June 06, 2003


Bars are banning smoking, cell phones, and now possibly even swearing. Expect alcohol to be next.

Posted by Tim Blair at June 6, 2003 02:09 PM

It is all a tad hypothetical now for Victorians: Bracks killed off pub and restaurant life with his smoking bans.Forgetting, the premises falling under his puritan laws are not his property nor the businesses his businesses.

The Spring ST. dribblers should confine themselves to sucking on their dummies.They'd still look silly, but cause less damage,

Posted by: d at June 6, 2003 at 04:27 PM

Swear Jars??? I thought that went out in the late sixties?

Posted by: Niall at June 6, 2003 at 05:19 PM

Tim, everyone, please visit "war nerd".
He is the messiah.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at June 6, 2003 at 08:13 PM

Maybe to you, Jack... to me he's just another asshole who thinks he's being clever by writing a parody about warbloggers.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at June 6, 2003 at 08:42 PM

Well, maybe some bureaucrat will have the 'brilliant' idea of banning alcohol in pubs, so as not to offend Muslims.

Let's just wait and see how long it takes for reality to catch up (and probably overtake) satire, shall we?

Posted by: Korgmeister at June 6, 2003 at 10:09 PM

You're not giving the idea a chance. They could introduce special "Singapore nights", with no swearing, no smoking, no spitting, no cell phones, no gum chewing... and any violators would have to buy a round of whatever they're drinking for everyone in the place. Caning could be offered as an alternative for the less solvent punters, but then, that could draw in an entirely different crowd.

Posted by: LB at June 6, 2003 at 11:08 PM

That fucking sucks. The Nanny State marches onward.

Posted by: Eric Lindholm at June 6, 2003 at 11:48 PM

It's free enterprise this time, not the government.

Has attendence actually gone down since the bans have come in? There is a theory that when one bans smoking then ppl who don't like all the smoking can then go out more.
I suppose it would come down to who has the greater numbers, those who would not go to a pub if it didn't have smoking, or those who wouldn't go to a pub if it did have smoking.

Posted by: Factory at June 7, 2003 at 12:25 AM

Reminds me of an Eddie Izzard bit (paraphrased from a bit on the smoking ban in California bars): "Yeah, no smoking in bars in California now. And soon, no drinking and no talking." He just got the order wrong.

OK, and the city, country and continent...

Posted by: Steve Gigl at June 7, 2003 at 12:29 AM

My sister has a cuss jar and the fucker is full (mostly from me).

Posted by: Andrew at June 7, 2003 at 02:03 AM

"There is a theory that when one bans smoking then ppl who don't like all the smoking can then go out more."

There was a theory that the Earth was flat once, too.

Posted by: Yobbo at June 7, 2003 at 02:49 AM

This is just amazingly stupid that for bloody sure. I loath pubs with no smoke in them and I don't even smoke. They just don't have the right ambiance without an inch of smoke on the roof. BTW on that front, how many bar staff have you ever seen that don't smoke?

Posted by: Andrew Ian Castel-Dodge at June 7, 2003 at 03:16 AM

It's all part of the master-plan to convert you all to sock-and-sandal pine-nut-chomping latte-quaffing Starbucks haunters, talk about stock-options and firing the nanny all day.

Tuck that shirt into your shorts, laddie, while you're about it.

Posted by: Hoodie Craw at June 7, 2003 at 03:21 AM

I agree with Andrew. I've been to bars in LA with the smoking ban, and it's more like a library (Or would be, If libraries had 30-40 people outside them smoking).

Smoke is part of the ambience of a bar, and people don't stay away from pubs because of smoke. They stay away because they are nerds and have no friends!

Posted by: Yobbo at June 7, 2003 at 07:39 AM

They can have my goddamn swear words when they pry them off my cold, dead tongue!

Posted by: Matt at June 7, 2003 at 08:23 AM

I'm very much in favour of banning things. It makes them cheaper than having them taxed, more fun to do, and gives me more thumbs to stick in the eyes of control-Nazis.

Posted by: Theodopoulos Pherecydes at June 7, 2003 at 09:16 PM

This is a warning to Oz from Northern California: WATCH OUT! This creeping fanatical Big Sister nannyism is going to turn Australia into a gigantic version of California, and you do NOT want that to happen. I am coming down there in September, and I expect everything to be back the way it was.

Thank you.

Posted by: ekw at June 8, 2003 at 10:43 AM


Going down for World Cup Rugby? Don't miss the Bourbon and Beefsteak in Kings Cross. I am told I had a great time there.

Posted by: Andrew at June 8, 2003 at 03:57 PM

It's high time there was a ban on dogooders. While telling other people how to live is surely excellent for a busybody's health, I'm sure that being subjected to endless preaching is very bad for one's nerves and is much more harmful than smoking.
So, to paraphrase an Italian ad against smoking, "Dogooders are bad for you too. Tell them to stop!"

Posted by: Daniela C. at June 10, 2003 at 05:10 AM

Yes,there are establishments noteable for the absence of patrons.
As for the `theory', what did non-smokers do before, sit at home and fret: gee, honey, better stay home, smokers are on the loose.

One didn't smoke until mid-20's. Until then, didn't like it nor the smoke but, I didn't mind sitting in smoke filled pubs , nor minded in smokers in restaurants. On the other hand, it wasn't my damned business: take the dribblers in Spring St. out of the picture, anyone walking into a bar or restaurant and said, before I sit down you can just stub that out and not light up while I'm here , would look like the moron they are.

Next, if there is revenue in it, then some proprietors would run and advertise smoking free pubs, bars, restaurants.
But , at the end of the day, the government has ridden roughshod over freedom and property rights and thus too over common law. So agree or not, viz smoking in establishments, it is the fact that Spring St. dribblers have done so which is the major offence.

Moralising, finger-waving nannies who cry - `there oughta be law against x', are only serving one cause, tyranny.The Spring St dribbling nincompoops should not only butt out but be compelled to do so.

Posted by: d at June 10, 2003 at 11:20 AM

You know what I say to that?


That's what I say to that.

Posted by: Brendan at June 10, 2003 at 12:08 PM