# How worried are you about your alcohol intake?



## Vettriano Man (Jun 30, 2005)

[/img]

All these recent threads about ageism have prompted me to think seriously about my alcohol intake which I know is within the recommended limits - 21 units (women are 14 units) - but at the age of 51 I am being kinder to my body by taking less and less spirits, which I don't now enjoy so much anyway, in favour of good red wines. How about you?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I almost never drink any alcohol. There are calories there.

When I was young, I could and would party with the best of them. Now at age 49, the expense and the hangovers exceed any amount of fun that I might have indulging or especially over-indulging.


----------



## Leon (Apr 16, 2005)

"CAGE questionnaire

Alcohol dependence is likely if the patient gives 2 or more positive answers:

have you ever felt you should CUT down your drinking?
have people ANNOYED you by criticising your drinking?
have you ever felt bad or GUILTY about your drinking?
have you ever had a drink first think in the morning to steady your nerves or get rid of a hangover (EYE- opener)?

Bernadt et al have claimed that the CAGE test (scores &gt;=2) has a sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 76% for the identification of problem drinkers."

Just so you know when the consultation turns this way, with your GP!

Leon


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Occasionally I will overindulge with wine, but that is only when I am home and having dinner. Anytime I am out I keep my drinking to a minimum.


----------



## JohnnyVegas (Nov 17, 2005)

I don't know exactly what you mean by a "unit," but the studies I have read and heard about suggest that there are health benefits for people who consume about 5-10 drinks per week (a drink being 12 oz of beer/5 oz of wine/1 oz of liquor) (not combined, you alkies!) and health hazard to people who consume at least 2 drinks per day on average (14+).

That all being said, I rarely drink and when I do it's almost always on the weekend.


----------



## cuffthis (Jul 13, 2004)

Mrs Cuffthis and I share a bottle of wine a day. That is 2.5 glasses each.

I do not swallow all the wine I taste during the day for my wine bar. I typically sample 15-20 wines per day.

Now open!!!! - Domaine Hudson wine bar & eatery, 1314 Washington St., Wilmington, DE 19801(302)655-WINE


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by cuffthis_
> 
> Mrs Cuffthis and I share a bottle of wine a day. That is 2.5 glasses each.
> 
> ...


Good thing, too. Otherwise your moniker would be "igotyercuffthishrightherepalarrrghblarrp".


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

Not worried about it at all. Booze is one thing I can take or leave. I do enjoy it and see it as a great compliment to a meal. Or as an apertif itself.

I guess for some who have problems, it can be an addiction. For me it's not.

Cigarettes on the other hand....


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

I should actually drink a little more. there are health benifits in drinking slightly more than I do - I probrably have 4-6 units of alchohol a month. I used to be a much heavier drinker, but that has dropped significanlty with age and with having a son.


----------



## ashie259 (Aug 25, 2005)

Good thread, Vetts.

I found that in the run-up to Christmas and over the holiday itself I'd got used to being on a fairly steady drip. Rarely more than a couple of glasses of wine a night, but very rarely no booze at all of an evening.

It didn't help that Mrs ashie259 had been off alcohol for three months - compared to her, I felt like a complete lush.

I've decided to pull the reins in a little. I'm going to try to have at least two alcohol-free nights a week. 

Last week I stayed off the gargle altogether, and found that this weekend I was able to do 120 hilly miles on the bike with unprecedented ease. I don't think the two facts are unconnected.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

I drink a glass or two of wine with EVERY meal. More for special meals, but never more than three or very occasionally four glasses. Aperitif sometimes at weekends. I never drink alcohol outside a meal. This has been my regimen for the last 30 years. I'm drinking better wines now though.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

My (loose) rules:

1. Glass of water before and after drinking
2. Three drink maximum (any more and I start falling asleep anyways)
3. Only drink around meals (before, during or after)
4. Only drink good stuff

I usually don't have more than a few drinks a week. Every couple months I'll pick up a bottle of tonic water and have a gin & tonic after dinner for a little while, then I won't drink anything for weeks.

My grandpa used to drink a Manhattan before lunch, and a beer before dinner, just about every day for decades. He quit drinking and smoking his pipe to be healthier, six months later he passed away. Shock to the system?


----------



## JohnnyVegas (Nov 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> 
> My grandpa used to drink a Manhattan before lunch, and a beer before dinner, just about every day for decades. He quit drinking and smoking his pipe to be healthier, six months later he passed away. Shock to the system?


I think so: my dad had an uncle who smoked a cigar or two and drank at least a pint a day from the age of 16 until his death and the ripe old age of 96.


----------



## n/a (Sep 4, 2002)

> quote:_Originally posted by Horace_
> 
> Cigarettes on the other hand....


I understand...

And I perhaps drink a little more Carling than I should.

"The Bishop of _Rome_ hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of _England_."
Thomas Cranmer, _The Book of Common Prayer_, Article XXXVII.​


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

I gave up really heavy drinking years ago because I didn't like not remembering where I'd been or what I'd done. "Then we all went out for breakfast. You don't remember any of that?" 

Now I limit myself to two or three drinks at a time. On a very special occasion I might have four, spaced apart during an evening.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I'll have to admit I'm a two-fisted drinker. I like at least a couple of beers a day along with a few shots of rum or tequila. I must confess I overdulged on tequila the other night, and when I walked my dog I was not too steady on my pins. The dog, a huge, powerful brute, took off after a cat and slammed me on my face. Luckily this was in the grassy sward of a park. Otherwise I might have suffered some real damage! Since then, I have been much more abstemious, as is invariably the case after I over-indulge![:I]


----------



## n/a (Sep 4, 2002)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> I'll have to admit I'm a two-fisted drinker. I like at least a couple of beers a day along with a few shots of rum or tequila. I must confess I overdulged on tequila the other night, and when I walked my dog I was not too steady on my pins. The dog, a huge, powerful brute, took off after a cat and slammed me on my face. Luckily this was in the grassy sward of a park. Otherwise I might have suffered some real damage! Since then, I have been much more abstemious, as is invariably the case after I over-indulge![:I]


JLibourel,

I loved your post and its honesty. Reading the earlier posts to this topic one might conclude that the members of AAAC are just a bunch of self-congratulatory teetotallers. Maybe that is true, but surely others would have a different tale?

Myself, I was a bit embarrassed to read the other day that (borderline) excessive alcohol consumption is typical of young gay men who frequent pubs. Last year, on a visit to Seattle (where I lived for a few years in my middle teens), I found myself amongst plenty of company in one of the gay bars. The only differentiating factor was my accent.

That said, my drinking is almost entirely recreational. I do not touch spirits and have no interest in wine. I cannot recall when I last had a hangover; I have never blacked out, nor missed any days of work. Unlike some of my mates, I simply know when enough is enough.

Edit: I recently read that the US State of Washington has now banned smoking in all enclosed public areas. Is this indeed the most comprehensive ban in the US?

Well, bravo. As a self-confessed smoker, I wish Britain would follow suit.

"The Bishop of _Rome_ hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of _England_."
Thomas Cranmer, _The Book of Common Prayer_, Article XXXVII.​


----------



## Joe Frances (Sep 1, 2004)

A little, yes.

JAF


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Jason, let me know the next time you're in Seattle and I'll meet you at your favorite gay bar for a drink. Or two or three.

As for the smoking ban, you refer to Initiative 901, which was overwhelmingly approved by the voters in Washington state and went into effect Dec. 8, 2005. Smoking was already illegal in offices and public buildings. I-901 extended the ban to bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, skating rinks, and casinos. I don't know if this is the most comprehensive smoking ban in the U.S., but if not it must be close.


----------



## Mr. Di Liberti (Jan 24, 2006)

I make mead, as well as beer and wine. Somewhere around 75 gallons a year.

At times I may drink to much, but I don't worry about it.

Anthony


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> I drink a glass or two of wine with EVERY meal.


Another reason to like France...


----------



## ashie259 (Aug 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> I drink a glass or two of wine with EVERY meal.


Interesting. Which grape variety would you recommend as an accompaniment to porridge and toast?


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ashie259_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There's a challenge. I wouldn't normally regard breakfast as a meal, of course, but let's see... I think muscat. And a teaspoonful of cognac mixed into the porridge [}].


