NYC Smoking Ban

[bloviatrix]

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.

Don't smokers, who are in the disctinct minority, expect everyone to put up with their smoke? That was tyranny of the minority. So now the majority has struck back.

In most cases I say the government should stay out of the way and let people decide what's right for them because their behaivor only impacts themselves. But with smoking where I am impacted by the actions of others, I don't have a problem with legislation.

I will say that the state legislation can be construed as onerous. Maybe the state law should allow for owners to create "smoking rooms" with the appropriate exhaust systems as the city law did.

[tryska]

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."

and that's fine.

everyone has their concerns. but why does your problem become my problem, or on the flipside of that token - why should you have to bear the weight of my issues?

for instance - like someone else said here - i find being gassed with soemone else's perfume to be the worse thing on earth. i avoid those people or do my best to move quickly away. i hate the smell of cigars. I don't visit cigar bars. I find sugar added to sweeten up something savory to be absolutely disgusting. i will choose not to put those things in my mouth. do i somehow feel i can control everythign around me? hell no - i know i can't.

if someone does something that is not your choice, then choose not to be in the company of that person. but to whine and complain and throw nasty glances and then eventually move on to legislating - well in my mind that's passive aggression.

you have the freedom to do whatever you want to do. just like anyone else does. as long as smoking is legal, and anyone over the age of 18 is free to smoke, why should those people have to adjust to you and your needs - why don't you adjust yourself to your needs? you know what i mean?

or probably not, becaujse the sentiment seems to be that your needs are more important than those around you who might hold different priorities.

i just find this self-centeredness and lack of personal responsibility to be a uniquiely Western thing.

[Jaymes]

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

Just blow the other way, Darlin'.

Just blow the other way.

[Marlene]

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

Just blow the other way, Darlin'.

Just blow the other way.

Jeeus, don't tell my husband that! Darlin.

[Jaymes]

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

Just blow the other way, Darlin'.

Just blow the other way.

Jeeus, don't tell my husband that! Darlin.

Who knows -- he might like a little variety.

[Marlene]

Not goin there, just not goin there

[tryska]

Don't smokers, who are in the disctinct minority, expect everyone to put up with their smoke?  That was tyranny of the minority.  So now the majority has struck back.

In most cases I say the government should stay out of the way and let people decide what's right for them because their behaivor only impacts themselves.  But with smoking where I am impacted by the actions of others, I don't have a problem with legislation.

I will say that the state legislation can be construed as onerous.  Maybe the state law should allow for owners to create "smoking rooms" with the appropriate exhaust systems as the city law did.

and perhaps this is where my main issue with these rulings is.

there is no alternative for smokers other than outside, which then impedes on people in the neighborhood.

so basically you've taken the "right to the pursuit of happiness" away from smokers, and given it to gloating non-smokers. i find the sanctimonious unappealing no matter what their particular soapbox might be, and i find it ludicrous that the sanctimonious are now in charge of everyone else.

[slkinsey]

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.

Tryska, you should probably go back and read through this thread, as we have already been over this ground in some detail... The smoking bans in NYC and NYC are not intended to protect customers from inhaling secondhand tobacco smoke in bars and restaurants. Customers can always decide to patronize nonsmoking establishments. Rather, they are intended to protect employees from inhaling secondhand tobacco smoke at their place of employment. One can make the argument that employees can choose to work for a different employer or in a different industry, but it is quite clear that the government has the right to enact legislation to protect employees in the workplace.

[Jaymes]

i find the sanctimonious unappealing no matter what their particular soapbox might be, and i find it ludicrous that the sanctimonious are now in charge of everyone else.

Okay. One last time.

"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 (OTHER THAN BEING 'SANCTIMONIOUS'); and attempt to work on THAT problem in order to find a solution."

[slkinsey]

so basically you've taken the "right to the pursuit of happiness" away from smokers, and given it to gloating non-smokers. i find the sanctimonious unappealing no matter what their particular soapbox might be, and i find it ludicrous that the sanctimonious are now in charge of everyone else.

This is a bogus argument. People aren't taking away smokers' right to smoke. They are just taking away their right to smoke in certain environments where that smoking necessarily impacts nonsmokers -- in particular, where that smoking necessarily impacts employees in the workplace.

Here is a fairly similar construct: the government has not outlawed breast fondling, but it has outlawed unwanted breast fondling in the workplace. In so doing, the government has acted to protect employees from sexual harassment. Is this a case of the "sanctimonious" taking away the "right to the pursuit of happiness" from breast fondlers?

[Suzanne F]

Workplace ferret-fondling went out during Giuliani's reign.

[bloviatrix]

So has the government taken away the "right to the persuit of happiness" of drinkers who want to imbibe enormous amounts of alcohol and then get into a car and drive?

In both the drinking and smoking cases the government is saying that you can still engage in the activity, just not when there is the risk of harming others who cross your path.

Edited October 7, 2003 by bloviatrix (log)

[Jaymes]

Workplace ferret-fondling went out during Giuliani's reign. 

Yes.

So attention, men: that had better not be a ferret in your pants.

[slkinsey]

Workplace ferret-fondling went out during Giuliani's reign. 

And not only that, but my ferrets are pissed off that those sanctimonious bastards banned ferret bites in the workplace too. So now they get no fondling, they don't get to bite anyone... it's getting so they can hardly bring themselves to come in to the office and put in an honest day's work.

[tryska]

Tryska, you should probably go back and read through this thread, as we have already been over this ground in some detail... The smoking bans in NYC and NYC are not intended to protect customers from inhaling secondhand tobacco smoke in bars and restaurants.  Customers can always decide to patronize nonsmoking establishments.  Rather, they are intended to protect employees from inhaling secondhand tobacco smoke at their place of employment.  One can make the argument that employees can choose to work for a different employer or in a different industry, but it is quite clear that the government has the right to enact legislation to protect employees in the workplace.

protecting a worker in their place of employment makes sense to me.

once again tho - there should still be places for smokers to do their thing, as opposed to out in the street.

unless you prefer smokers to be taking the party into your neighborhood.

what i've detected so far in this thread tho - has been a lot more of a volatile emotional issue on BOTH sides, as opposed to a clearcut case of workers rights.

Edited October 7, 2003 by tryska (log)

[sherribabee]

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.

Exercise all the personal freedom you want. So long as in doing so, you're not directly affecting my health.

It's bad enough that I have to walk through a fucking cloud of noxious fumes everytime I go in or out of a building in this city, I shouldn't have to endure the same hazard inside the building as well.

People can eat themselves into obesity and diabetes if they want, they can smoke themselves silly for all I care. But the second any of it affects my ability to go out in public with a relative degree of safety, THEN it becomes an issue.

Telling people to go find a smoke-free environment in this city is ridiculous, there aren't (or weren't) any. Hell, you can hardly walk down the sidewalk without some ignorant tool blowing smoke all in your face.

So boo-fucking-hoo that people now have to walk 8 yeads to the front entrance of a club to smoke. I was never able to walk 8 yards to the front entrance to get away from the smoke, cuz it's outside too.

[sherribabee]

Is this a case of the "sanctimonious" taking away the "right to the pursuit of happiness" from breast fondlers?

[Jaymes]

once again tho - there should still be places for smokers to do their thing, as opposed to out in the street.

And speaking just for myself, I agree with that.

Although exactly how to accomplish it eludes me.

But I do know that the first step is for everyone on BOTH sides to understand that the other has a LEGITIMATE concern.

And work from there.

[Jaymes]

boo-fucking-hoo

Is this some kind of off-color version of that old "Who's on First" thing?

[sherribabee]

boo-fucking-hoo

Is this some kind of off-color version of that old "Who's on First" thing?

Oh, that could make for an itneresting thread...

[=Mark]

once again tho - there should still be places for smokers to do their thing, as opposed to out in the street.

And speaking just for myself, I agree with that.

Although exactly how to accomplish it eludes me.

This is a similar issue for the workplace breast fondlers too. Winters coming and I dread the thought of having to take the fondling outside...

[Marlene]

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.

Exercise all the personal freedom you want. So long as in doing so, you're not directly affecting my health.

It's bad enough that I have to walk through a fucking cloud of noxious fumes everytime I go in or out of a building in this city, I shouldn't have to endure the same hazard inside the building as well.

People can eat themselves into obesity and diabetes if they want, they can smoke themselves silly for all I care. But the second any of it affects my ability to go out in public with a relative degree of safety, THEN it becomes an issue.

Telling people to go find a smoke-free environment in this city is ridiculous, there aren't (or weren't) any. Hell, you can hardly walk down the sidewalk without some ignorant tool blowing smoke all in your face.

So boo-fucking-hoo that people now have to walk 8 yeads to the front entrance of a club to smoke. I was never able to walk 8 yards to the front entrance to get away from the smoke, cuz it's outside too.

Please make sure you don't stand near any buses Jaymes, I don't know why allowing establishments to build separately vented areas such as some restaurants have done in Toronto would not work. I also agree, you shouldn't have smoke in public places with children, which is why in Toronto, you may declare yourself to be a 19 year and over establishment, and thus can permitt smoking in those separately vented areas.

[Jaymes]

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.

Exercise all the personal freedom you want. So long as in doing so, you're not directly affecting my health.

It's bad enough that I have to walk through a fucking cloud of noxious fumes everytime I go in or out of a building in this city, I shouldn't have to endure the same hazard inside the building as well.

People can eat themselves into obesity and diabetes if they want, they can smoke themselves silly for all I care. But the second any of it affects my ability to go out in public with a relative degree of safety, THEN it becomes an issue.

Telling people to go find a smoke-free environment in this city is ridiculous, there aren't (or weren't) any. Hell, you can hardly walk down the sidewalk without some ignorant tool blowing smoke all in your face.

So boo-fucking-hoo that people now have to walk 8 yeads to the front entrance of a club to smoke. I was never able to walk 8 yards to the front entrance to get away from the smoke, cuz it's outside too.

Please make sure you don't stand near any buses Jaymes, I don't know why allowing establishments to build separately vented areas such as some restaurants have done in Toronto would not work. I also agree, you shouldn't have smoke in public places with children, which is why in Toronto, you may declare yourself to be a 19 year and over establishment, and thus can permitt smoking in those separately vented areas.

You DO realize, don't you Marlene, this isn't MY quote you cited above?

I'M the one that said I thought we should be able to work it all out as long as each side accepts the others' concerns as being legitimate and worthwhile.

Although, I will admit, I'm not in the habit of hanging out at the ass end of busses, so think it will be easy to follow your suggestion in that regard.

And I think that businesses that provide "separate(ly vented) but equal" ("equal" being the key word) smoking/non-smoking sections, and give their employees the right to choose which to work in, might be quite a doable solution.

Edited October 7, 2003 by Jaymes (log)

[Marlene]

Yes I realize that. I don't do multiple quotes well The first response was for Sherribabee. The rest of it was in response to you

[Stone]

Seems to be going well. According to a blurb in amNY, "preliminary tests on a small group of bar and restaurant workers . . . show a significant drop in levels of a nicotine by-product." The tests check the levels of cotinine in the saliva. Cotinine levels in those tested droped by 85% just three months after the ban went into effect.