Recently, New York City began enforcing its new ban on smoking in all clubs, bars, and resteraunts. Very shortly after, the first repercussions were felt when a bouncer was stabbed to death attempting to enforce the ban.
I live in NYC and have not met a single person who thinks this is a good idea.
It seems that any health benefit this would have would be countered by the loss in business thats occuring. Now I don't smoke(anymore) but Mayor Bloomberg's extreme position on smoking seems rather hypocritical for a mayor who otherwise seems to care very little for people's health, as evidenced by his huge budget cuts to services for the needy.
Does anyone(particularly any New Yorkers) think this is a good idea?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2957955.stm

Let the bar pick if it wants to allow smoking or not. If you dont want secondhand smoke dont go to one of the ones that allows smoking.

I don't really know what to vote.

In public places, your right to smoke stops where my right to fresh air starts. Smoking should not be allowed in public places.

In private establishments, it should be up to the owner to decide. Government should have no jurisdiction over that.

It's kind of silly. There are 2 things you do in bars: drink and smoke.

It shouldn't be p to government to tell the owner that one is off the list.

IMO a privately owned club should be entitled to make their own smoking policy, as a customer you can always go to the non-smokers club , allthough it probably shouldn't be as much fun as a club where people are doped up on alcohol, cigarettes, pot, coke, ghb and mdma....

I agree, privately owned places should make their own rules. However, in order to get the most customers, smoking and non, they'd have a non-smoking place set aside...not that that ever helps, it's smoky in the whole place, no matters.

but down with the ban! If people want to smoke let them..if the nonsmokers dont like it...they can go outside for some "fresher" air, city style ;)

Originally posted by Jerrek
In private establishments, it should be up to the owner to decide. Government should have no jurisdiction over that.

Then I suppose the owner should be able to decide whether or not to have fire exits? The government (the public) has justifiable jurisdiction over health matters that affect the public in private establishments. That why we have fire & building codes for example.

The problem is that neither these owners nor the smokers pay their fair share of the public health costs of smoking including second-hand smoke. My taxes should decrease the more smoking is restricted (because more people quit and are no longer a public tax burden in the making), so I support smoking bans. Plus the banned places are then more enjoyable to visit.

Does anyone know of any studies that have actually shown second hand smoke to be dangerous? I only know of one World Health Organization study, and it failed to show a link between second hand smoke and any negative health effects. I'd really like to see some references to support the ban.

Then I suppose the owner should be able to decide whether or not to have fire exits? The government (the public) has justifiable jurisdiction over health matters that affect the public in private establishments. That why we have fire & building codes for example. Excuse me, but how did you manage to confuse public smoking with building regulations? http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/emotes/tardbang.gif

Plus the banned places are then more enjoyable to visit.For YOU. Other people might not agree with you. What gives you the card to decide whether a group of smokers can get together and enjoy some beers or not? What makes YOU the important person to decide? No one is FORCING you to go to a smoker's bar.

The problem is that neither these owners nor the smokers pay their fair share of the public health costs of smoking including second-hand smoke. Bullshit. Taxes on cigarettes are already high as can be. If you don't think it is enough, argue in favor of raising taxes on cigarettes, but don't bitch about smokers that want to enjoy their time together.

I only know of one World Health Organization study, and it failed to show a link between second hand smoke and any negative health effects. Well screw the research. I don't want to smoke like an ashtray. I don't want to inhale 50,000 chemicals. I don't want to start wheezing when a smoker comes in my presence in a public place such as a library.

Let someone open a bar specifically for non-smokers if it's a problem. Hell, I don't even smoke or drink and I think its ridiculous. When I did smoke and drink I wanted a cigarette with my drink. If they force smokers to drink and not be able to smoke they run the risk of some psychotic drunks going off in the crowd.:mad:

Originally posted by zanket
Then I suppose the owner should be able to decide whether or not to have fire exits? The government (the public) has justifiable jurisdiction over health matters that affect the public in private establishments. That why we have fire & building codes for example. Two different subjects here. Someone walking into a club can instantly tell if people are smoking inside. They can't tell if it's up to fire code. Also, the threat from fire is much higher. There isn't going to be a stampede out of a club when someone lights up a cig. If people don't want it, they leave.