----------



## ashie259 (Aug 25, 2005)

Oh, I often think breakfast is the best meal (particularly in Mexico), but that's another topic.

Hmm, cognac in the porridge - that would certainly send me on my way with a warm, happy glow!


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Don't really think about it. I usually have one or two glasses of wine with dinner each night, beer with lunch on the weekends, and usually a couple of cocktails Friday and Saturday night. Never thought of this as a lot or little.
Cheers


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Jason Evans_
> Myself, I was a bit embarrassed to read the other day that (borderline) excessive alcohol consumption is typical of young gay men who frequent pubs.


I think that's typical of many young people who frequent pubs. I used to live across the street from one!

We only drink with dinner, except occasionally on weekends we'll overindulge. It seems to go with football and having friends over.


----------



## n/a (Sep 4, 2002)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> Jason, let me know the next time you're in Seattle and I'll meet you at your favorite gay bar for a drink. Or two or three.


That depends on the next time my mum returns to see her family. (She has always taken me with her- British Airways, flight 49.) In the meantime hoist one for me at RPlace.

Thanks for the info on I-901.
Cheers.

"The Bishop of _Rome_ hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of _England_."
Thomas Cranmer, _The Book of Common Prayer_, Article XXXVII.​


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

I'm sober two or three nights a week, I think that's pretty conservative considering I'm in college.

"Give me liberty or give me death" - Pat Henry
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" Benj. Franklin


----------



## longwing (Mar 28, 2005)

My problem is that the better I dress, the more I drink. Seems to stem from those fancy dress occasions in college. Since joining AAAC, I'm not sure if I've developed a drinking problem or a dressing problem.


----------



## n/a (Sep 4, 2002)

> quote:_Originally posted by young guy_
> 
> I'm sober two or three nights a week, I think that's pretty conservative considering I'm in college.
> 
> ...


young guy, you really crack me up. We are probably on opposite sides of the pond, but I'd love to pound down innumerable pints with you... and I'll stand off and let the women fawn over you.

Love your profile signature. Patrick Henry and Ben Franklin are admired here in the UK also. But unlike my hero Thomas Cranmer, they weren't martyrs. Yet ultimately Dickens says it best: _Sech is life. Vich likewise is the hend of all things._

"The Bishop of _Rome_ hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of _England_."
Thomas Cranmer, _The Book of Common Prayer_, Article XXXVII.​


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

I go out to eat alot, plus, I have a very nice bar in my house, so, on any normal week, I'll have between 5-10 cocktails, but when I go out (to a club or partying or whatever), I've been known to put away the better part of a fifth, I guess I must be a fun guy to party with, because people always buy me drinks when we go out (of course, any conversation that doesnt either start with "aaaay...b'check i'dout" or end with "y'know whuddamean?", is pretty much out of the question at that point)...call it youthful indescretion, but I'll allow myself a few nights like that in a year, usually the next day involves me swearing to myself that I wont do that again over a gallon of water and a bagel...but, I think that in all honesty, it's good for your health (mental health at least) because you need to just cut loose from time to time...

*****
"When you wear lapels like the swellest of swells, you can pass any mirror and...
*smile*
...You've either got or you haven't got style!!!"​


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Not at all as it is practically nil.

I used to be an enthusiastic "two fisted drinker," as JLibourel put it.

Over the years my has intake diminished to the point where I am practically a tea totaller. I enjoy the clearity of mind. I occasionally will have (literally) a sip of something especially nice: a red wine or good beer. I will very occasionally have a small glass of brandy, or home made Swiss abricotine, which I presume to be distilled from an apricot mash. It is sublime.

I no longer smoke marijuana. I do not use tobacco, although I did smoke my father's pipes for a few months after I came into possession of them some years ago.

I do not object to alcohol, drug, or tobacco consumption. 

Cheers,
Gurdon


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Jason Evans_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I do not mean to pick a fight nor bring this thread off topic, but may I suggest that you could pick a signature quote of Thomas Cranmer that was more inspirational and/or relevant to this forum. Please feel free to enlighten me if that statement has any great meaning other than being anti-Papal/Catholic. Just a suggestion.


----------



## oldschool (Dec 4, 2005)

Interesting topic.
I also used to be the two fisted type but it seemed to catch up with me as I got older, ie over 50, where I'd feel really hung over even after 3-4 drinks. So I cut back to the occassional glass of wine and don't miss it. 
Socially I hang out in Montreal which is generally one large party and all my friends are two fisted drinkers and proud of it. Mostly this was a mental adjustment for me. Everyone knows I can't tolerate it anymore and no one really cares that I don't join in. I still like going to bars and clubs with friends and in some places they set me up with seltzer and lime when I walk in. We have a helluva good time and I am always in demand as the driver.


----------



## n/a (Sep 4, 2002)

> quote:_Originally posted by Tom Buchanan_
> 
> I do not mean to pick a fight nor bring this thread off topic, but may I suggest that you could pick a signature quote of Thomas Cranmer that was more inspirational and/or relevant to this forum. Please feel free to enlighten me if that statement has any great meaning other than being anti-Papal/Catholic. Just a suggestion.


My signature was not intended to be offensive or anti-Papal/Catholic. As a trained church musician (though I do not currently have an appointment), the signature simply marked me as an Anglican.

The tone and content of Cranmerâ€™s words may not export very well to the US where â€"on the surface at least- issues of church and state are very different. The Anglican Church is a specifically British form of Christianity and _The Book of Common Prayer_ simply codifies it. This marked the start of a tremendous change of direction in our history; one that has seen our Church evolve a musical tradition equalled but unsurpassed by any continental examples.

Maybe it is just my youthful enthusiasm, but I am deeply proud to be a part of this ongoing tradition. Other UK based AAAC members may see things differently; this is only my interpretation- and disclaimer.

Ultimately, Mr Buchanan _does_ have a point about the appropriateness of Cranmerâ€™s words in this forum. I have temporarily removed any signature following my posts.

On a less formal note -if I may be permitted- why don't you introduce yourself to me, Tom? I have checked your profile, and with the exception of this topic, we have never overlapped on topics before. Email me if you wish.

Respectfully,
Jason Evans


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Jason Evans_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not any less appropriate than mine, or those of several other Members. It is an enjoyable quotation, and accurate as well.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

I think the purpose of a signature is not to say something relevant to the forum (the posting itself does that) but to tell us something about the writer. Perhaps, being from Maryland, Tom Buchanan is more sensitive to a perceived anti-popery message.

My great-grandfather was born in England. He specifically renounced his allegiance to Queen Victoria when he was naturalized as a U.S. citizen, but he and his descendants remained in the Episcopal Church, which is part of the Anglican Communion. Although the Archbishop of Canterbury has no authority over the Episcopal Church, he is still considered our spiritual leader. Queen Elizabeth is Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church. And the Bishop of Rome, um, isn't. It could be argued that the break with Rome is the essence of the Anglican Church.

I don't think Jason Evans's signature is any more or less relevant than, glancing at this page, "Give me liberty or give me death" or "Good God, do you mean to say this place is a club?"

Now I'm going to have a drink before I go to bed -- a sip of Benedictine, because I've run out of Drambuie.


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in _this_ realm, either. New England was founded chiefly to return more closely to a Biblically based faith than that incorporated into the broad Church of England, itself largely a reaction to a Roman Church which had strayed far with increasing reliance on tradition. Though Roman Catholics certainly are more numerous in America now than they were in the colonial period (never reaching above one percent or so of the population overall and never above fifteen percent or so in Maryland, the most Romanist of the mainland colonies), they still are a minority of the American population (indeed, I remember in graduate school reading of a study which indicated that, after four generations in the United States, most Roman Catholic families become predominately Protestant or nothing).

So, Jason Evans, keep your "signature". It's accurate, not intended to offend, and adds to the diversity on this board -- and thus is thoroughly modern as well as an interesting relic.

Back on topic: only recently -- shortly before I turned fifty -- have I found a beer which pleases rather than gags me, so scant danger of overconsumption there. I do like wines; but, as my favorites are sauternes, there is, again, little likelihood that I'd drink too much. And distilled alcohol is a rarity for me.

