Smoke FREE NYC! how does everyone feel?

[g.johnson]

Found it.

Sorry. I lied. That's just a summary.

Edited February 26, 2003 by g.johnson (log)

[Wilfrid]

Edit; yes, I agree.

Edited February 26, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[Stone]

If a large enough segment of the population started wearing foul smelling perfume in restaurants, there would probably be a stink about it. I hate heavy perfume more than cigarette smoke, and have considered, but never had the nerve, asking for a new table when some foul-smelling tart is seating next to me at a restaurant. I have forced friends to ride with an open window in winter as punishment for too much perfume.

Edited February 26, 2003 by Stone (log)

[Bond Girl]

I am an occasional cigar smoker, and my beau is a frequent cigar smoker.  We go to the cigar bars - but now I'm concerned that they're going to be absolutely filled with cigarette smoke...

Bond Girl - which cigar bars do you like?

Campbell's apartment in Grand Central Station.

[jeunefilleparis]

I would honestly love Bloomberg to ban cigarette smoking on public city streets too. All to often I get stuck walking behind a F$$##!!!! smoker and speed walk around them. Or worse, I ll see a mother strolling her child while she puffs away, its not 1950 anymore. IF smokers want to poison themselves, let them do it in the privacy of their own home, so their clothing, and furniture can stink and not mine!

DOWN WITH SMOKING, grrrr

L

[Jason Perlow]

Penn & Teller's new TV show on Showtime, BULLSHIT! just had an episode devoted to this topic:

http://sho.com/ptbs/topics.cfm?topic=shs

Its showing again tomorrow night, the 27th at 10pm. Its also being aired on the 6th at 10:30.

Its a pretty funny show from the episodes I have seen so far, but Penn Jillete can be sometimes be really abrasive and holier than thou.

[tommy]

Its a pretty funny show from the episodes I have seen so far, but Penn Jillete can be sometimes be really abrasive and holier than thou.

yeah, but at least he's being funny and entertaining while being holier than thou.

[La Niña]

I am an occasional cigar smoker, and my beau is a frequent cigar smoker.  We go to the cigar bars - but now I'm concerned that they're going to be absolutely filled with cigarette smoke...

Bond Girl - which cigar bars do you like?

Campbell's apartment in Grand Central Station.

I love that bar. Great martini. Great room. Had my first date with my beau there. I had no idea they allowed cigars - never tried there. Will they be able to continue to do so after the law goes into effect, I wonder...?

[spernagel]

I'd be interested to find out more about the effects of car-exhaust fumes on health, and to see if they proved harmful, whether Mayor Bloomberg would be interested in imposing some sort of restrictions, a la the recent London congestion charge.

I do find the anti-smoking laws in bars and restaurants slightly bizarre in that there seems to be no effort to incorporate them into a more wide-ranging 'clean-air' policy.

Ellen

[La Niña]

I don't think anyone believes that someone blowing a puff of smoke over you will cause you any physical harm.

Causes me physical harm. Eyes burn and tear, cough...

And my clothes certainly do stink the next day after I'm in a smoky bar, no matter where I hang them.

[A Scottish Chef]

NYC can cross me off it's list of potential visitors.

Imagine the brass neck driver of a car moralising to anyone about how personal habits impact on those around them.

America. It used to be the land of the free. I always wanted to go there as so much.

[La Niña]

Chef - I'm just playing devil's advocate here - the land of the free also means free from second hand smoke, no?

[tommy]

chopping onions must be harmful to me. acids get into the eyes nose and throat causing irritation.

tom yum koong, the famous thai hot and sour soup, makes me cough and tear too. i'm smelling a lawsuit.

[Varmint]

Folks, you can always come to North Carolina, where tobacco is still king. If you go to Winston-Salem (is that a smoker's name or what), I believe smoking is still permitted on buses. Sorry if I'm wrong about that. Many restaurants have indeed gone smokeless, but that's voluntary. Many restaurants, particularly barbecue restaurants, make no distinctions between smokers and non-smokers.

[A Scottish Chef]

Chef - I'm just playing devil's advocate here - the land of the free also means free from second hand smoke, no?

Of course it should mean both.

There's plenty of room in America. Rooms for folks who want to smoke and rooms for those who don't. Hardly rocket science. We have the same sort of hypocritical rulings going on here too.

I like to walk but I don't see anyone getting uppity about car drivers killing me with second hand smoke.

Edited February 26, 2003 by A Scottish Chef (log)

[Marlene]

Chef - I'm just playing devil's advocate here - the land of the free also means free from second hand smoke, no?

Then it should just be against the law, instead of picking and choosing where they will ban it, yet be delighted to rake in the taxes on it.