I hate smoke (makes my eyes water, hate the smell, etc...), and I think this law is just plain stupid. Smoking/non-smoking sections would have made a hell of a lot more sense for bars/restraunts.

It is also somewhat ironic that you take locations where people use 2 drugs, and outlaw the more mundane one.

If you ban public use of cigaretts by the same logic you will also have to ban the public use of the internal combustion engine. L.A. smog is going to mess up your lungs far more than secondhand smoke is.

I would say alcohol is worst to your health then the cigarrets. Nobody stabed somebody with a broken bottle because they had to many cigarrets.

Does anybody know where they get those statistics for that "bubble boy" commercial i doubt that many people die of secound hand smoke IF any.

Lets start by banning people from using cell-phones and digital assistants while walking or driving. I see too many yuppies walking out into traffic while holding their palm-pilots.

Originally posted by Clockwood
If you ban public use of cigaretts by the same logic you will also have to ban the public use of the internal combustion engine. L.A. smog is going to mess up your lungs far more than secondhand smoke is. Hmm, much like near 99% of the population smokes right?

Statistics do not support the opposition to this. Waitresses are 40% more likely to develop lung cancer than the average person. Kill yourself, but please spare the rest of us.

Smog is another issue worthy of correction. It may have a larger lobby, ig. automotive and general industry and thus proves more difficult to dislodge. Also remember that smoking is a voluntary act and in no needed to further a way of life. Better city planning coupled with alterations in the manufacturing proccess is a more dramatic alteration compared the inconvenience of having to walk outside.

Alcohol is also a horrible substance again more for what it can do to others. Actually, Salty, cigarettes are just as if not more damaging to the average person's health. They can cause heart disease as well. Alcohol has a certain reverance in popular culture and as such is in no danger. Of course it seems beyond me how someone with impaired judgement should make a sound decision concerning the ability to drive.

Of course none yet have mentioned guns. Correlation between guns and death is easier.

Obviously a good deal of tokenism is embued in this decision. But of course there is nothing wrong with asking people to not kill each other, if even just a little bit.

Originally posted by Jerrek
Excuse me, but how did you manage to confuse public smoking with building regulations?

I explained the commonality. Both affect public health; hence the public has jurisdiction over both. You said, “In private establishments, it should be up to the owner to decide.” By the same logic, it should be up to the owner to decide whether the establishment has fire exits.

For YOU. Other people might not agree with you. What gives you the card to decide whether a group of smokers can get together and enjoy some beers or not?

My vote. No reason I can’t support a ban for personal reasons. That group of smokers affects me since they rule out most of the bars & clubs I can go to in a typical city, as smoke greatly annoys me. If they want to smoke in their own homes that’s fine with me.

Bullshit. Taxes on cigarettes are already high as can be. If you don't think it is enough, argue in favor of raising taxes on cigarettes, but don't bitch about smokers that want to enjoy their time together.

These taxes are not nearly high enough. When a smoker gets emphysema or another smoking-related disease they often go on the state dole, racking up hundred of thousands of dollars in medical expenses paid by the public. That’s why most of the states attorneys general sued the tobacco companies for hundreds of billions, to reclaim a portion of the costs already borne by taxpayers.

If the public chooses to no longer fight risky expensive lawsuits and charge cigarette taxes just to partially pay for medical costs (which is only one cost of many related to smoking), they are justified in restricting or even banning cigarettes outright, just as they do many drugs. The majority rules, and the majority don’t smoke. These bans show that the majority no longer wishes to subsidize or tolerate the minority’s habit.

I’d be against a ban on smoking in these places if cigarette taxes were raised to say $20 a pack (to compensate non-smokers for second-hand smoke) and if smokers who got smoking-related illnesses were euthanized rather than partake public assistance.

Originally posted by Persol
Two different subjects here. Someone walking into a club can instantly tell if people are smoking inside. They can't tell if it's up to fire code.

The subjects are related in the sense that the majority may decide what goes on in private businesses and even private homes. The majority generally ignores issues concerning consenting adults that don’t affect non-consenters. But non-smokers in NY do not consent to the smoke that does affect them; hence the ban.