A former girlfriend once told me that the danger was that I would drink too _little_: a different view of what "partying" means.


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

Firstly, Jason, you are correct that I did not properly introduce myself. Therefore, hello, nice to meet you. I tried very hard to make my suggestion non-judgmental nor inflammatory. I hope that all could tell by my original post that I have no problem with, and in fact have much respect for, the Anglican, Episcopal, and many other churches and faiths. I am a strong believer that we are all worshipping the same God. It is for that reason that I questioned the intent of a quote that seeks to draw a jurisdictional distinction.

As a student of history, I know that there were many legitimate reasons for the Protestant reform and the formation of the Anglican Church. I also know that there was much anti-Catholic bigotry resulting therefrom, both in the UK and US (and yes, I know that Catholics were and are very capable of bigotry also). Although we could debate various "facts" asserted by others (rws, you might want to check your statistics), I do not think that this is necessarily the place, nor would it do much good.

You have every right to be proud of your faith's beliefs and heritage, I just believe that too many people today are defining themselves and their faith by what they are _against_, rather than what they are _for_. Given the renewed closeness of the Anglican/Episcopal Churches and the Catholic church, I was just a bit surprised that the quote was still relevant.

Since you and several other posters have explained the significance of the doctrinal split in jurisdiction of authority, I better understand. Now that I have gotten this off my chest, let us get back to more intereting topics. Sorry to be a kill-joy, especially since I generally enjoy drinking topics myself.

Tom


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Tom Buchanan_
> . . . . rws, you might want to check your statistics . . . .


They are checked and come from sources generally deemed reliable by scholars.

Back to the topic: my impression (and it is only that, as I have no statistics on this) is that we -- Americans and Britons, at least -- have significantly less habitual drunkenness today than even, say, two generations ago. Almost never do I see a drunkard in public, for example, and I am told (again, without statistics) that proportionately far fewer people die of alcoholism or its related afflictions than formerly.

So, then, I've two questions: first, are others' observations the same? If so, what has caused the change -- less chronic depression, more hopefulness, more concern for one's health (which might arise from a more optimistic view of life in general), something else?


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rws_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


According to an NIH-funded study by the NIAAA, alcohol "abuse" increased from 1991 -1992 to 2001 - 2002, while alcohol "dependency" decreased over the same period.

https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Newsletter/spring-summer2004/Newsletter_Number4.htm

So at least over the past 15 years or so, alcohol consumption in the U.S. has held steady, or increased, or decreased, depending upon how one looks at it. I don't know what the comparable statistics are going back two "generations," but that time frame would put one near, or in, Prohibition, which no doubt skewed the sample significantly, if only in the short term.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> I drink a glass or two of wine with EVERY meal. More for special meals, but never more than three or very occasionally four glasses. Aperitif sometimes at weekends. I never drink alcohol outside a meal. This has been my regimen for the last 30 years. I'm drinking better wines now though.


Even Breakfast?

The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know.
P.J. O'Rourke


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Jason Evans_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah. Teetotallers.

That's us.

As has been posted here a few times:

Sober as a Judge.



> quote:
> Myself, I was a bit embarrassed to read the other day that (borderline) excessive alcohol consumption is typical of young gay men who frequent pubs. Last year, on a visit to Seattle (where I lived for a few years in my middle teens), I found myself amongst plenty of company in one of the gay bars. The only differentiating factor was my accent.


I don't think that has anything to do with sexual identity.

I spent a few sober years in bars outside of Camp Lejeune where there were few gay men, and lots of excessive alcohol consumption.



> quote:
> That said, my drinking is almost entirely recreational. I do not touch spirits and have no interest in wine. I cannot recall when I last had a hangover; I have never blacked out, nor missed any days of work. Unlike some of my mates, I simply know when enough is enough.


That line is highly variable. Sometimes enough is a glass of water. Sometimes enough is bouncing your head off the bar.



> quote:
> Edit: I recently read that the US State of Washington has now banned smoking in all enclosed public areas. Is this indeed the most comprehensive ban in the US?
> 
> Well, bravo. As a self-confessed smoker, I wish Britain would follow suit.


Yeah, because having the government FORCE you not to do unhealthy things is the VERY DEFINITION OF FREEDOM!

THANK YOU BIG MOTHER!

The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know.
P.J. O'Rourke


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> . . . . So at least over the past 15 years or so, alcohol consumption in the U.S. has held steady, or increased, or decreased, depending upon how one looks at it. I don't know what the comparable statistics are going back two "generations," but that time frame would put one near, or in, Prohibition, which no doubt skewed the sample significantly, if only in the short term. . . .


Thanks, Y+, for the reference. Regrettably, reasonable comparisons (and in my toss-off I thought of the eve of Prohibition, forgetting that I may be older than most posters here, or that my parents and grandparents may have married later in life than theirs) are difficult to make from such data. Still, it is interesting.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rws_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Having only recently escaped the substance abuse counseling racket, I'd like to think that this decrease can be chalked up to increased public awareness of alcoholism and other addictions. People make fun of 12-step programs, but they at least have some idea of what the philosophy is.

It's not a good reason to relax, however, as ever-increasing numbers of people are discovering the joys of opiates and cocaine.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rws_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I suspect in no small part less drinking goes on simply because of the very draconian laws that have been enacted against drinking and driving.


----------



## n/a (Sep 4, 2002)

> quote:_Originally posted by petro_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


petro, I think you misunderstood my use of "enough is enough". I know a few people that are notorious for missing time at work or having black outs. One friend of mine is currently in hospital for a broken ankle. (He fell off his pub stool after passing out.) Surely by any definition, they don't know when "enough is enough". For all that, I'm guilty of occasionally getting completely obliterated. It just never reaches a point where I do more than stagger a bit.

As for the smoking ban in Washington, it was the voters that overwhelmingly approved the initiative. I would like to see the same in England if only because it would be more pleasant for me to drink in a non-smoking establishment. I didn't say I would quit -or be forced to quit- smoking because of it.

Fortunately in London we can walk outside with our beverages. With the Byzantine liquor laws in the US (okay, California and Washington, the only states I have consumed alcohol in), one has to leave their drink in the bar before stepping out. I would welcome comments from members in other US states if things are different there.

Cheers! And I'll have another Carling.

(Ay, mate! It's only 645 here in the UK. I'll have that Carling after Evensong.)


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

That's right, the voters approved the Washington state smoking ban, 63% to 37%. It's the will of the people, not an arcane restriction or executive order created somewhere inside the halls of government.

And petro, this law isn't forcing you not to do unhealthy things. You are still free to stay at home and smoke three packs a day, or visit the home of a smoking friend and chain-smoke all night long. But as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. is supposed to have said, the right to swing one's fist ends where the other man's nose begins. The voters in Washington are saying that your right to create cigarette smoke ends where my nose begins.


----------



## Vettriano Man (Jun 30, 2005)

[/img] I witnessed a most pathetic sight late last night while waiting for a south-bound train on the overbridge at London Bridge Station. Looking at (or trying to look at) the train schedule screen was a city gent of about forty, beautifully and immaculately dressed in a covert coat with brown velvet collar, smart tie and shoes who was absolutely plastered out of his mind - appearing like a performance artist for some twenty minutes, he could barely support himself upright while doing a little dance of hop-scotch and only just managing to hang on to the wall to stop him falling over. I was amused at first but I also felt pity for him, thinking that only hours before he was probably in some high-powered meeting and representing a world-wide firm of accountants or lawyers, but had become a temporary wineo! Of course, he might have just been drowning his sorrows after losing his job - who knows? I wonder if he is reading this in the cold light of day - or did he remember anything?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vettriano man_
> 
> [/img]


What a wonderfully jolly little emoticon!


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by petro_
> 
> Even Breakfast?


In France breakfast is not normally considered a meal. For many it is not much more than a quick black coffee. I actually have tea (in a proper china teacup, not a mug) and a slice of toast with English marmalade, but that's because I was educated in England. However, I still don't consider it a meal.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Mr Evans,

Lest anyone else be offended, I have taken the liberty of creating a new signature for you, super-imposing your Cranmer quotation over an _Ask Andy-relevant_ image. 

