NYC Smoking Ban

[menton1]

The second is whether or not it is reasonable to prohibit a perfectly legal activity of a minority group (smokers).

Ridiculous! By this fallacious reasoning, engaging in sex ( a perfectly legal activity) should not be prohibited from public places!!!

Also, in your whole diatribe about smokers rights, you neglected to consider non-smokers rights, as in the right to breathe freely as you work, play, or eat in a restaurant!!

[macrosan]

Menton, you wouldn't know fallacious reasoning if you tripped over it in a supermarket aisle

What I said wasn't any form of reasoning, it was a statement of principle. Of course sex has nothing to do with smoking (unless you indulge in unsafe sex, of course), and I never mentioned or even made an implicit reference to "public places". So your sequitur is in fact a total non sequitur.

I repeat my question. Is it reasonable to prohibit smoking in bars ? NOTE for Menton: I ask if it's reasonable to prohibit, not if there is any single reason to prohibit, nor if it is reasonable to control. OK ?)

And I repeat that the answer has to depend on an assessment of the harm it does to others NOTE for Menton: That is a reference, which you obviously didn't read, to the rights of non-smokers. OK ?)

On balance, I am not satisfied that the level of risk is well enough proven to justify the prohibition. Further, it is clear that non-smokers can avoid a smoking bar (whether they want a drink or a job as a bartender) so in all reasonableness, the conflict should rarely arise.

Edited August 12, 2003 by macrosan (log)

[MatthewB]

Ahhhhhhh, that NY City air!

[slkinsey]

According to this article, there is a "loophole" in the NY State smoking ban that allows "cities and other municipalities across the state the right to grant waivers to bars and restaurants that have lost business because of the ban" if such businesses can prove financial hardship.

The NYC ban has no such provision, and as a result the loophole in the NYS law would not apply in the City (although I suppose a business that was under a certain restriction under the NYS law that would not apply, or might have a different application under the NYC law could petition to abide by the NYC law instead of the NYS law).

[NHCountryGirl]

Man, some of you New York smokers are so hard core! While, I tend to agree with the subtopic of keeping the government out of legislating as many of my healthy or unhealthy habits as possible, don't you realize that the government is representative of the people? (at least of those people who choose to vote)

In my community, several eating establishments went totally non-smoking on their own, because that's what the majority of the clientele wanted - not because of any governmental mandates. There is a state law that requires separate smoking/non-smoking sections in restaurants that seat more than a certain # of people. But, in my experience many restaurants in NH have gone beyond that of their own choice, 'cause that's what the public has demanded.

Guess we're just more used to the frresh air here in the country than some of you smokin' New Yorkers.

[macrosan]

In my community, several eating establishments went totally non-smoking on their own, because that's what the majority of the clientele wanted - not because of any governmental mandates.

That absoklutely would have to be the case, CountryGirl, if only the government would allow market forces to take their natural and inevitable effect. But politicians like to wield the power that they worked so hard to obtain, so they insist on interfering in matters where they are neither needed nor wanted.

Given that in the USA and UK about 65-70% of people don't smoke, and all of those are bound to prefer a smoke-free environment, restaurants (like all other commercial establishments) would gradually represent that ratio in what they offer the market. Of course that takes time, and since politicians generally aren't around too long, they won't wait

[rozrapp]

I received the following p.r. release via e-mail from Joe Cherner, Pres., Smokefree Educational Services, Inc.:

Hey Chicken Little: The Sky Didn't Fall

Restaurant and bar business going strong in smokefree New York

In March of this year, New York City made all of its restaurants and bars 100% smokefree.  In July, the entire state of New York did the same.

Tobacco interests claimed (as always) that restaurants and bars would go out of business, employees would be fired, money would be lost, tourism would suffer, and the New York economy would basically cease to exist.

Hey Chicken Little:  The sky didn't fall.  In fact, here's what really happened:

1) From March to June, New York City created 10,000 new restaurant and bar jobs, according to the Department of Labor.

2) Alcohol and beer tax collections went up statewide to $15.2 million in August, compared with $14.4 million in August of last year, according to the Department of Taxation.

3) Hotel revenues increased for the first time in three years indicating a rebound in tourism, as reported by Crain's business news.

Polls by Global Strategy, Zogby International, and Quinnipiac University show that New Yorkers in every political party, every ethnic group, and every borough overwhelmingly support the new smokefree workplace law.  By a margin of 6 to 1, New Yorkers find restaurants more enjoyable.  By a margin of 3 to 1, New Yorkers find bars and nightclubs more enjoyable.

