smoking legislation/2nd hand smoke

[John Corn]

I am very much a non smoker and have applauded NYC in their recent move to ban smoking in restaurants and bars in NYC. Opponents have decried both a lack of evidence that second hand smoke is so bad for you, as well as it hurting the restaurant/bar owner.

Well, read this:
The Secondhand Smoking Gun

The citizens of Helena voted in June 2002 to ban smoking in all public buildings — including restaurants, bars and casinos. Soon after, doctors at the local hospital noticed that heart-attack admissions were dropping. So they, in conjunction with the University of California, San Francisco, did a study to measure the potential short-term effects of a smoking ban...
The study showed two trends. First, there was no change in heart attack rates for patients who lived outside city limits. But for city residents, the rates plummeted by 58 percent in only six months...
It was also stunning to witness what happened next. The Montana State Legislature, under pressure from the Montana Tavern Association and tobacco lobbyists, rescinded the ban in December. The result: heart-attack rates bounced back up almost as quickly as they dropped.

In addition, despite the dire economic predictions that preceded it, the smoking ban in New York City does not appear to have drastically depressed business. From March to June, the city created 10,000 new restaurant and bar jobs, according to the Department of Labor. The state Department of Taxation and Finance's most recent report of alcohol and beer tax collections (which measures both on-premises consumption and retail sales) shows that revenues rose to $15.2 million this past August, from $14.4 million in August 2002. And although the tobacco lobby continues to finance a campaign claiming that New Yorkers are unhappy with the ban, a poll released earlier this month by Quinnipiac University reported that 59 percent of voters in the state favor prohibiting smoking in public places; another survey, commissioned in August by antismoking groups, found that 70 percent of New York City voters support it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/15/opinion/15ELLI.html

There is nothing I hate worse than going to a restaurant and having to smell cigarette smoke the entire time. It ruins the meal for me.

I used to smoke in HS and don't beleive I was addicted, but if you can't go to a restaurant and not smoke for 1 hour, there's something wrong with that picture

 

[AndyMon]

Freedom Of Choice

If you want to open a business, i.e. restaurant or bar, allow smoking and hire people who are ok with smoking then you should be able to. Market forces will decide whether you succeed or not. The guy next door can open a place that doesn't allow smoking. That should satisfy all, no? Seems to make sense to me. The problems arise when someone decides he wants to go into the smoking establishment and tell everyone in there that they can't smoke. There's always someone who wants to tell everyone else how to live. They queer it for the rest of us. I hate people telling me what I can and can't do. Next they'll be trying to enact laws that prohibit you from smoking in your own house. Believe me, it's not as far fetched as it sounds. [sigh]

 

[brian]

So using your logic I should be able to walk into a bar with a baseball bat and start bashing in heads? I mean I should be able to do what I want right? You're probably thinking that you can't hit people with a baseball bat because that harms them. Well using your line of logic, then LEAVE if you don't want to get hit with a baseball bat.

I think the laws are trying to protect people so that they can go where they want WITHOUT being physically harmed by someone else's actions. If it's illegal to bash in heads with a baseball bat, then it should be illegal to smoke in public. Both actions result in physical harm to the receiver of the action (baseball bat to head or second-hand smoke).

 

[Stargazer]

If there is going to be smoking allowed inside public businesses then they should make it to where there is a nonsmoking section that will get NO cigarette smoke from the cigarette section. I have seen some restaurants have this.

If it reduced heart attacks 58% then I am all for it. Maybe there is more to it than causing those innocent to get heartattacks from second-hand smoke. Maybe its about being enclosed in a building in rooms that get stale from the smoke.

 

[AndyMon]

So using your logic I should be able to walk into a bar with a baseball bat and start bashing in heads? ....[snip]... If it's illegal to bash in heads with a baseball bat, then it should be illegal to smoke in public. Both actions result in physical harm to the receiver of the action (baseball bat to head or second-hand smoke).

Excuse me? As far as I can tell, your specious argument uses absolutely no logic. It's rubbish, nonsense. I'm surprised I'm wasting my time responding to your ineffabble twaddle. If you can't see the weakness of your analogy then what's the point?
Actually, if you wanted to open your bar where you choose to bash in people's heads then I would excercise my choice (and good sense) and not frequent your establishment. I don't think many people outside of your masochistic ilk would. Market forces would, in all likelihood, decide your fate as would your ever shrinking customer base. Then again, maybe Louisville Slugger would subsidize your operation.
If you're an anti-smoking nazi then just say so (oh yeah, you did). Don't give us this baseball bat blather to disguise your real motivation.

 

[AllieVi]

Re: Freedom Of Choice

If you want to open a business, i.e. restaurant or bar, allow smoking and hire people who are ok with smoking then you should be able to. Market forces will decide whether you succeed or not. The guy next door can open a place that doesn't allow smoking. That should satisfy all, no?[sigh]

I agree with this approach. Each restaurant would post a sign stating that it is either a "smoking" or "non-smoking" establishment and let the customer decide. For some people, a meal is not complete without lighting up afterward - so be it.

I'm not a smoker, but I don't feel a need to try to change those who are. I DO want to have a smoke-free eating experience, though. This approach satisfies everyone (except those who are control freaks).

 

[AndyMon]

Re: Freedom Of Choice

Ah, a fair, reasoned and equitable approach. Live and let live. Choice is good. This way no one steps on anyone's toes. I'll wager smokers would , at times, opt for a non-smoking environment and the option would be there. It seems the proscriptionist control freaks just want to make everyone do it their way which annoys the hell out of me in all aspects of what it entails.

I agree with this approach. Each restaurant would post a sign stating that it is either a "smoking" or "non-smoking" establishment and let the customer decide. For some people, a meal is not complete without lighting up afterward - so be it.

I'm not a smoker, but I don't feel a need to try to change those who are. I DO want to have a smoke-free eating experience, though. This approach satisfies everyone (except those who are control freaks).

 

[brian]

Excuse me?

There is no excuse..

Actually, if you wanted to open your bar where you choose to bash in people's heads then I would excercise my choice (and good sense) and not frequent your establishment.

Where did I say I wanted to open a bar? Seems to me you are the blathering idiot.
I said walk into a bar. Here in Tulsa there isn't a lot of choices for non-smoking establishments. So I go to places until I find one that doesn't have much (if any) smoke. While I'm there it NEVER fails that smokers come in and irritate my asthma. It feels much like a baseball bat hitting me in the chest. I should be able to go to an establishment just as anyone else would and not have to leave because someone is smoking.

If you're an anti-smoking nazi then just say so (oh yeah, you did). Don't give us this baseball bat blather to disguise your real motivation.

Smoking is the only legal way I know of to walk into a public establishment and physically harm the people there. I used a baseball bat as an analogy to show how ridiculous it is that it is legal to smoke in public places. Why do smokers have such a hard time seeing this? It has been proven over and over again by the medical community that has no 'agenda'. They would make LESS money if everyone were to quit smoking because of the decrease in public health problems. This has already been proven in areas that have banned public smoking.

Actually, how does one financially benefit in stopping smoking? They don't. A smoker would save a ton of money, but the persons fighting smoking won't make a dimie if everyone were to quit. It amazes me how far the anti-smoking movement has made it since it is up big tobacco companies with nearly unlimited pocketbooks.

 

[brian]

Oh, meant to add that if it weren't for my baby-sitter smoking when I was a child I most likely wouldn't have asthma to begin with. I'm the only person in my familty to have it.

Gotta love smokers forcing the health hazards of smoking onto others.

 

[AndyMon]

Where did I say I wanted to open a bar? Seems to me you are the blathering idiot.
I said walk into a bar. Here in Tulsa there isn't a lot of choices for non-smoking establishments. So I go to places until I find one that doesn't have much (if any) smoke. While I'm there it NEVER fails that smokers come in and irritate my asthma. It feels much like a baseball bat hitting me in the chest. I should be able to go to an establishment just as anyone else would and not have to leave because someone is smoking.

Oops, my bad. I gave you credit for bringing something to the table and being able to realize that this was a hypothetical scenario ("your bar").
Reading on, I se where your problem lies. It seems that you live in an area where smoking in public places and private business establishments is not verboten so you don't have many, if any, options. Looks like a niche waiting to be filled. Some enterprising entrepeneur should jump at the opportunity to open an establishment where they do not allow smoking. Why haven't they done so? Do they think that it won't fly?
I, however, live where they've banned smoking just about everywhere. My point in this whole "argument" is that both types of establishments should be allowed to co-exist. Let people have options; don't force one way on everyone.
Why do you think that a smoker should not have a place to go where he/she can eat and drink and smoke? I fully support a non smoker being able to go where there is no smoking allowed but the door should swing both ways, no? This, I think would appease everyone but that's just me.
The whole "weapon" and "health" issue then becomes moot to non smokers. Smokers then have the right to destroy themselves and only themselves in the way they see fit.