(What, no pocket-square? [}])


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

I usually have a glass of wine with dinner and that's about it. In general I don't like the taste of alcohol. There are very few beers I like and hard liquor just doesn't appeal to me. However, in a social setting I'll drink whatever is offered to me but I know my limits and stick to one or two drinks tops. I don't think a glass of wine a day or so is bad...some people say it can be good for you.


----------



## n/a (Sep 4, 2002)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> That's right, the voters approved the Washington state smoking ban, 63% to 37%. It's the will of the people, not an arcane restriction or executive order created somewhere inside the halls of government.
> 
> And petro, this law isn't forcing you not to do unhealthy things. You are still free to stay at home and smoke three packs a day, or visit the home of a smoking friend and chain-smoke all night long. But as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. is supposed to have said, the right to swing one's fist ends where the other man's nose begins. The voters in Washington are saying that your right to create cigarette smoke ends where my nose begins.


Thanks for the support, rojo. Shortly after posting I felt some guilt that I did not credit you with my information on the smoking ban. Yet anyone who has followed this thread would recognize the source.

BTW, I check out Seattletimes.com sporadically. There seems to be quite a buzz on the Seahawks, but the headline below that in Saturday's paper was of interest.

Now about this new signature...[:0][]


----------



## Stuttjukken (Jan 14, 2006)

I never drink alcohol, because IÂ´m a busdriver.

Short and stout/heavyweight busdriver in Bergen, Norway. My favorite clothes are polywool trousers.


----------



## n/a (Sep 4, 2002)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> Mr Evans,
> 
> ...


But Mr. Bean? How about someone a bit more attractive... say Orlando Bloom?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Jason Evans_
> How about someone a bit more attractive... say Orlando Bloom?


Sorry, who's that?


----------



## shoefetish (Jan 15, 2006)

God, I love this forum. Just this morning I was thinking alcohol as opposed to drinking logged on and bingo.

I have cut back drastically because of rock music or rather the lack of it in pubs.
Always been a fan of 60s to 80s rock music and for years after work would religiously hit the gym and then a rock pub. 8 glasses of beer every night Monday-Thursday. Half a bottle of Teacher's or JW Black Label on Friday and back on Saturday and polish off the other half. Good thing I can hold my liquor and my girlfriend can't tell if I am pickled (speaks volumes for my mental state )
About a year ago my 2 favourite pubs sold out because now its all techno or some other such blasted music.
Now its the occassional drink at home with a rock cd/dvd for company. Funny how you lose a lot of your "friends" when you are not out partying. Thankfully my liver is still with me and intact.

Slainte!


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> That's right, the voters approved the Washington state smoking ban, 63% to 37%. It's the will of the people, not an arcane restriction or executive order created somewhere inside the halls of government.


That paragraph has SO MANY logical and intellectual flaws that it's hard to believe you fit it all in two sentences.

1) Because "it's the will of the people" doesn't make it right.

2) Because it's a properly enacted law REGARDLESS of where it started (and I'd be willing to bet smallish sums of money that it DID start with some nit-wit candy-butt nanny-state <self-censored> who couldn't get it through the elected representatives) it is still THE GOVERNMENT telling PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS what to do with their property. Yet another stupid government restriction.

3) I passed largely on the back of some seriously questionable statistics on second hand smoke. If you take what their peddling at face value, sitting next to a smoker for 5 minutes a day is more dangerous than actually INHALING a pack a day. Utter bollocks.

California has the same sort of stupid laws, and yeah, it's nicer to drink in a bar w/out the smoke. But it's nicer to live in a country were the government can't point their "long arm" at a PRIVATE CITIZEN (aka the bar owner) and threaten them with legal sanction for letting free people indulge in a nominally legal passtime in a place that no one is required to be in.



> quote:
> And petro, this law isn't forcing you not to do unhealthy things. You are still free to stay at home and smoke three packs a day, or visit the home of a smoking friend and chain-smoke all night long. But as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. is supposed to have said, the right to swing one's fist ends where the other man's nose begins. The voters in Washington are saying that your right to create cigarette smoke ends where my nose begins.


If you're in a ring and you get hit in the nose you've got no one to blame but yourself.

I don't object to certian classes of places being made smoke free, court houses, hospitals, schools, prisons, and even large areas of the workplace (although this last one should be the property owner and/or businesses decision, not the government's--at an level--decision) any place that the routine occupants don't have a choice about being (this is how the <self-censored> in Sacramento justified the ban on smoking in bars and restaraunts here in CA, by claiming that it was "for the health of the bartenders and wait staff".

Crap. Some little pocket protector owning, polyester suit with a sweater vest wearing dweebs decided that since Smoking Was Bad, that we won't be allowed to do it, as it Impacts Society, it makes us less productive, and we OWE SOCIETY that productivity. It makes us sick, and we OWE SOCIETY to be healthy (and yes, the US Government has pubished reports along these lines).

It's utter feces.

Oh, and yeah you SHOULD be able to walk into a bar and walk out with a drink in your hand, but it's the same bluenose mother-<self-censored> sonsa <self-censored> that think we need to be up and sober for the greater glory of the state and god that are behind this anti-smoking crusade.

Now that they've managed to drive smoking out of public property, and whatever the term of art that means "privately owned but used by any whining twit off the street", they HAVE started passing laws, or trying to, that ban smoking in your own home IF other people can SMELL IT, or smoking in the car when children are present.

It's FOR THE CHILDREN afterall.

Pardon me whilst I get my rope.

Added in edit:

Oh, and one more thing, about all that fist swinging--when you step into a boxing ring, you lose the right to complain about getting hit in the face. Life is NOT without friction, risk, or injury. If you live, you will be uncomfortable and you will, on occasion be made uncomfortable, get cold, get hot, have to smell someone's body odor or other noxious emissions. You will be exposed to various toxins of various kinds in all manner of places.

Hell, ALCOHOL is a toxin. It's an industrial grade solvent. It is, I believe, a carcinegeon. And you GO TO BARS TO DRINK IT.

The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know.
P.J. O'Rourke


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

Oh, and: 


> quote:_Originally posted by Jason Evans_
> 
> petro, I think you misunderstood my use of "enough is enough".


No, I didn't.

The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know.
P.J. O'Rourke


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

At law school we go out every Thursday. I generally have 3-4 drinks, usually cocktails. We get a cab home. Depending on the plans of my group, we'll sometimes go out only Thursday, sometimes Th, F, Sat.

Generally I have 4-14 drinks a weekend I guess. All cocktails generally. 

On especially agressive nights I'll have 6.

I've reached double digits in cocktails at a few parties. But that's been very limited. Which I think is a good thing for me, as well as my liver. Only been "very sorry" once(neither of those times, oddly).


I don't touch the stuff Sunday-Thursday afternoon, unless coming home extremely harried, but often then just a meal or a glass of plain old juice with ice will relax me. 

I almost never do shots, nor do I drink much beer. Occasional scotch, more often brandy, but mostly gin based cocktails with the occasional vodka or rum thrown in.


At the moment I am not worried about my alcohol consumption. During winter break at law school, my friends left for places far and wide. Because my college and high school mates have jobs now, I was mostly alone at my parents' house or in my apartment, and had absolutely no desire to drink anything. Except for maybe once or twice a year at a really wild party, I am always careful to set a limit, considering the expense when going out. I bring only enough cash for that limit and cabfare (our favorite bar here is cash only) and when the drink-money is gone, I am done.

I drink a glass of water before I go out and 2 before I go to bed.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

petro, I am enjoying our exchange.

Of course "the will of the people" doesn't make the anti-smoking initiative or any other law right in the scheme of some large, cosmic sense of justice. But in a democracy, democratically enacted laws count for something. I'm drawing a distinction, and it's an important one, between the initiative process on the one hand and laws catalyzed by health departments, legislatures, or activist judges on the other. In Washington state, a ballot initiative begins as a petition. When enough signatures are collected, it goes on the ballot, where the voters accept or reject it. That's democracy in its purest form.

So now it's a government restriction. Bar owners are also subject to zoning boards, building codes, health codes, fire codes, labor laws, and liquor laws. Some of them I happen to agree with. Others I think are excessive. Any number of them restrict free people from indulging in nominally legal activities.

I couldn't care less about statistics on second-hand smoke. I just don't like cigarette smoke, and that's why I voted yes on I-901. Sure, the campaign talked about second-hand smoke and protecting bar workers. However, I think most people voted for it not out of an altruistic desire to protect staff members but because they themselves would prefer to sit in smokeless bars and restaurants. It's what the voters wanted.

Now that you mention it, I like the idea of banning smoking in private homes if other people can smell it. I've lived in two apartments where cigarette smoke from adjacent units was a problem. If the county can restrict the use of wood-burning fireplaces and burning of trash on private property, they ought to be able to restrict cigarette smoke too. If it were up to me, tobacco would be as illegal as marijuana.

The question is not whether government should be imposing any restrictions on bar owners, as you seem to be framing it. Government already does impose restrictions on bar owners, and few people would advocate repeal of all fire codes, labor laws, and health codes (unless you're a Libertarian). The question is simply whether cigarette smoke should be included.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

If it were up to me, marijuana would be as legal as tobacco.

Cheers,
Gurdon


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

I think smoking bans in bars are absolutely moronic...

Petro...I couldnt aggree with you more...and if I may add to that train of thought...what is the point of living at all if we forgo all indulgences? take no risks??? Why dont we all just live in big plastic bubbles??? That way all that bad cigarette smoke cant get us??? I look at it like this, I'm a smoker, not only do I smoke, but I actually enjoy smoking, I look forward to lighting up a stogey after a long day, or a ciggy when I'm lounging beside the pool or off partying somewhere, and I have no intention of quitting, and guess what, if I die from it, I'm not going to blame anybody but myself...this is a choice I made...I try and be respectful of others who might not appreciate inhaling my second hand smoke, but they have to be reasonable too...lets say for example we are all at a nice summer BBQ, I'm off in my own corner enjoying a smoke, meanwhile all the health-nicks are staying away from my cigarette smoke, but they dont mind inhaling mesquite smoke (which aint exactly non-carcinogenic) whilst they all stand around the grill, then afterwards eating nice fatty pork ribs or steaks or whatever, which will ultimately end up killing them aswell...but the deal is this...you might get lung cancer from 2nd hand smoke 40 years from now...or you might get his by a bus 4 hours from now...the only thing that were promised when we're born into this world is that we're going to die in one way or another (hmmm...maybe I should change my name to the gabba ghoul???)...but anyway we all do plenty of things in our own lifes to shorten our life expectancy...so why worry about some guy at the other end of the bar who is smoking...I mean...if you were really that health conscious...you wouldnt be in a bar in the first place...

*****
"When you wear lapels like the swellest of swells, you can pass any mirror and...
*smile*
...You've either got or you haven't got style!!!"​


----------



## Vettriano Man (Jun 30, 2005)

Gabba Goul, I actually thought your comment here was a joke at first, but then realized it wasn't and with the greatest respect, I found it absolutely moronic and thoroughly selfish.



> quote:_Originally posted by The Gabba Goul_
> I look at it like this, I'm a smoker, not only do I smoke, but I actually enjoy smoking, I look forward to lighting up a stogey after a long day, or a ciggy when I'm lounging beside the pool or off partying somewhere, and I have no intention of quitting...this is a choice I made...


Certainly, you have the freedom of choice and it's your decision to consider the length and value of your own life, which appears to be not that great, seeing that you're doing all you can to destroy it. I respect your choice just as I do those who go to Switzerland for euthanasia, but I pity you.



> quote:_Originally posted by The Gabba Goul_
> ...and guess what, if I die from it, I'm not going to blame anybody but myself...


So you don't blame yourself or mind if other people lose their life also? That's great.



> quote:_Originally posted by The Gabba Goul_
> ...I try and be respectful of others who might not appreciate inhaling my second hand smoke, but they have to be reasonable too...


So I have to be reasonable too? You expect me to suffer the effects of your chosen death warrant do you? Again, that's great - I go to a bar for an enjoyable drink and have to suffer stinging eyes and sore throats and emerge with my clothes absorbed with stale smoke. On top of that I run the risk of shortening my life through no choice of my own. How reasonable of me and how considerate of you. Thank you.



> quote:_Originally posted by The Gabba Goul_
> ...the only thing that were promised when we're born into this world is that we're going to die in one way or another...but anyway we all do plenty of things in our own lifes to shorten our life expectancy...
> 
> ...I mean...if you were really that health conscious...you wouldn't be in a bar in the first place...


 I don't exactly go out of my way to look for things that will shorten my life, least of all a pleasurable recreation like a sociable enjoyable drink - which, by the way, might be non-alcoholic _(before you accuse me of inducing alcohol for pleasure)._

Last Friday, I met a friend in the square mile for lunch in a well known French-style cafe/bar and on entering were asked "smoking or no smoking". It was very full and the first non-smoking table offered to us was right in a service gangway so we asked to change and the second was not too far away from a smoking area, but the smoke was still wafting across our way and it really made the lunch unpleasant and I emerged with a croaky throat. At 1.00pm it was too late to go looking for anywhere else so we reluctantly stayed put, but we both agreed that it has really got to change, and hopefully it will because most people actually value their life and want to enjoy and embrace it - it's short enough anyway.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

The anti-tobacco people are shrewdly criminalizing the behavior instead of the substance, hoping to avoid the disastrous prior experience with outlawing alcohol and other drugs.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

After reading some of these rants, I'm just thankful there isn't such a thing as "second hand stupidity".


----------



## Vettriano Man (Jun 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> The anti-tobacco people are shrewdly criminalizing the behavior instead of the substance, hoping to avoid the disastrous prior experience with outlawing alcohol and other drugs.


No Patrick, criminalizing the behaviour doesn't come into it. I'm all for freedom of choice and would heartily welcome 'smoking only' places and 'only non-smoking places'. Anyway, I'm pleased to hear about the Washington vote of 63% - 37%.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vettriano man_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If a cop can give you a summons for smoking, it's because you've broken a law.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

For those of you on the pro smoking-ban side of things, you keep on insisting that you should be able to go to a bar or restaurant without being having to deal with a smoke filled environment. YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO A BAR OR RESTAURANT THAT ALLOWS SMOKING. It is not your right to dictate what other people can allow on their own property. The bar or restaurant should be allowed to make its own decisions just as you make a decision on where you wish to go. IF enough people were really opposed to it, most restaurants would eventually ban smoking of their own free wills. If non-smokers refused to go to establishments that allowed smoking, the businesses would either have to change their policy or go broke. Instead, you are more than happy to heap more laws on societies that already restrict more and more of our freedoms every day.

Not one of you has said that he refuses to go to restaurants where they allow smoking but instead have said that it bothers you so you back petitions or laws to ban it. IF you really felt that this small amount of time in a smoke filled restaurant was going to kill you, *you wouldn't go to places that permit smoking*. Instead, you would rather act morally superior and ask the big bad government to protect you because you are too weak willed to protect yourself. Continue to ask the government to protect you from things that you can easily handle yourself and you will find that you no longer control your own life. You won't have to make any decisions for yourself because everyone else will have voted on what you should do.

If you want to do something truly democratic, vote with your purchasing power. No one will be able to argue with businesses voluntarily changing their policies and there will still be some businesses who can offer a smoking environment to those who want it.

Any doctor will tell you that the food at McDonalds will kill you so I don't go there. I haven't asked the government to step in and protect me from Big Macs. My decision to not eat there keeps me safe from the dangers of fatty foods while leaving the option open to those who wish to eat the disgusting mess that they serve there. It's amazing how I am able to keep myself safe from these dangers without the help of Uncle Sam.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

If cigarette smokers smoked good tobacco, I wouldn't mind the second-hand smoke. Until then, ban it.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> If cigarette smokers smoked good tobacco, I wouldn't mind the second-hand smoke. Until then, ban it.


Good point. The low-tar stuff people smoke these days smells awful - not like real tobacco at all (I'm an ex-smoker of Gitanes - not only the best-smelling cigarette tobacco, also the best-looking packet).


----------



## Vettriano Man (Jun 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO A BAR OR RESTAURANT THAT ALLOWS SMOKING.


Well Badrabbit, it seems to me they mostly all allow it. I like traditional city pubs and wine bars and if I knew of any in my regular business vicinities where it's smoking free then I would patronize them - they are certainly extremely hard to find in London, if at all in the provinces. I resent being made to feel like a second class citizen trudging round looking for such establishments and often don't have the time to do so anyway. Maybe this isn't the case in the US.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vettriano man_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't have to go to a bar or restaurant at all.

Certainly in Europe there are less non-smoking places than there are in the US but the answer to the problem is not legislating what people can do with their businesses. If the non-smokers want non-smoking establishments, they should boycott the ones that allow smoking. Someone will almost immediately step up and offer the alternative you seek if they can make money doing it. By allowing the free market to take care of things, everyone has a place they can go. You are demanding that someone else be made a second class citizen so that you won't have to feel like one. You want to take away someone else's rights so you can have what you perceive as yours.

One can always eat or drink at home where he can control his environment and if enough people do so because of the smoking issue, restaurants and bars will pop up to fill the needs of the smoke averse. The answer is not to legislate away others' freedoms. Your purchasing power represents your most powerful democratic force. The problem is most people lack the willpower to use it effectively. No one wants to have to take even minor steps to protect himself individually when he can ask the government to protect us collectively. Unfortunately, peoples ideas of threats are never the same. What I want to be protected from may be your favorite activity. The things that scare you may be exciting to me. Collectively, we all lose the rights to do some things that we enjoy and lose our freedom to live as we see fit when we allow the government to protect us from ourselves.

We have traded in our monarchies who controlled our lives and "protected" us for governments who do the same. The modern citizen no longer feels the need to exercise any individualized efforts to protect himself from the world around him. He has been a dependent of the state for so long he feels that the government is the only force saving him from death. Millions are no longer able to feed themselves except by asking the government to steal bread from the tables of others. No one feels any need for personal responsibility because they can always petition the government to eliminate any perceived threat.

How long is it before your daily actions are perceived as a threat to someone else? How long before the government removes something you enjoy? How long before all need to think as an individual is forgotten?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vettriano man_
> 
> Last Friday, I met a friend in the square mile for lunch in a well known French-style cafe/bar and on entering were asked "smoking or no smoking". It was very full and the first non-smoking table offered to us was right in a service gangway so we asked to change and the second was not too far away from a smoking area, but the smoke was still wafting across our way and it really made the lunch unpleasant and I emerged with a croaky throat. At 1.00pm it was too late to go looking for anywhere else so we reluctantly stayed put, but we both agreed that it has really got to change, and hopefully it will because most people actually value their life and want to enjoy and embrace it - it's short enough anyway.


Aaaw...poor baby...wassa'maddooo??? That yucky yucky cigawette smoke wuined your wittoo wunch??? I'm sorry, but with all due respect...if you're really that delicate...than it is I who pity you...

Nah, you werent in the bar to drink alcohol...you were just there to pick up a lady and try and bed her before even learning her last name...because there's no health risk there, right???

I know my sarcasm doesnt translate well to written word...but I mean no disrespect, all I'm saying is, even though you're intentionally trying to misunderstand me, my message is a simple one...I will not appologize for smoking...

With the deamonization of tobacco in our society, people look upon smokers like rogues hell-bent on killing them sqiftly and efficiently with their deadly 2nd hand smoke (now THAT was sarcasm)...all I'm trying to say is that isnt the case...we are brainwashed from the time we're in grade school that "smoking is bad for you" "smoking will kill you"...now call me stupid or whatever (I've been called alot worse)...but I just dont believe it is as bad as they'd have you believe it is, sometimes when I'm smoking in a public place and somebody walks by me, they will literally shield their face with their shirt as if somebody just locked them in a chamber full of mustard gas...they want smokers to feel as though they are doing something wrong, and owe society an appology...such is not the case...of course, I know I'll not change your mind on this subject, and you wont change mine, which is fine...but...I must say that if you truly believe that if just smelling cigarette smoke is detremental to your health, perhaps you really should be living in a big plastic bubble safley guarded from society and all the perils of the everyday world...but as has been said before...smoking isnt the only thing that's going to kill you, and I'd be willing to bet that my diet and exercise routine is much better than probably 90% of these "healthy" people out there who wont allow that vile 2nd hand smoke into the great temple that is their body (once again...sarcasm)...

...but whatever...

*****
"When you wear lapels like the swellest of swells, you can pass any mirror and...
*smile*
...You've either got or you haven't got style!!!"​


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by The Gabba Goul_
> 
> Aaaw...poor baby...wassa'maddooo??? That yucky yucky cigawette smoke wuined your wittoo wunch??? I'm sorry, but with all due respect...if you're really that delicate...than it is I who pity you...


Wait. You're the one who acted like the Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark being confronted with the true ark over someone wearing a Tommy Bahama shirt and shorts to a restaurant and you have the nerve to mock someone who doesn't want to have to smell cigarette smoke while they eat? What a hypocrite. If you don't like seeing what people wear to restaurants, stay at home and eat.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

There's a big difference, I never said they ruined my dinner with how they dressed...I only said that I wished they would make more of an effort...besides...I dont smoke in restaurants...but keep on pretending like you dont get it...

*****
"When you wear lapels like the swellest of swells, you can pass any mirror and...
*smile*
...You've either got or you haven't got style!!!"​


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by The Gabba Goul_
> 
> There's a big difference...besides...I dont smoke in restaurants...but keep on pretending like you dont get it...


No. You said it made your dinner unpleasant and it was upsetting to you.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Well whatever...but the difference is that nobody is being forced to wear nice clothes to dinner, whereas smokers are being forced out of restaurants/bars, etc...to you it may be a trivial thing, perhaps even more trivial than some guy wearing his Aeropostale finery to a nice dinner...but to a smoker, it is kind of a big deal...

*****
"When you wear lapels like the swellest of swells, you can pass any mirror and...
*smile*
...You've either got or you haven't got style!!!"​


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

I abhor cigarette smoke and always have. But I don't believe that, in a democracy, any government should forbid smoking in a privately owned space, such as a restaurant, unless smoking is to be made a criminal act: such is the bedrock theory of our law, forbidding only what is criminal. As Gabba writes, I may (and do) avoid smoke-filled places and have walked out of more than one because of the physical and aesthetic misery that cigarette smoke inflicts.

However, if smoking be allowed, as it is, no public funds should be used to succour the selfish (or weak) person who, knowing that tobacco smoke is in the end deadly, continues to smoke. Everyone in the United States has known since the 1960s that smoking is worse than unhealthy; so if the smoker contracts cancer, he ought to be denied governmentally subsidized medical care: why should I pay for his self-centered indulgence of a dangerous practice?

Clearly, the various bans on smoking in privately-owned public places are at least as much indirect attempts to outlaw a dangerous practice as attempts to accomodate the nonsmoking majority. Would that our legislators were clearer-thinking and less pusillanimous.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rws_
> 
> I abhor cigarette smoke and always have. But I don't believe that, in a democracy, any government should forbid smoking in a privately owned space, such as a restaurant, unless smoking is to be made a criminal act: such is the bedrock theory of our law, forbidding only what is criminal. As Gabba writes, I may (and do) avoid smoke-filled places and have walked out of more than one because of the physical and aesthetic misery that cigarette smoke inflicts.
> 
> ...


RWS:

The smoking ban initiatives I am familiar with had their impetus in the desire of workers, not patrons, to have smoke free working environments--this was a public health issue for employees. Just as the government has tried to insure minimal safety standards in other industries, smoking bans are used to insure minimal safety standards in the hospitality industry. To use the logic of some of the posters here, business owners should be allowed to expose workers to whatever hazardous substances they please, because government has no right to tell the owners of private property what can or can't be done on the property.


----------



## rws (May 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> . . . . The smoking ban initiatives I am familiar with had their impetus in the desire of workers, not patrons, to have smoke free working environments--this was a public health issue for employees. . . .


That certainly is a solider basis, bosthist, for regulation than what I had been aware of (though, of course, one still might argue the free choice of contractual labor and the inequity of uncompensated governmental "taking").