"Of course business is good," says Joe Cherner, president of SmokeFree Educational Services, Inc.  "The vast majority of people prefer to breathe clean air.  Very few people prefer to breathe dirty air."

Five entire states-- CA, DE, NY, CT, and ME-- have enacted smokefree workplace legislation for bar and restaurant workers.  MA is expected to join them shortly.

"Legislatures should stop letting tobacco interests intimidate them," advises Cherner.  "There is no downside to providing workers with a safe, healthy, smokefree work environment.  It's good for health AND it's good for business.  The only loser is the tobacco cartel."

[tryska]

this anti-smoking thing is working out so well.....

let's ban sugar next!

[slkinsey]

this anti-smoking thing is working out so well.....

let's ban sugar next!

I think it's already against the law to run around a restaurant or bar with a funnel and force feed sugar to everyone in the room.

[Jaymes]

this anti-smoking thing is working out so well.....

let's ban sugar next!

I think it's already against the law to run around a restaurant or bar with a funnel and force feed sugar to everyone in the room.

[tryska]

see..why is it no one is ever willing to out and out ban sugar?

it does just as much harm in the long term as smoking. it definitely causes an increase in insurance premiums.

and we've already had Big Food lawsuits.

i think it's just a matter of time.

[bloviatrix]

Alcohol and beer tax collections went up statewide to $15.2 million in August, compared with $14.4 million in August of last year, according to the Department of Taxation.

This is misleading as the tax rate on alcohol on beer in NYS increased.

Which leads me to wonder what other misleading facts are in that release.

[slkinsey]

[sugar] does just as much harm in the long term as smoking.  it definitely causes an increase in insurance premiums.

Now that is just a silly thing to say. Where's the data supporting these assertions?

Sugar is not even remotely comparable to tobacco smoke when it comes to health effects. Even though smoking has decreased markedly over the last ten years, "tobacco is by far the leading cause of death" in New York City.

Sugar... if you were to make a list of all the bad things that contribute to preventable mortality, is would be pretty low on the list.

[Jaymes]

see..why is it no one is ever willing to out and out ban sugar?

it does just as much harm in the long term as smoking.  it definitely causes an increase in insurance premiums.

and we've already had Big Food lawsuits.

i think it's just a matter of time.

You completely miss his point.

His point is that sugar may indeed be bad for you. But it is ALREADY against the law to force others in the restaurant to eat some, just because YOU are.

Unlike smoke.

Which, if the people at the next table are smoking, I TOO have to ingest some.

[sherribabee]

see..why is it no one is ever willing to out and out ban sugar?

it does just as much harm in the long term as smoking.  it definitely causes an increase in insurance premiums.

and we've already had Big Food lawsuits.

i think it's just a matter of time.

Because you can have all the sugar you want with your meal, and the folks surrounding you won't be forced to take in any second-hand sugar.

People don't go home at night and rip off their clothing in the hallway saying, gross, I stink of sugar!

No one would refuse to kiss someone if their mouth tasted like sugar.

Edited October 7, 2003 by sherribabee (log)

[menton1]

see..why is it no one is ever willing to out and out ban sugar?

it does just as much harm in the long term as smoking.  it definitely causes an increase in insurance premiums.

and we've already had Big Food lawsuits.

i think it's just a matter of time.

Silly-- I don't think it's ever been said that sugar causes Cancer or Heart Disease; you might be referring to the indirect aspect of sugar consumption that can cause obesity and hence lead to health problems-- but this is not nearly analogous to the harm caused DIRECTLY by cigarette smoke....

I think the hard core are now dreading the winter-- standing out in the cold, puffing away.....

[Jaymes]

...second-hand sugar..

No one would refuse to kiss someone if their mouth tasted like sugar.

[tryska]

y'all don't think sugar consumption directly leads to type II diabetes? or obesity - which is our latest epidemic? We can start talking about heart disease and arteriosclerosis, and direct links to insulin release, but the scientific research is too new, and/or limited for it to make a dent in your way of thinking anyway, so i will rest on that until the facts become self-evident. which they will in due time.

do you really think it's a minute concern? as children get fatter, and get higher cholesterol levels and more and more cases of adult-onset diabetes start popping up, it's going to be a major concern.

and sherribabee - whilst i agree on the point of lack of choice in the matter of second-hand smoke - i think the other two points are a matter of perception no?

if people were innundated with propoganda about the evils of sugar, eventually you would be a bad bad person...nay the devil incarnate for using sugar at all.

