Jump to content

Tobacco ban at OPACY


Sports Guy

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, CP0861 said:

I guess I'm getting old.

I've come full circle on stuff like this. I started dipping at 16 and after going back and forth with it for 25+ years, I finally quit for good about a year and a half ago.

I absolutely, positively started dipping because of baseball.

Long story short, it's just not necessary.  It's just not.  People that chew and dip need to spit and there's no good place to spit at a ballpark. And yes, as someone who spit in a plastic bottle for the entire time I dipped, I realize it's possible but then you have bottles of spit that often get spilled (I spilled countless myself). If I take my kids to a game and someone spills their spit bottle on/near them, there's going to be a problem. I've seen that happen. As a lifelong dipper and season ticket holder, I don't want to hear or see someone obnoxiously spitting next to me for 3 hours. I see that ALL the time too.

As far as legal weed and beer, I don't have the perfect answer for that (except gimme some) and I don't necessarily disagree.  But two (or more) wrongs don't make it right either.  Pointing at something else that's bad as justification doesn't lead to getting anywhere.  I love having a couple of Stella's at the game, but at the same time, I'd be okay with no beer at a stadium. But do I want to pay more for my tickets for that? No, not really.

You say it’s not necessary.  It’s also not necessary to smoke weed, drink or gamble. Hell, it’s not necessary to go the games if someone bothers you because of dipping.

As for someone spilling it..I mean, it can happen and it’s more disgusting than a beer spilled on you but it’s not like that’s a joyous experience.

 

Edited by Sports Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MLB banned players from dipping in 2016 and 16 of the stadiums in the league already have this in place.  Most people that I know who still dip do it pretty inconspicuously and its pretty low on the list of things that I think should be policed at games but whatever, just seems weird. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they have sympathy for the cleaning crew who have trouble cleaning up that tobacco juice in the aisles. Or worse yet, cups full of spit left behind.

As a young whipper snapper, I think the highest I'd ever been in my life is when those Skoal Bandit pouches came out. The thinking was "wow, if one of those makes me feel this good, maybe two will be even better." 
 

To paraphrase Ralphie from Christmas Story, 

"nicotiiiiine poisoning".

It made a Thunderbird drunken nauseous evening feel like a holiday in comparison. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of how you view personal liberties, a lot of people find chewing tobacco and the accompanying spitting disgusting, and don't want to sit next to it at the game for 3 hours straight.  And there's probably far more of those fans than there are tobacco chewers at the games (as the CDC reports that only about 2% of the population chews tobacco). 

So this makes perfect sense from the team's perspective as far as I can see.   

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

i figured it had already happened a decade ago.

I've never know chewers to respect anti-tobacco rules in the first place.

I would argue the chances at least as good as the the number of folks who drink “responsibly”.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Morgan423 said:

Regardless of how you view personal liberties, a lot of people find chewing tobacco and the accompanying spitting disgusting, and don't want to sit next to it at the game for 3 hours straight.  And there's probably far more of those fans than there are tobacco chewers at the games (as the CDC reports that only about 2% of the population chews tobacco). 

So this makes perfect sense from the team's perspective as far as I can see.   

I do dip snuff, mostly at baseball games and practices, for whatever reason. I recognize that others may not like the sight or thought of it, so I keep it incognito out of respect to others. I spit in a water bottle, and reseal it each time. I keep it away from others. I have seen someone drink out of another’s bottle, not good. 🤣

I will say that I may not represent some others who are not as considerate of others. I understand that is really the issue.

Personally, I would like to ban gum so I do not have to get it stuck on my shoe. 

I would argue that all of the vapes, especially the nasty weed vapes, are way worse to many people. That smell is awful, and it takes a long time to dissipate. It lingers. Not sure if it even illegal anymore in Maryland, I’ve lost track. Many do not seem to care where I live.

Ah well, maybe we can get someone like Taylor Swift, Beyoncé or JayZ to throw a dip in. Then, the “I know what is good for you” crowd will think it’s cool to dip. I better stop here.

Cheers 🍻

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. In one corner we have the folks who claim to be bothered by this, but who are clearly trying to make it about something much bigger than a tobacco ban. In the other corner you have the folks who just seem to be sympathetic towards the folks who work at the stadium who have to clean up that disgusting sh*t. At the end of the day if you're discreet I highly doubt that anyone is going to stop you from dipping at a game. So it's much ado about nothing. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Posts

    • I mean Tanner Scott at least has a Major League track record. How much do you think Scott will really cost? Also, we have more position players and prospects that we could ever use. I understand maybe not wanting Scott, but I don't understand the logic of not wanting surrender any prospects (even some good ones). We almost have to at some point. Otherwise, you have 25 year old top level prospects like Kjerstad, who is in his prime now and killing it at AAA but has no place on the Big League roster. Stowers is even older and has contributed relatively nothing to the Orioles and is now age 26.
    • Way to avoid the question.  If the O's were in rebuild mode and had Gray Rod in the exact position he is now, what kind of prospect package would you want?  Fans here are notorious for not wanting to give up any good prospects for other team's best players but then want the world for their own less than perfect players.  When Gausman was about to be traded here (way less an impressive pitcher than Gray Rod is now), posters here were convinced that the O's would get 3 top 100 prospects for him.  The O's got none 
    • McDermott has a WHIP of almost 1.5 and has walked 41 batters in 64 and 2/3 innings. I'm not sure how that plays at the Big League level or how anyone could have a lot of confidence that those numbers translate into the kind of shut down backend reliever that we need.
    • I would be not surprised at all if McDermott deloads after the all star break and comes up to use as a reliever a la do hall the last few years. He’s basically tanner Scott without having to give up prospects to get. 
    • I don't want anything for Grayson. We are trying to win and add, not subtract from areas of strength. We can add a a 2/3ish starter for less than Holliday and Kjerstad. We have plenty of players/prospects that we can trade that other teams want. After all, we have the best farm system in the game. Just because the player(s) is/are not the #1 prospect in the sport, it doesn't make him/them spare parts.
    • I'm surprised the O's haven't tried McDermott as a reliever yet.  Some posters have said the O's need 3 relievers.  There is no way the O's are trading for 3 relievers.  They might trade for 1, find one in the minors and claim one off the waiver wire. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...