Smoking/non-smoking sections would have made a hell of a lot more sense for bars/restraunts.

I doubt non-smokers in general have a problem with places that do this effectively, such as a truck stop I frequent. It’s hard to do effectively though (two rooms is best), and impractical for clubs.

I'm considering suing my neighbor. He drives a twenty-five year-old pickup truck, and every morning while he's warming it up, his carcinogenic exhaust tumbles into my yard. I don't drive. I don't need his secondhand exhaust. I think it's time to ban combustion engines inside the cities as well. Oh, wait ... that's right. Rep. Henry Waxman of California once claimed that cigarettes, and not automobiles or industrial exhaust, were the primary source of air pollution in Los Angeles.

But if you are anti-smoking and drive a combustion car or use such equipment in your line of work, please kindly shoot yourself, because I still don't know where it's written in the constitution that one has the right to live some thirty to sixty miles from their workplace. Seattle, itself, for instance, would be a different place if it wasn't for commuters coming in from at least three other counties every morning and driving home (single-occupant) every night. I don't know quite what the commuter situation in New York looks like, but worry about the smokers once you get traffic- and industrial-pollution under control, and once you get the fucking arsenic out of the drinking water!

Public smoking bans are just feel-good laws. What's next? The natural-gas and propane industries teaming up to ban charcoal briquettes? But God love our SUV's!

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Whenever I pass a bus in Seattle I can’t help but glance at the interior, where I almost always see just a few people. I’d love there to be a study done to see if Seattle busses pump out more pollutants per capita than cars; it’s gotta be close on average, and I’d be surprised if busses weren’t the bigger polluters outside of peak hours.

I get a chuckle out of the congestion “problem” in Seattle. All the freeways are under-capacity except during peak hours. If one gets to work an hour later or earlier there’s typically no problem (with a few exceptions like 520). I think all the talk about congestion is propaganda to fuel big profit-making construction projects that get supporters elected. Think of the $billions that could be saved if the roads cost more to drive on during peak hours. Nowadays technology eliminates toll booths; instead you drive past a bar code reader. Employees would demand higher wages from employers who insist they arrive at 8 am instead of say 7 or 9 am.

It's actually quite relevant, I think.

Commute hours pack the buses in Seattle; commuters from the north end, riding for instance the 5, 16, and 356 (Aurora Village, I'm not sure of the number) see SRO during the commute hours. Same with the 26 and other buses that cross Wallingford and the U-District. I actually have no idea what the south end commute looks like on a bus.

Considering also the odd pattern of traffic capacity--your observation happens to overlook the power of one stalled car to paralyze three freeways, but that's less important I admit--I tend to think the whole situation suggests, as noted, that the problem lies with the distance commuters coming in from Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties at least. For instance, I grew up in Sumner. My father, during that period, worked as a traveling salesman (I have no idea what his transit needs were at that time), and also as a retail manager in Federal Way (30-minute commute in clear traffic) and also a business owner in White Center (60-minute commute in clear traffic). My best friend's father lived in Sumner and worked in Olympia--an insane commute, but not relevant to the Seattle issue; and another close friend's dad worked at Weyerhauser's Federal Way office. In the last several years, I've seen traffic on 167 that blows my mind; I can't ever remember the highway looking like that.

I actually think the pattern you describe is exactly the result of distance commutes. Once all the outlanders are at work or out of the city, the freeways clear up somewhat. Depending on where you are in the city grid, driving is still an interesting experience, and parking is its own.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

heyya all :)

a drug shop is a DRUG SHOP!
what RETARDS are trying to make a bar sound like a kids health food store?

are we all going to ban drinking in public places,
and taking medicine that might give you some form of reliefe.

FREAKS!

the right to breathe fresh air is not even a possibilty in most big citys!
so now the morons want to stop a sedative.

WHICH BRINGS IN ONE OF THE LARGEST TAX REVENUES!
the goverment will introduce new taxes if it eliminates smoking!

it cant afford not to have the tax revenue from ahcahol and tabacco!

so whos pocket are they pissing in?

more people dye from being over weight and that costs more on society than any other thing!
so when will being FAT BE ILLEGAL?
seriouse question!
that is in the same logical progresion
largest growth industry besides I.T i think.

groove on all :)

Originally posted by tiassa
It's actually quite relevant, I think.