[Jaymes]

Tryska -

There are many, many "bad things" that humans do. That's not the point.

The point is that your rights to engage in whatever "bad" behavior you mention here, regardless as to how it compares to smoking, does not include the right to force me, or anyone else, to engage in it right along with you.

THAT'S the issue.

Debating which is "worse" is totally irrelevant.

[tryska]

i'm not debating which is worse - y'all are.

i'm giving a hypothetical situation in which, quite possibly, the government can rationalize what is best for you, to a degree which i don't believe too many people would be comfortable.

if one is concerned about inhaling excess smoke, one can always choose not to go to bars and clubs where excess smoke occurs. as it stands the bar and club-hopping set has always been hand in hand with the smoking set.

in restaurants i think it's fine that there is no smoking. i just find it laughable that those who most likely are tucked safely in bed by 9pm just legislated the hell out of the after-hours crowd. as my mom said, it's probably because the after-hours crowd was too busy nursing a hangover ot make it to the polls. but regardless.....

at what point do you decided that you have given away too much of your personal freedom and right to choice?

Edited October 7, 2003 by tryska (log)

[Jaymes]

if one is concerned about inhaling excess smoke, one can always choose not to go to bars and clubs where excess smoke occurs.

And since you are fond of hypotheticals, try this.

There's a famous restaurant in California. Let's call it, just for grins, The French Laundry.

In addition to serving some of the best savory food in the world, they are famous for their desserts.

You are going to be spending a week in Northern California. You are interested in food. You have always wanted to go to the French Laundry.

You are a diabetic (analogous to being asthmatic).

You discover that it is part of the French Laundry's policy that everyone that eats dinner there MUST have at least a bite or two of one of their desserts.

You think that infringes upon your rights.

You are told, "Well, fine, then go somewhere else."

Which is just what the handicapped people were told when they complained that they couldn't even get into some places.

"If you don't like it, go somewhere else."

Honestly.

It would be great if smokers could understand what the real problem is, and try to deal with that, and help to solve it, instead of totally dismissing the rights of others.

Edited October 7, 2003 by Jaymes (log)

[menton1]

at what point do you decided that you have given away too much of your personal freedom and right to choice?

I don't think disallowing smoking in an enclosed space alongside non-smokers is a loss of personal freedom. No more than is having to use a rest room instead of a quiet little corner of the restaurant, or no more than not allowing spitting in your adjacent table's food....

If you want to smoke, you are allowed to-- just not next to me!!

Edited October 7, 2003 by menton1 (log)

[tryska]

to be honest with you - i do that now. if i were diabetic and forced to eat sugar, that restaurant would not be getting my business i don't care what kind of recommendation it has.

as for the handicapped and parking spaces, that i can understand - if you have limited mobility and i'm doubting it was your choice to have that limited mobility, then yes, allowances have to be made for you.

my lifestyle is not your lifestyle, that mine should bend to accomodate you, or anyone else for that matter (whether it be in a perceived positive or negative way) is self-centered on your part.

essentially your asking that no matter what the situation, the world should be molded to meet any given individuals demands.

at what point do you decide that that is no longer ethical? that the world doesn't have to bend to the whims of whomever? my guess is when it starts infringing on your rights and/or desires.

[Jaymes]

I'm going to repeat this, and then I'm done.

It would be great if smokers could recognize what the real issue is; understand that people that don't want to inhale their smoke also have true and real and valid concerns; and attempt to work on THAT problem in order to find a solution.

Instead of just insisting that we all "deal with it."

[Marlene]

if one is concerned about inhaling excess smoke, one can always choose not to go to bars and clubs where excess smoke occurs.

And since you are fond of hypotheticals, try this.

There's a famous restaurant in California. Let's call it, just for grins, The French Laundry.

In addition to serving some of the best savory food in the world, they are famous for their desserts.

You are going to be spending a week in Northern California. You are interested in food. You have always wanted to go to the French Laundry.

You are a diabetic (analogous to being asthmatic).

You discover that it is part of the French Laundry's policy that everyone that eats dinner there MUST have at least a bite or two of one of their desserts.

You think that infringes upon your rights.

You are told, "Well, fine, then go somewhere else."

Which is just what the handicapped people were told when they complained that they couldn't even get into some places.

"If you don't like it, go somewhere else."

Honestly.

It would be great if smokers could understand what the real problem is, and try to deal with that, and help to solve it, instead of totally dismissing the rights of others.

Jaymes, remind me not to stand too close to you at the Pig Pickin