----------



## n/a (Sep 4, 2002)

Since this topic has moved from booze to tobacco (we now know who the drinkers are), I would like to add a minor point: what about our clothes?

I abhor the smell of tobacco on my suits. Though I am a smoker myself, I do not like arriving at the office smelling like I stopped into a pub for breakfast. It is simply a matter of courtesy to my (mostly non-smoking) co-workers.

For this reason I will not enter a smoking area during working hours and will change into jeans, T-shirt and denim jacket before any post-work drinking. Five minutes at Halfway to Heaven near Trafalgar Square is sufficient to ruin any suit! Yet I have seen patrons in suits that donâ€™t seem to care.

So to my original point earlier in this thread, I would welcome a smoking ban in London pubs. (To be fair, there are establishments with non-smoking sections, but the smell is hard to escape.)

"When Britain first at Heaven's Command arose from out the azure main, this was the character of the land and guardian angels sung the strain: Rule Britannia! Britannia rule the waves! Britons shall _*never*_ be slaves."


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Jason Evans_
> 
> I abhor the smell of tobacco on my suits.


So do I. To add to what I said about the foul smell of low-tar cigarette tobacco, the smell it leaves on clothes is particularly bad. Since wool (and ladies' hair, incidentally) seems to pick up odours especially well, suits can indeed smell disgusting after exposure to tobacco smoke in bars. I often take my jacket off when I come home after being with smokers and leave it outside overnight to freshen up (under cover of course). The smell a good cigar leaves on a tweed jacket is different.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

There is certainly some odd reasoning being displayed in some of these posts. Much is made that bars and restaurants are "private property": well, true enough, but there are different kinds of private property. Bars and restaurants may be privately owned, but they solicit business from the public and they invite the paying public to enter their establishments and partake of their comforts and services; thus, they are subject to much greater regulation and oversight in matters pertaining to public safety than are private homes or clubs, as several posters have noted. This isn't merely an invention of the nanny state, but a venerable principle of Anglo-American common law. Libertarians might find this distasteful, but, then, their touching faith in The Market often blinds them to the way the world really works.

One might also note that unlike many other vices and pleasures of the flesh, smoking necessarily imposes itself upon others. One can sit at a bar and drink oneself stupid, but that doesn't really concern anyone else present (well one's drunken _conduct_ may become an annoyance, but the alcohol itself is relatively innocuous.) The same is true of much drug use and even gluttony. However, the same cannot be said of smoking. The noxious byproduct of the practice cannot be confined to the person indulging his habit. Even the smoke that a smoker inhales must be exhaled. Thus, even one smoker in a roomful of people compels the others to share in his pleasure. It appears that the consensus among the voting public is that this is no longer acceptable; hence much restrictive legislation aimed at eliminating smoking from most public places. Democracy in action.

That said, one may still question the wisdom and justice of banning smoking from the public realm. Here I should disclose that for the better part of a decade I was an 80-a-day man, but I haven't touched a butt in over twenty years - So I've been part of the "problem" and I now benefit from the "solution." I must say, elimination of the cloud of rancid smoke that formerly filled every enclosed public space is wonderful. Indeed, it's hard to believe that the public tolerated this wretched state of affairs for so long; but Americans are nothing if not docile. Be that as it may, it is hard to escape the conclusion that much of the motivation for banning public smoking is thinly disguised class antagonism. Every year, cigarette smoking becomes more and more a vice associated with the poor and poorly-educated: I believe the most recent statistics indicate that less than ten percent of college graduates smoke; whereas nearly fifty percent of high-school dropouts smoke. Thus, one might conclude that much of the motivation behind the suppression of smoking is to avoid contact with smokers, as much as it is to avoid smoke, even when the rationale behind the suppression is phrased as a matter of workplace safety; but this may just be my Marx showing. And while a smoke-free public environment is a very good thing indeed, one can't help but think that it shouldn't rank very high on the list of public priorities, given the numberless outrages that need to be addressed. I'd gladly trade smoke-free restaurants for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> And while a smoke-free public environment is a very good thing indeed, one can't help but think that it shouldn't rank very high on the list of public priorities, given the numberless outrages that need to be addressed. I'd gladly trade smoke-free restaurants for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.


Given that control over smoking in public places began at the local level, banning smoking is much easier. I don't think the current administration is holding a referendum on withdrawing from Iraq any time soon. I'd like to see them try however.


----------



## Yckmwia (Mar 29, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're quite right, of course; but I'd suggest that this is another instance of the ingrained American docility that I mentioned.



> quote:I don't think the current administration is holding a referendum on withdrawing from Iraq any time soon. I'd like to see them try however.


Such a referendum would be very interesting. I think many would be surprised by the results.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> The smoking ban initiatives I am familiar with had their impetus in the desire of workers, not patrons, to have smoke free working environments--this was a public health issue for employees.


I agree that non-smoking bar and restaurant staff shouldn't be exposed to smoke in enclosed spaces in order to earn their daily bread.

I DO think that restaurants and bars which offer an outdoor smoking area, protected from the elements, provide a reasonable accommodation for their smoking patrons.


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by petro_
> 3) I passed largely on the back of some seriously questionable statistics on second hand smoke. If you take what their peddling at face value, sitting next to a smoker for 5 minutes a day is more dangerous than actually INHALING a pack a day. Utter bollocks.
> 
> California has the same sort of stupid laws, and yeah, it's nicer to drink in a bar w/out the smoke. But it's nicer to live in a country were the government can't point their "long arm" at a PRIVATE CITIZEN (aka the bar owner) and threaten them with legal sanction for letting free people indulge in a nominally legal passtime in a place that no one is required to be in.
> ...


I not a scientist but I've heard reports that the EPA study is dubious. Dunno. I do think that it should be up to the each bar whether it permits smoking or not. I also think that private offices and private dining rooms with good ventilation should be allowed smokers to smoke in them. 
Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle but I'd like to see restaurants go back to smoking/non-smoking sections. Hell have the smoking section completely sealed off.

I usually will only go to a bar or cafe where smoking is allowed.

What's interesting to me about the rhetoric of the anti-smoking cabal is that they've not so much reinforced the idea that smoking will kill you, which everyone knows, but that smoking is a lower-class activity. Often reports will report on the demographics of smokers, that they live in trailers, etc. I don't know if their findings are true but the point is to shame smokers -- to incite status anxiety.

edit: egregious typos. Also on other posts but I'm not going back and editing.


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> Having only recently escaped the substance abuse counseling racket,


Curious why you think it's a racket? Not a loaded question, just curious.


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

Allow me to add to your comment the fact that I bet a not insignifcant number of non-smokers will smoke at a bar if they get drunk enough.



> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> 
> For those of you on the pro smoking-ban side of things, you keep on insisting that you should be able to go to a bar or restaurant without being having to deal with a smoke filled environment. YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO A BAR OR RESTAURANT THAT ALLOWS SMOKING. It is not your right to dictate what other people can allow on their own property. The bar or restaurant should be allowed to make its own decisions just as you make a decision on where you wish to go. IF enough people were really opposed to it, most restaurants would eventually ban smoking of their own free wills. If non-smokers refused to go to establishments that allowed smoking, the businesses would either have to change their policy or go broke. Instead, you are more than happy to heap more laws on societies that already restrict more and more of our freedoms every day.
> 
> ...


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

I love Gitanes. That's serious tabac.



> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rws_
> 
> However, if smoking be allowed, as it is, no public funds should be used to succour the selfish (or weak) person who, knowing that tobacco smoke is in the end deadly, continues to smoke. Everyone in the United States has known since the 1960s that smoking is worse than unhealthy; so if the smoker contracts cancer, he ought to be denied governmentally subsidized medical care: why should I pay for his self-centered indulgence of a dangerous practice?


Though I sympathize with BadRabbit, I'm not a free-marketeer, so I wouldn't make the argument he made. By the same token, I don't think I'd go the route of RWS. Would you not also then disallow public funds toward those who destroyed their livers with alcohol or who had over-eaten all their lives, or never exercised or who ate bad food, or who sat a chair all day and thereby crunched their lower backs? We all know these things aren't good for you either.


