St. Louis recently went under a city-wide smoking ban, which, naturally, comes with enough policies, guidelines, restrictions, quandaries, and political minutiae to skin a cat. I don’t know how many protocols that is. But figuring that guidelines and procedures rarely have sharp edges, one must assume it’s a lot.
Here’s one of the stipulations I find particularly enjoyable:
“WARNING: SMOKING ALLOWED HERE”
I first spotted this sign at DB’s in Soulard, and figured it to be a fairly clever tongue-in-cheek joke. “Warning,” in the event that it wasn’t clear before to smokers and non-smokers alike that smoking is dangerous. Ironic, because anyone planning on going to DB’s—a not-quite-but-almost-topless bar—should really have more immediate and visual worries than second-hand smoke. But primarily because smokers, especially, like to sneer in the face of that danger and authority. Be careful, smokers, you’ll actually have an opportunity to enjoy yourselves here!
Then I found out that these signs are mandatory. And according to one bar owner, the rules are very specific: ALL CAPS (cruise control), Arial font, plain black and white, clearly visible, etc.
Whoever’s in charge of making these policies clearly doesn’t get it. And it’s been the same guy for decades. He’s also responsible for:
As well as:
Aren’t you frightened?
Frankly, I’m (not a smoker, but theoretically) happier to light up a cigarette knowing that the man thinks it’s bad for my health, just as I was happier listening to alubms with lyrics that I suspected would make my parents’ blood boil.
And the deliciously ironic twist: signs like these have a history of effecting the opposite of the intended result. They’ve made more than one movie out of it. Every bar owner I’ve spoken to has cited better business since the stipulation-enforced ban—except for one, whose size to food served ratio requires them to ban smokers and either send them outside or to any of the four smaller bars down and across the street who pass under the smoking ban’s radar. Last I heard, they’re jostling with the area behind the bar, which can sometimes be considered walking space, and sometimes be considered storage space. If they get it just right, their ratio will go down, and they’ll be able to appeal.
So now, instead of bar/restaurants having a smoking section off to the side, the smoking section is now perched out right at the front door as I walk in. I bet concerned soccer moms couldn’t be happier. Mission accomplished?
“Banning” something from a rebel doesn’t work.
(PS – here’s how SouthPark dealt with rebels.)
It’s all gone mad in UK.
One of the warning notices here is “Smokers die younger”. Than what? Than whom?
My wife (a non-smoker all her life) died a few years ago (aged 49).
I have smoked continuously for the last 41 years and I’m still alive. Proof positive that smokers do not (necessarily) die younger.
Why not make a true statement, such as “If you smoke, you may die earlier than if you didn’t smoke”.
That is true.
One of the many “We know better than you, and therefore will tell you what you may or may not do” nonsense untruths.
If government representatives really feel they need to wet-nurse those who elected them, they should at least be honest and accurate.
(Just popping out for a drag).
Is it wet-nursing, or is it simply a scare tactic?
Currently, it feels like the sign campaign is having the opposite of the intended effect—driving business away from smoke-free venues and to smoke-allowed establishments.
But I think you’re on to something, in that a campaign that was a little more honest and balanced, using words like “if” and “may,” might be received better than another bash over the head (“WARNING!”) with big scary words.
-J