting to drink do not know their limits yet and will tend to drink too much because they do not know what their bodies can tolerate. So, not only will bars be more at risk of overserving the young drinkers, they also are risking a lawsuit for letting the kids drive home after drinking.

According to the NIAAA, in 2005, approximately 40 percent of traffic fatalities in the United States were alcohol related. Researchers found that in 2001–2002, 23.4 million, or 11.3 percent, of American adults ages 18 and older reported one or more behaviors associated with drinking-and-driving.

So, statistics show that most kids drink more when they are under 21 and there is a substantial percentage that are already getting into trouble for drinking and driving. Why then do we want to make it legal for them to drink? It just doesn’t make any sense.

Posted in Sound Off | 1 Comment »

Publishing names and photos of drunk soldiers?

When 4,000 troops returned from Iraq in November, the number of drunk-driving offenses ballooned at Fort Drum in upstate New York. While acknowledging that stress from the deployment might be a contributing factor, the base commander ordered the post newspaper to publish the names and pictures of the arrested soldiers in an effort to shame troops into changing their dangerous habits. What do you think about this effort by the general to curb alcohol abuse?

Posted in Opinions | No Comments »

Lowering the drinking age?

Some states are considering lowering the drinking age. What do you think about this?

Posted in Opinions | No Comments »

All For The Love Of Shock Value

The other day, I was looking through our local paper and I came upon an ad that showed a disturbing picture of a little girl.

The ad, which was by The Smile Train of Washington, D.C., showed a little girl with a cleft lip and palate. The ad read “ Imagine Living Your Entire Life Looking Like This Because You Could Never Afford $250 For Surgery.”

So basically the ad was a form of exploitation of this little girl’s situation. Why do advertisers have to stoop to such low levels and show shocking pictures while trying to guilt people into giving to their organization?

I understand that advertisers are using the pictures as a form of shock value, but there are many other forms of advertising that could be used to get their point across. Why use a heartbreaking picture of a girl who obviously had no control over her situation?

I also feel the same about the disturbing ads on television that show little children in foreign countries that are suffering from horrendous medical conditions. I understand that these children are suffering, but why do organizations have to exploit these children for the sake of donations?

Also, what is the guarantee that a donation is actually going to reach the children? I’m not saying that people should not give to these organizations, but I’m simply saying that they need to find a more tactful ways of advertising. When I see a shocking picture, I’m more apt to turn the page rather than read the advertisement to find out what the organization is about.

�

Posted in Sound Off | No Comments »