[tommy]

Then it should just be against the law, instead of picking and choosing where they will ban it, yet be delighted to rake in the taxes on it.

making cigarettes illegal is simply not feasible. so, that's not even an option.

next?

[=Mark]

I'd be interested to find out more about the effects of car-exhaust fumes on health, and to see if they proved harmful, whether Mayor Bloomberg would be interested in imposing some sort of restrictions, a la the recent London congestion charge.

I do find the anti-smoking laws in bars and restaurants slightly bizarre in that there seems to be no effort to incorporate them into a more wide-ranging 'clean-air' policy.

Ellen

How can you say that there has been no comprehensive effort to control air pollution from automobiles? In the US there have been efforts to adress that for far longer than there have been any issues about second hand smoke. Both the air and water here in the US are a magnitude of order better than they were 30 years ago, not withstanding the rants by the green ecocommunists that have their own agendas to push ($$$) by suggesting otherwise.

The effects of car exhaust have been well documented and there has been a concerted effort to reduce auto emissions for over 30 years. Back in the mid 70s there were on average 30 to 45 pollution alerts issued per year in Los Angeles. During the past 5 years there have been an average of 2 alerts annually. Here is an excerpt from the EPA PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION • 1999 ANNUAL REPORT:

Consider the results: In the region’s six most populous

regions (South Coast, Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley,

San Diego, Sacramento and Phoenix), peak air pollution

concentrations declined dramatically over the last

30 years: 99% for lead; 72% for sulfur dioxide, 66%

for carbon monoxide and 42% for nitrogen dioxide.

Ozone, the key ingredient of smog, was cut by 52%

region-wide and even more in Southern California

(70% on the South Coast and 66% in San Diego).

[macrosan]

Folks, you can always come to North Carolina, where tobacco is still king.

Oh Lordy, NC is where the money from the class action lawsuits against the tobacco companies, designed in principle to enable the states to invest in health care needed by the victims of smoking, was almost all ploughed into subsidies for failing tobacco farmers

But to return to the subject of smoking in restaurants in NYC, I still don't accept the need for enforcement of no-smoking restaurants. 75% of people do not smoke, and I believe it's over 80% when you get to the over-30s (the largest smoking group worldwide is teenage girls !!!). I simply cannot believe Mogsob's contention earlier that 99% of restaurants would cater for 20% of its market constituency I'm certain that if restaurants were allowed to choose, within ten years the proportion of no-smoking restaurants would be the same as the proportion of non-smokers. The market simply wouldn't permit otherwise.

[tommy]

I'm certain that if restaurants were allowed to choose, within ten years the proportion of no-smoking restaurants would be the same as the proportion of non-smokers. The market simply wouldn't permit otherwise.

perhaps. but with (business) casualties along the way. if you put two pubs next to each other in midtown, today, and allow smoking in one and ban it in the other, i think you'd see that more people would go to the smoking bar.

Edited February 27, 2003 by tommy (log)

[Basildog]

I'm certain that if restaurants were allowed to choose, within ten years the proportion of no-smoking restaurants would be the same as the proportion of non-smokers. The market simply wouldn't permit otherwise.

perhaps. but with (business) casualties along the way. if you put two pubs next to each other in midtown, today, and allow smoking in one and ban it in the other, i think you'd see that more people would go to the smoking bar.

For some...non smoking pubs would be a draw.To say that banning smoking is detremental to profitabilty is simplistic.There is a large market out there of NON Smokers, in the same way as vegetarians etc etc.

[tommy]

For some...non smoking pubs would be a draw.To say that banning smoking is detremental to profitabilty is simplistic.There is a large market out there of NON Smokers, in the same way as vegetarians etc etc.

i haven't suggested otherwise.

your vegetarian analogy, however, seems weak at best. just as you get some nonsmokers at smoking pubs, you get some vegetarians at places serving meat. not the other way around for the most part, i'm afraid.

[Stone]

Folks, you can always come to North Carolina, where tobacco is still king.

Oh Lordy, NC is where the money from the class action lawsuits against the tobacco companies, designed in principle to enable the states to invest in health care needed by the victims of smoking, was almost all ploughed into subsidies for failing tobacco farmers

Don't forget that some of the money was used for a tobacco museum.

[Basildog]

What i was trying to say Tommy, badly, was that your assertion that the smoking pub would be busier is not cut and dried.

[tommy]

What i was trying to say Tommy, badly, was that your assertion that the smoking pub would be busier is not cut and dried.

BD, what i'm saying is, it would be busier, at least right now. if it wouldn't be, then you can be your ass that pub owners would be banning smoking already. and they ain't.

Edited February 27, 2003 by tommy (log)