Kids in bars--what the heck are parents thinking?
First of all, let me say that I am childless by choice. Secondly, I like kids. I really do.
That said, I firmly believe that kids have their place. I've learned (or been forced) to put up with children invading places where they weren't seen or welcome not too long ago. I think it's a shame when I dress up to enjoy a $50 meal that I have to sit next to a loud, unruly kid in a T-shirt (which happened to a friend of mind just last weekend). Time was when parents had the good common sense to leave the kids at home when going to an expensive, four-star restaurant, but not any more.
But while I've learned to put up with kids screaming while I am trying to enjoy a dirty martini and a Kobe filet, I am putting my foot down and drawing the line: Parents, leave your kids at home when you go out drinking in bars! I don't care how strong your need is to satisfy your latent alcoholism or how much you think your kids belong any place and every place you go, but your children don't belong in bars.
Apparently it's not apparent to parents that bars are not healthy places for kids. Or that others may want a little adult time when socializing with friends over drinks. Or that it might make some people uncomfortable to be stared at by a child while trying to enjoy a $15 martini. Or that many of the folks in bars are trying to get a little R&R time away from kids--not just their kids, but all kids. Or that servers carrying trays of drinks shouldn't have to worry about wandering rug rats underfoot. Or, finally, that it's just plain insensitive and presumptuous to treat a pub or nightclub as if its your family room.
But according to the New York Times, parents are increasingly finding it appropriate to take the little tykes out with them when they drink. One bar thought it reasonable to put up a sign saying "No Strollers," but soon found they were dealing with angry neighborhood parents. (Really? Does a "no stroller" policy in a bar really seem that outlandish?!?)
The irony is that just as we nonsmokers--who make up a majority of the drinking public--succeed in getting cities to ban smoking in bars, parents now feel the smoke-free environments are appropriate for their linoleum lizards. According go the NYTimes.com article, "After a recent smoking ban, more families have been bringing children to pubs." If I have to choose between clouds of smoke and bars being turned into playgrounds, I'll take the second-hand tar and nicotine, please.
Parents of America, I'll make you a deal: You avoid bringing your children to the bars where I drink, and I'll avoid watching porn and dropping frequent F-bombs in the McDonald's Playland. If your kids stay where they belong, I'll promise to stay where I belong. Deal?
4 comments:
You know, some of us go to bars because it's a traditionally appropriate public place to go to be able to smoke. And yet, instead of letting individual bars dictate whether to allow smoking or not, people like you would have a blanket ban on smoking in bars.
I find your annoyance at this consequence delightfully ironic.
I wholeheartedly support the notion that an establishment should be able to create its own set of rules (within a framework that protects civil rights and liberties, of course). You should, too. Then places that cater to your demographic - presumably those which disallow smoking and small children, among, I'm sure, other things - can market themselves as such, and you will happily visit them regularly.
My dear nicotine-addicted friend Josh,
Smokers love to say that bars should be able to choose whether to allow smoking or not. For you smokers, it's a question of civil liberty.
Let's go about this another way. Should I be able to kill anyone who enters my property under the guise of individual rights and civil liberty? Of course not. So let's say bars were allowed to kill any patron--oh wait, THEY ARE!
Smoking kills. No doubt about. Rock-solid scientific proof shows that first- and second-hand smoke kills. One can drink healthy--a drink or two doesn't impair a person, and evidence shows it imparts some healthy benefits--but there is no such thing as a healthy puff on a cigarette. That habit is killing you, and it is killing others who work in the environments in which you smoke.
Why should we allow bars to create environments were people are killed, even if it is a slow death? I believe my right to life trumps the bar's right to permit an unhealthy situation (or your right to smoke.)
Of course, you are an addicted smoker, and--with all due respect--this means you aren't exactly objective. Addicts will do all sorts of things to permit themselves access to the substance to which they're addicted. Smokers have been known to pick butts out of ashtrays or, in some extreme cases, to espouse political beliefs that claim that one person slowly killing another is a civil liberty.
It's well past time we outlawed smoking in all public places. You want to fill your private home with tar and nicotine, and I'll fight for your right to do so. But keep your smoke out of my lungs! If LA, Chicago, Ireland, and hundreds of other places can ban smoking and still have thriving nightlife, I'm pretty sure Milwaukee can survive, too.
By logical extension, then, would you allow me to kill guests I have in my home?
I suspect the answer is no.
And yet you'd support the notion of me smoking up in the presence of friends, so long as it's in my own home.
QED. Your argument - which, with all due respect, emotionalizes the issue and characterizes me as irrational - is inconsistent.
Your right to life is important. But this isn't a question of rights. It's a question of liberties: whether a bar's ability to permit the consumption of a legal substance is more important than your ability to go into any establishment you please and avoid that substance entirely.
No, even if I wasn't a smoker, I'd say what I'm saying: A private business must have an obligation not to discriminate based on race, gender, disability, etc. It must disallow otherwise illegal activities on its premises But beyond that, legislation of its actions violates its liberties without due cause.
I see nanny-state democrats lined up to protect us from ourselves, when, just like right-to-lifers lined up outside an abortion clinic, they should have better things to do.
(How's that for emotionalizing?)
Josh,
I really love your insights and thank you for giving me some things to consider. Seriously, your thoughts are really appreciated.
What you're making me think isn't about whether smoking should be okay in bars since it's a legal activity, but should smoking be legal? You can argue all you want about intrusive government "protecting people from themselves," but government exists to facilitate the activities of individuals in a way that benefits the common good.
I can't drive 90 mph on the expressway because that would endanger me and others. We may disagree with particular speed limits, but I'd guess we all agree in the concept of speed limit laws. So, why then should someone be permitted to smoke anywhere--doesn't this also endanger both the smoker's life and others' lives?
While I did suggest you have a right to smoke in your home, your example of having friends over (and tarring their lungs) makes me think the real issue is that why should smoking be a civil liberty? Why should one person's pursuit of happiness (or their addiction) trump everyone else's pursuit of life?
Can you think of other legal activities that, in any amount and every time, harm the person and the people around them? I can drink one drink and be a safe driver and enjoy health benefits. I can eat a fatty meal and do myself harm, but only a regular diet of fatty meals harms society by causing health costs to rise. I can jump out of a plane and land safely most of the time (but maybe once in a million times the parachutist lands on an innocent victim and kills them). But with smoking, each and every cigarette harms you and those around you. There is no such thing as healthy and moderate smoking, is there?
BTW, you accuse me of characterizing you of being irrational. I am, but really we're all humans and thus we're all irrational. Yes, even me. (Perhaps especially me.)
Still, I simply don't see how anyone can mount any sort of rational argument for smoking. "Yes, it's killing me, harms the health of people around me, causes health care costs to rise, pollutes the air, pollutes our sidewalks and streets, makes my breath smell, yellows my teeth, and causes my clothes to reek, but hey, I enjoy it."
I'm interested if you can think of any legal activity that causes harm each and every time. If not, I'd suggest smoking should be illegal. I never thought that much about it, but your arguments made me think more deeply.
Do we allow smoking because its in the interest of the common good and brings benefits to people and society? Or do we permit smoking because it's something society has always done?
If the latter, we'd be good to remember that there are all sorts of abhorrent things society used to consider acceptable, such as preventing women from having a voice in our government and owning other human beings. And in these two cases, it didn't take the common voice of the people to bring the change; it took an activist government to make right things happen.
Post a Comment