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's the rub, and here I agree with Bothist, unfortunately. As I said earlier, the genie's out of the bottle in the US, but in other countries, those who are waitstaff know full well that they may be working around smoke.


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Yckmwia_
> 
> That said, one may still question the wisdom and justice of banning smoking from the public realm. Here I should disclose that for the better part of a decade I was an 80-a-day man, but I haven't touched a butt in over twenty years - So I've been part of the "problem" and I now benefit from the "solution." I must say, elimination of the cloud of rancid smoke that formerly filled every enclosed public space is wonderful. Indeed, it's hard to believe that the public tolerated this wretched state of affairs for so long; but Americans are nothing if not docile. Be that as it may, it is hard to escape the conclusion that much of the motivation for banning public smoking is thinly disguised class antagonism. Every year, cigarette smoking becomes more and more a vice associated with the poor and poorly-educated: I believe the most recent statistics indicate that less than ten percent of college graduates smoke; whereas nearly fifty percent of high-school dropouts smoke. Thus, one might conclude that much of the motivation behind the suppression of smoking is to avoid contact with smokers, as much as it is to avoid smoke, even when the rationale behind the suppression is phrased as a matter of workplace safety; but this may just be my Marx showing. And while a smoke-free public environment is a very good thing indeed, one can't help but think that it shouldn't rank very high on the list of public priorities, given the numberless outrages that need to be addressed. I'd gladly trade smoke-free restaurants for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.


Y -- sorry didn't see your post before I myself posted this flurry of messages. Your point on class antagonism is a good one and more well-stated than mine.

It is difficult to imagine the amount of smoke back in the old days, but then again -- I always entered by choice.

In general, as to clothes -- I hang out suits to air and use a clothes brush. The other stuff like shirts get laundered of course.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Horace_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Part hyperbole, part truth. Drug and alcohol treatment is a business; add non-profit tax status to the usual barely concealed greed and you get some interesting results.

Also by the end of my tenure it felt like a racket, not to mention the racket going on in my skull every time I tried to crap out with a meditative cigar.

To veer abruptly back to the original question, I don't worry about my alcohol intake because I don't drink anymore. People with questions would do well to read either _Under the Influence_ (James Milam and Katherine Ketcham) or _Beyond the Influence_ (Ketcham). Both books explain very clearly the physiological differences between the true alcoholic and the problem drinker (among other things).

But as a general rule, if you are concerned your alcohol use is disrupting your life in some way, it probably is. The sad thing is most people only come to that conclusion reluctantly and while sitting in the drunk tank or the hospital.


----------



## n/a (Sep 4, 2002)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> To veer abruptly back to the original question, I don't worry about my alcohol intake because I don't drink anymore. People with questions would do well to read either _Under the Influence_ (James Milam and Katherine Ketcham) or _Beyond the Influence_ (Ketcham). Both books explain very clearly the physiological differences between the true alcoholic and the problem drinker (among other things).
> 
> But as a general rule, if you are concerned your alcohol use is disrupting your life in some way, it probably is. The sad thing is most people only come to that conclusion reluctantly and while sitting in the drunk tank or the hospital.


Very interesting, Patrick. If you have a moment, would it be possible to summarize how you perceive the differences between the "true alcoholic" and the "problem drinker"?

It might be of benefit to us all. And therefore my thanks in advance.

"When Britain first at Heaven's Command arose from out the azure main, this was the character of the land and guardian angels sung the strain: Rule Britannia! Britannia rule the waves! Britons shall _*never*_ be slaves."


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Tonight my nightcap is green Chartreuse. Does anyone understand what Anthony Blanche meant about five distinct tastes? It's a complex flavor, but to me it just tastes like green Chartreuse.


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> Does anyone understand what Anthony Blanche meant about five distinct tastes?


Old Rojo,

I've f-f-f-f-forgotten Blanche's c-c-c-comments on Chartreuse. W-w-w-would you please enlighten us?


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vettriano man_
> 
> How about you?


I don't drink at all (control issue), so it's not a problem for me.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Rojo, Horace
Who's Anthony Blanche?
Cheers


----------



## n/a (Sep 4, 2002)

> quote:_Originally posted by mpcsb_
> 
> Rojo, Horace
> Who's Anthony Blanche?
> Cheers


Thank-you, I was curious myself but too embarrassed to inquire.

"When Britain first at Heaven's Command arose from out the azure main, this was the character of the land and guardian angels sung the strain: Rule Britannia! Britannia rule the waves! Britons shall _*never*_ be slaves."


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Jason Evans_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A problem drinker drinks to get drunk; might experience liver problems; might come to the attention of the authorities (i.e. DWI); may have family or work problems associated with his drinking (punctuality, being hungover at work, getting sloppy at the dinner table, kicking the cat...) The problem drinker's tolerance goes up; he needs more to achieve the desired effect.

An alcoholic does all of that and more; he has a physical addiction to alcohol. If he doesn't maintain a certain blood alcohol content, he goes into withdrawal. The alcoholic's life is completely dominated by the need to obtain booze, consume same, and maintain a steady source of supply.

The problem drinker is almost indistinguishable from the early and middle stage alcoholic. There are two imperfect ways to tell which is which:

1. Abstinence. If a problem drinker can give the stuff up, or drastically modify his drinking pattern and keep it modified for an indefinite period, then he's probably not an alcoholic.

2. Let it play itself out. As the drinking progesses, everyone except the afflicted person will figure it out. And eventually the alcoholic will reach a moment of crisis and have to take steps.

I've known a lot of boozehounds and the first variety - people who just get sick of it for whatever reason and quit - are fairly rare. They do exist, however.

Again let me suggest reading Milam's "Under the Influence" for a good overview of these topics - much better than I can do here.

People interested in what to do about alcoholism or drug addiction can check out the free stuff published by AA and NA.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 1. Abstinence. If a problem drinker can give the stuff up, or drastically modify his drinking pattern and keep it modified for an indefinite period, then he's probably not an alcoholic.


But that would ignore the type of alcoholic known as a "periodic," a person who can go weeks or months or even years without a drink, but when he does, he exhibits the same lack of control as his daily-drinking brethren. What the two types share is a lack of control over intake once they take the first one, and that is what distinguishes them from other drinkers. Some believe that what alcoholics have is not an addiction, per se, but a physical allergy to the stuff, triggered by the first drink, that forces them to continue well past the point of feeling good.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Crs, I agree. [unnamed relative] quit cold turkey nearly 30 years ago. However, still refers to himself as a "recovering alcoholic" even though he hasn't had a drink since 1979. I asked why. He said "because if I were to take a drink right now, I KNOW I would just keep going, get loaded, and tomorrow I'd feel so awful." Another relative, did, in fact, go for about the same period, and then started to sneak "just one." The situation quickly deteriorated and that other relative was wise enough to call the whole thing off for good. In other words, one can have fierce determination and admirable will power, but it never means he is no longer an alcoholic. One slip and the **** bursts.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

American edition of Brideshead Revisited, page 53, Anthony Blanche says: "Real G-g-green Chartreuse, made before the expulsion of the monks. There are five distinct tastes as it trickles over the tongue. It is like swallowing a sp-spectrum."

The Chartreuse monks were expelled from France in 1903. According to the Chartreuse web site, only two of them know the formula, which supposedly has been unchanged for centuries?

It also says it should be consumed very cold. I've been drinking it at room temperature. Maybe that's the problem?


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> Tonight my nightcap is green Chartreuse. Does anyone understand what Anthony Blanche meant about five distinct tastes? It's a complex flavor, but to me it just tastes like green Chartreuse.


One taste on the tip of the tongue, one as it slides over the tongue, one as is slides down the back of the tongue, one immediate aftertaste, one delayed aftertaste. Wasn't he great in the film?
I believe he was based on a real-life person (who?).


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crs_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Similar to the "dry drunk" - the fellow who quits the stuff but continues the same behaviors.

Periodics aren't problem drinkers, because they can't sustain their modified drinking behavior. Periodics are just alcoholics who manage in some fashion not to drink for a while.

Again, please read AA or Milam for the real scoop.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Anthony Blanche was supposedly based on a composite of two real-life persons: Harold Acton and Brian Howard.


----------