I admit I’m a biased observer. I hate long commutes and stalled traffic so much I studied a satellite view of the Seattle metro area to help figure out the best place to live commute-wise. Told the realtor I’d consider only the I-90 corridor. I rarely risk the freeways during rush hours.

Commute hours pack the buses in Seattle;

No doubt busses pollute less than cars per capita during peak hours. But the rest of the day there’s like 5 people per bus. Effectively that’s a pro-business tax. Hotels for example can afford to pay maids minimum wage because the maids are getting a $5 bus ride for $1, compliments of the general taxpayer.

Considering also the odd pattern of traffic capacity--your observation happens to overlook the power of one stalled car to paralyze three freeways,

Were you here in Winter ’92 when not one but two busses were frozen in place across all lanes of two key arterials on Queen Anne for a week? Take that!

but that's less important I admit--I tend to think the whole situation suggests, as noted, that the problem lies with the distance commuters coming in from Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties at least.

What are these people thinking? Just because you can live on Hood Canal and work in Seattle doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. The root cause of many problems is when people aren’t charged the full cost of services. Someone commuting 2 hours each way should be charged higher road taxes. Because they aren’t places like Port Angeles start to look doable.

In the last several years, I've seen traffic on 167 that blows my mind; I can't ever remember the highway looking like that.

Yeah you pretty much have to ignore 167 when compiling stats on traffic. It’s a clusterfuck! It blows my mind when people tell me they just bought a house in Kent because it’s cheaper. I’m thinking like, “did you include that extra 2 hours per day commute into your calculations?”

Originally posted by ripleofdeath
more people dye from being over weight and that costs more on society than any other thing!
so when will being FAT BE ILLEGAL?

We’re getting there! The McDonald’s fat-person lawsuit was the first foray toward that. Remember it took hundreds of lawsuits against the tobacco industry before they caved. Maybe fat people don’t affect the skinny enough to matter though.

heyya zanket

at the risk of getting too intrusive
i repel at the thought of how much productivity and quality of life is lost through the family trauma of obesity problems.
mixed with the perpetual mental abuse that keeps them in the buyers line for weightlos products.

i personaly can cure almost anyones weightproblem
but most people are just not willing to change the way they do things!

AND unless its some "super(= rare looking) model then they dont attach the relavance that such people might trade off.

too sad.
busses!
dont talk to me about busses :mad:
all our buses are tax payer subserdised and so tax payers are subserdising all the tourists to travel by bus!
its just rediculouse!
and they could run them on ahlcohol if they wanted
and ethinol and what a differnce that would make!

but ohh no
they spend millions on making up reason why not to spend millions!

groove on all :)

Quite recently in Britain smoking has became the embodyment of all evil, its the root of all cancer. They are too considering banning smoking in public places for example: bars, clubs etc. They have also put on every packet of smokes warning labels that tell you that smoking kills, causes cancer, kills sperm etc etc etc.
What annoys me is that i already know all these things but why do they have to stick these warning labels on every packet of cigarettes, its not like the general population doesnt know about these risks associated with smoking. They have also put the price of cigarette duty up, as we all know cigarettes are addictive so if they keep raising the price of cigarettes people will still buy them because they are addicted. These actions in my view are hypocritical of the government, they are sending mixed messages, firstly its legal which should imply that it is reletively harmless but then they start with the anti smoking campaign making people feel like shit because they smoke even though most already dont like their habit. They are making an absolute packet with the tax they are making off of the cigarettes but no improvement in the NHS is apparent at all.
Why ban smoking in public places, because they want to make the air cleaner for non-smokers? If you dont like breathing other peoples smoke then dont go to a bar/ club that allows smoking - dont go then sit and complain to the bar staff.

all these anti-smoking ads and stuff make me want to purchase a billboard and have it say something like Cigarrets have vitamins A b, and b12 or "Cigarrets are cool"

Smoking still has that 'cool' factor and i dont see it ever going away because the more that they make smoking undesirable, the 'cool' factor will increase.