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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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.
Excuse me, but how did you manage to confuse public smoking with building regulations? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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. 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. 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.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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.
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.
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. 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. 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.
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. 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.
Public smoking bans 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A tangent 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.
