Tag Archives: smoking

Babies, Alinea, cigarettes

A couple had a reservation at Alinea and their sitter cancelled at the last second and rather than absorb the $500 loss they decided to show up there with their 8-month-old baby.  It didn’t work out, the baby cried, other customers were annoyed, chef Grant Achatz tweeted to his follows to ask how he should have handled it:

Then lots of people went ape about it, as is customary.

Emotions about this stuff run very high, for some reason.  As for me, I wouldn’t bring a baby to Alinea.  Then again, I also wouldn’t think someone who did so was some kind of war criminal.

But what this makes me think about is smoking in restaurants.  Yes, younger readers, people used to do this!  (And in France, even though it’s illegal, they still do, right?  Help me out, French readers.)  If a baby’s crying in a classy place, I’d find it annoying, but I would never say it ruined my experience.  So I’m kind of rejecting the claim that a top-tier dinner is the same thing as a classical music performance or a play from this point of view.  Though see here for further thoughts on the relationship between high-end Chicago dining and the legitimate theatre.

On the other hand, if somebody were smoking at a nearby table?  That person is literally mixing a bad-smelling substance into the food I paid $500 for. It’s hard for me not to see that act as inherently more disruptive and dinner-ruining than a wailing baby.

Which is just to say that all these arguments about what rules should be “obvious to any thinking person” are kind of nuts.  The rules don’t have justification — they are social norms, which are self-justifying.  You shouldn’t bring a baby to Alinea because people, in this country, in this year have come to feel that their $500 buys them the right not to hear a baby.  In some places and times, it didn’t buy you the right not to have cigarette smoke in your food.  No one, back then, would have complained that the smokers in the room were ruining their special night — right?  But now we would.  Cigarettes haven’t changed, food hasn’t changed, noses haven’t changed:  only the rules we make up for ourselves have changed.

In the comments, feel free to rant about how much you hate smokers, how much you hate breeders, how much you hate non-smokers, how much you hate non-breeders, or what rights you consider yourself to have purchased when you go out for a very expensive meal.

Tagged , , , ,

How it was with tobacco

I was looking through old issues of Fact for a book review by Gershon Legman, and came across this, from the March-April 1964 issue:

Writing about lung cancer in Cosmopolitan a few years ago, Gordon and Kenneth Boggs reported:  “Now that the furor has died down and experts have had time to examine the supposedly damning statistics, the cigarette seems to be all but exonerated.”  Besides, “filters have removed much of the sting from the general condemnation.”

What do Gordon and Kenneth Boggs say today?  Not a word.  They can’t.

The article was originally submitted to Cosmopolitan by two writers who said nothing whatsoever about cigarettes being “all but exonerated” and about any protection afforded by filters.  The editors asked the writers to insert a few sentences to that effect; they refused.  The editors themselves added the sentences.  Onto the article they put the by-line “By Gordon and Kenneth Boggs,” who do not exist.

Is this actually the way things used to work?

Tagged , , ,
%d bloggers like this: