Bar owners: Profits went up in smoke after ban (NY)

[Norcom]

Bar owners: Profits went up in smoke after ban
Some patrons take their business -- and cigarettes -- to Pa.

When Phil Leary opened the doors to his newly renovated Kirkwood pub in June, he never thought he'd lose about 40 percent of his business to the Keystone state.

But just one month after he opened CJ's Pub, his first business venture, he was smacked with New York's smoking ban. The 43-year-old Kirkwood resident spent eight months and thousands of dollars renovating his Route 11 tavern. Despite the adverse effects of smoking, Leary says lighting up is a choice -- a choice he elects not to make, but doesn't think others should be prevented from making.

Leary fields plenty of complaints from smokers about the ban. Since it was enacted in July, some patrons light up outside, others find another spot to smoke. Much of the time customers make the three-mile drive into Pennsylvania. There is no smoking ban there.


Full Article...
http://pressconnects.com/today/topstories/stories/to111703s46367.shtml

[Endangered Specie]

1. people making more money

that ought to make conservatives (who oppose the ban) happy. :toast:

[FauxNewsBlues]

2. Bar Ban is too far

I am not a smoker, and I don't like smoke, but there should be a limit to the smoking bans. I think a bar is a good example. If somebody is consuming mass quantities of alcohol, they tend not to be as bothered by health concerns.

The same thing has happened here in California. Alot of bars have gone under since the smoking ban. Unless people want bars to close, which may actually be a good thing, they need to rethink banning cigarettes from adult establishments.

[Kosmos Mariner]

253. Bars going out of business...

....is probably a good thing. :beer: People should be free to smoke themselves to death, just don't pollute my air in a restaurant or bar. My 2 cents...

:dem:

[creativelcro]

287. Totally agree!!!

Regarding restaurants, in several towns in MA where the smoke ban went into effect restaurants are actually doing BETTER than before the ban. Why ? Because families with kids now eat more at smoke-free restaurants, and smokers can abstain for a couple of hrs while they eat. Same thing in CA. Not sure about bars, but I doubt the world would be a worse place without bars, anyway... -C

>>
....is probably a good thing. :beer: People should be free to smoke themselves to death, just don't pollute my air in a restaurant or bar. My 2 cents...

:dem:
>>

[dreissig]

3. Second Hand Smoke

Cigarette smoke is a known carcinogen. People who smoke can do it outside, where nobody else has to breathe in toxic gases except themselves.

The smoking ban isn't about the rights of smokers, it's about the rights of non-smokers. There's no way to accommodate both in an enclosed area. If you want to smoke, go outside.

[Norcom]

5. How about the

property rights of the owners of the establishments?

[dreissig]

12. Property Rights

Property rights of bar owners aren't absolute. This industry has always been heavily regulated, and for good reason. The property rights argument is essentially a libertarian argument, so it's really an objection to regulation per se. Why have a health and safety code at all? If you're going to have any health and safety regulations, it seems appropriate to restrict poisonous gases in public gathering places. Cigarette smoke is a known carcinogen.

[Norcom]

20. Why not just ban cigarettes

in total?

Call the private property argument "libertarian" all you want. But private property rights should be upheld and defended as much as free speech and other rights that we would not stand for the slightest infringement upon.

Emminent Domain abuses are running rampant and virtually no one knows about them or cares about them because its not their property being taken. The reduction of property rights to a 'lesser right' is having and will continue to have disasterous effects and will migrate to other rights.

[dreissig]

27. Eminent Domain Abuses

I don't consider the ban on smoking in places of public accommodation an eminent domain abuse. Cigarette smoke is a known carcinogen. If you want to smoke, go outside.

[Norcom]

30. You misread

I am not connecting the smoking ban and emminent domain. I am drawing a comparrison between the two with the continual assault on property rights.

[dreissig]

35. Slippery Slope

You were suggesting that taking away a smoker's "right" to pollute a bar room will lead to internment camps for political dissidents. I don't buy the argument.

[Norcom]

38. Where in the world

did you come up with that conclusion? Show me where I said anything remotly approaching what you claim I said.

[sangh0]

42. Here's where

The reduction of property rights to a 'lesser right' is having and will continue to have disasterous effects and will migrate to other rights.

Which "other rights" were you referring to and what are the "disasterous effects"?

[dreissig]

49. Disastrous Effects

You say: The reduction of property rights to a 'lesser right' is having and will continue to have disastrous effects and will migrate to other rights

You imply here that banning smoking in bars will have a "disastrous effect" on other rights. Because you didn't spell out what this disastrous effect would be, I took a guess that it might mean internment camps for dissenters. From your objection I gather that you didn't mean to go that far.

Fair enough. I don't wish to draw unwarranted conclusions. What disastrous effect do you foresee as a result of the ban on smoking in bar rooms?

[Norcom]

58. Its not just the ban on smoking

that I am referring to in that. But the continual assault on private property rights. I used emminent domain as an example. All over the country companies like Wal-Mart are using the governmental power of emminent domain to aquire property to build their stores. Government, and many citizens unfortunatly have lost a lot of respect for private property rights.

As a flip side argument, from a property rights and governmental power stand point, what is the difference between the government telling a business owner that they can not allow smoking and that they MUST allow smoking?

[sangh0]

60. Changing your tune?

If you want to complain about Wal-Mart, I suggest you start a thread about it. You'll find a lot of sympathy for that on DU. This is about smoking bans, and Wal-Marts activities have nothing to do with the smoking ban, or your false claim that businesses are losing money because of it.

As a flip side argument, from a property rights and governmental power stand point, what is the difference between the government telling a business owner that they can not allow smoking and that they MUST allow smoking?

Why do you care? Businesses are regulated. Get over it!

[Norcom]

65. False claim

for you to claim that businesses are not losing money because of the ban on smoking is to ignore reality. Have some seen an increase in business? Yes. Have some seen a decline as a direct result of the ban? Yes. Do border bars enjoy an increase because smokers can drive a short distance and still smoke while drinking? Yes.

[sangh0]

Assertions witout evidence

Do you really think you're going to sway me simply by repeating your usupported and false claims? I don't care if you've spiced it up by adding phrases like "is to ignore reality".

You're still making the same unspported and false claims. The only evidence you have cited is some bar in upstate NY and how I "ignore reality".

[dreissig]

74. God Given Rights

Assertions without evidence are generally called faith. Drinkers who smoke think they have a God-given right to smoke in a bar. When Health & Safety codes interfere, why it's positively unnatural. It never occurs to them that smoking in a bar can be just as unacceptable as smoking in a courtroom.

[sangh0]

76. And someone has faith

that business regulations are unconstitutional. It seems like I've heard that before from somewhere.

[trogdor]

254. People have, and DO, suggest crap like this.

Blowing smoke in people's faces is a RIGHT.
Riding a motorcycle or driving without seatbelts (and having the public pay for your stupidity when you go to the ER) is a RIGHT.
Burning garbage in your backyard is a RIGHT.
Pouring toxic waste (like used motor oil) down your sink is a RIGHT.
Keeping unsecured (and loaded) firearms in your nightstand drawer is a RIGHT.

I have heard people defend EACH of these RIGHTS to their last breath, saying if we don't defend them, we'll soon be living in a Fascist police state, complete with concentration camps.

There is no inherent right to act stupidly, when acting so affects other people. When libertarians argue otherwise, they lose me.

[dreissig]

296. Primitive Rights and Derived Rights

In the Enlightenment they had to assert certain basic rights as "God-given" or as "self-evident". I call these primitive rights as opposed to derived rights. The "rights" you mention are at best derived rights.

One of the problems with language is that the absence of a right sounds like it implies prohibition, but it doesn't. You don't have either a primitive or a derived right to wear polka-dotted underwear. I wonder how you'd sue to get a court to overturn a law against it.

There's no right to blow smoke either in somebody's face or into the air inside a restaurant. And banning either doesn't imply we're on a slippery-slope to a fascist police state.

[Norcom]

41. Smokers "right"

Further, find for me a single post where I talk about "smokers rights" or anything approaching them? You can't. Because not a single time have I said it. The only "rights" I have referred to are private property rights in regardes to those who OWN the business.

I support the rights of the business owner and the property owner. If a guy wants to open a bar and rents space from a building owner and the owner of the building forbids him from allowing smoking in the bar I am 100% in support of that. Its his building!

[sangh0]

44. Here's where

The reduction of property rights to a 'lesser right' is having and will continue to have disasterous effects and will migrate to other rights.

You spoke of the owner's "right" to allow people to smoke in their establishment. They have no such "right". If dreissig was confused about the right you were referring to, it might be because you created a fictional "right".

[Norcom]

72. Errosion of "rights"

The smoking ban is only one link in the chain of the assault on property rights. NY is currently considering a ban on smoking in YOUR CAR! Yes. If you have a minor child riding with you they want to make it ILLEGAL to smoke in your car.

Other townships have attempted to ban smoking IN YOUR HOME!

Tell me that such actions are not a considerable assault on freedom and property rights?

What right does the government have to tell people that they can not smoke in their own home?

[sangh0]

75. Such actions are NOT an assault on freedom and property rights

Whine all you want, and enjoy the hysterics while you can, but there are no "property rights" issues here. The smoking ban affects businesses, and the govt is allowed to regulate businesses.

[dreissig]

83. Smoking in the Workplace

The proposed ban on smoking at home refers to homes that are workplaces for other people. Yes, the right to a smokefree workplace extends even to people's homes.

f you have somebody working in your home every day, it means you're not allowed to smoke at home. Big deal. You have a couple of easy remedies. Let's not forget the first and most readily available option: Just step outside.

[Norcom]

84. The smoking ban attempt

I was referring to was not for homes that have businesses operating out of them but solely places of residence.

[sangh0]

85. Changing your tune?

You started out complaining about the fiction that businesses are losing money due to the ban that actually passed. Now you're complaining about a law that hasn't been passed yet?

How many businesses have suffered from this fictional ban?

[trogdor]

258. So, you have the right to give your kids emphysema.

That's child abuse, pure and simple.

[sangh0]

263. The smoker's response

"The kid wouldn't compromise!" :-)

[Mountainman]

51. You have a very limited vision I think

Try to imagine a country were anyone who owned property did what ever they wanted no mater how much it effected anyone else?

I own property and a stream flows across it. I have the right to dump any toxic matter I want into "my" stream. That is only one example.

You can say what you want but you wouldn't want to live in the world you say you want to create! You don't live in a vacuum!

[treepig]

16. yeah, property rights are important

would they extend to the rights of the property owner to construct an arsenic-laced deck for the use of their patrons?

(in reference to this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=2595)

on the plus side, less cigarette smoke would be breathed out on the deck, on the down side, yeah, the arsenic!

however, a rational analysis of the risk involves would show that the cigarette smoke is much more dangerous than virtually any carcinogen pollutant widely dispersed in the environment.

[DCDemo]

21. No, a rational analysis of second hand smoke exposure for a couple of hour

Would show that you have a greater cancer risk from high-altitude passneger jet flying, or hiking in the mountaints for the weekend.

Don't confuse a brief exposure to a toxin (second hand smoke) with causing cancer.....it takes a LOT of exposure to have an effect....just like smoking one cigarette will do no appreciable damage or reduce your life expectancy, but smoking 10,000 will..

[treepig]

29. umm, probably not . . .

the proper comparison would be an equal amount of time exposed to high altitudes and second hand smoke.

neither a single five hour flight or five hours in the smoky bar is likely to cause cancer. if you do either every day, then it's time to be concerned, and start comparing risks.

basically, DNA damage that might cause cancer experienced at high altitudes all derives from reactive oxygen species caused by the higher levels of ionizing radiation that occur at higher altitudes. these types of DNA damage are exactly the same as occur due to natural metabolism, and cells are easily able to repair this damage.

by contrast, cigarette smoke contains about 600 different known and suspected carcinogens, some of which cause types of DNA damage that are very difficult for a cell to repair. unrepaired DNA damage is likely to lead to a mutation in the DNA sequence. if the mutation occurs at exactly the right (or maybe wrong would be a better word to use) spot in the DNA, such as in the gene for p53 (an anti-oncogenic protein) a healthy cell is on its way to becoming a cancer cell.

quite frankly, i don't know of any studies that posit that exposure to high altitudes constitutes anything like that danger from cigarette smoke, but if you can provide any, i'll be happy to reconsider my position

[sangh0]

92. Umm, a typical shift in a bar lasts 8 hours

and you can multiply that times five (at least days a week) times fifty-two (the # of weeks in a year).

[Spentastic]

9. Or

If you don't want to patronise an establishment where people smoke, find one that doesn't?

I'd actually support the government banning (theoretically) smoking and associated products. But banning smoking in ALL bars seems a half arsed stupid measure.

Let the market decide.

[dreissig]

13. The Market Solution

So Democrats turn into Libertarians when it comes to smoking in their neighborhood bar. If you're going to endorse the idea Let the market decide, why stop at cigarette smoking in saloons?

The point is that market solutions aren't necessarily right or fair. They are just market solutions, that's all. Smokers have options - they can step outside to smoke.

[Spentastic]

69. Only when

Stupid draconian laws are introduced.

I smoke. It's stupid and it will kill me. I don't wish to hurt other people. I enjoy smoking whilst I drink. Other people also enjoy doing this. It is legal. Places could be provided where non smokers could drink smoke free to their hearts content. Why can't I have a bar where I can smoke and drink inside?

[pnb]

97. Because...

...some non-smokers feel it is their "right" to be able to go anywhere they want and not have to be subjected to anything they don't like. That's all.

[sangh0]

99. It's not legal anymore

Why can't I have a bar where I can smoke and drink inside?

Because, it's not legal anymore.

[PapaClay]

80. And as the trend

toward non-smoking establishments continues, you have an option. Go to a non-smoking bar and leave me the hell alone.

The harder they push, the harder I push back.

[pnb]

96. Non-smokers have options to

Don't go to bars that allow smoking.

What's so difficult about that?

[JHB]

11. What about ventilation systems?

There are venting systems that can keep a smoking room air cleaner than what's on the outside, but blanket bans don't allow for those.

Are there no places that can be designated: Smoking on premises: enter at your own risk?

[Norcom]

17. Thats what makes this smoking ban even worse

Bar and restaurant owners in NY were told that no ban was going to be passed, but a requirement for a certain type of filtration system would be passed. So the owners went out and spent many thousands of dollars on these ventilation systems so they would be in compliance when the law came to be. Well, a couple months later the NY Legislature changed its mind and passed the total ban.

[treepig]

34. is it possible to provide a link to your information on clean air?

once i had the opportunity to tour a tobacco processing plant. the tour guide made a big deal about how "clean" the plant was (i.e., in comparison to a typical plant that makes your taco chips (for example) where there's likely to be a significant amount of insect carcasses and rodent feces that are co-processed along with the corn).

so, just because the tobacco was clean, i wasn't entirely convinced that it was healthy. so even if the smoking room air is deemd "clean" - a key question is who's standard's are being used to define clean!

[pnb]

94. What?

When did it become a "right" for any person to not be subjected to cigarette smoke anywhere they feel like?

[Robin Hood]

95. Let the free market handle it.

If a bar owner wants to have a smoke free bar, then let that owner market themselves in that fashion. If there is a need for smoke free bars then they will be created. Obviously there appears to be little need for smoke free bars since non-smokers have resorted to legislation.

[trogdor]

264. That's like fighting for campaign finance reform...

...by following the rules, even though your opponent refuses to (Dean vs. Bush). It only works if the rules are equally applied. Unfortunately, when a STATE does this, people who operate bars and restaurants near state borders suffer. That's life.

Incidentally, there are FEW New Yorkers who live close enough to the Pennsylvania state line to practically cross it to smoke while boozing it up. If I were a county mountie, I'd patrol the state line at closing time to bust all their asses. Make 'em all have designated drivers. That'll learn 'em.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

158. If the bar owner wants smoking, why can't the non-smoker be the one

outside?

[sangh0]

177. If the bar owner wants no blacks, why can't the black be the one

outside?

A: Because the law prohibits it.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

312. Tht's a load of horse poop. Totally different ideals here.

If you mind the smoke or if you don't. Simple. Your choice.

[Scairp]

235. The argument

That these smoking bans are another infringment of the rights of the individual is old, tired and complete and utter BS. Finally, those of us who DON'T smoke because we are bright enough to know it is a killer, are being protected. Other aspects of our health and well-being is forcibly protected all of the time. You must wear a seatbelt in a car or risk being cited. You cannot drink alcohol anywhere you choose; most states and/or communities have open container laws. You cannot legally use illicit drugs. Smokers are addicts and addicts are unreasonable people. If the smoking ban in all public buildings were nationwide, there would be nothing more to discuss. I see it coming and cannot wait for the day that addicted persons will no longer be able to force me to breath their smoke just because I want to go out for a meal or to have a drink.

[Jose Diablo]

4. Smoking ban is Carrie Nations in a new dress

The more things seem different, the more they are they same.

Same old crap, in a new wrapper.

[bleedingheart]

6. People go to bars to meet people and socialize

when the law limits the people who can socialize at your establishment, it will hurt business.

I never liked bars due to smoke, so I chose not to go to bars. It makes sense to ban smoking in places where people don't have a choice...like hospitals, government offices or even a place of employment....but Bars are an optional "luxury" place... you can choose not to go in them if you don't like smoke.

I do want to say that I am happy that workplaces did ban smoking inside. I worked for a few years in a building that allowed smoking....the windows didn't open in the office and it smelled horrible. The office next to mine had a human chimney in it....so one day I bought incense sticks... I burned them...she got so pissed about the smell...I told her that I didn't appreciate the smell her cigarettes made and she got the message....The VP of the company even took my side....he said that there was no ban on incense sticks...hee hee...

[mdmc]

7. this just is not true

Drunks still go to bars.
Now, people who hate to smell like smoke, but enjoyed having a drink, go out more.

The drunks still drink; they have to. Now they go outside to smoke.

And supercool bars now have patio seating or rooftop seating to smoke in.

Bars also have new interest from casual drinkers, that happen to drive by a bar and see folks waiting to get in. They are not waiting to get in, they are smoking. People want to check out the new "hot spots".

I contend that prohabition always fails. Make alcohol, pot, and tobbacco illegal. Once the big three are on the run, nightlife will no doubt rise. We need speakeasys!

[Norcom]

10. Bar owners are lying?

Not true? The bar owners are lying that their business is down?

Yes, drunks are still getting drunk. And business has picked up. But not at the bars. But at grocery stores and liquor stores. Drinkers are staying HOME and drinking.

I know for a fact that my family and friends who still lives in NY, and are smokers and drinkers are now spending Sunday watching football at theirs and friends houses. And the non-smokers of the group are doing the same. Because they want to spend time with family and friends rooting on their team with them.

Home parties have increased a great deal.

[bleedingheart]

14. To be honest it would be better to see more stats on this

this article deal with one fellow and his situation is more complicated...he had renovated his bar... perhaps his clients didn't like his renovations or what he did. Maybe his wings aren't so great or the beer selection is poor. I am not sure where this guy is located but if there are more trendy bars in town...

Just as a side note...Road Construction has been known to screw over businesses here in PA... those that rebound are those that had a good reputation to begin with.

[sangh0]

23. Yep, that's why this is a lie

It tries to argue that because one restaurant near the border is having problems, the ban must be affecting all restaurants.

Pure bulls**t

[Norcom]

26. I am a betting man

and I would lay a sizable wager that if you compared restaurant/bar sales in NY for 1 year prior to the ban (July 23 2002 to July 23 2003) to sales for July 24 2003 to July 24 2004 you will find that the sales in the post ban year are lower.

[bleedingheart]

31. and I bet that economic issues across the state are affecting

the revenues as well...when people have less money to spend on essentials they don't go to bars unless they are drowning out their problems....

For instance, local fundraisers in my area all raked in less this year than last... all due to the economy.

I bet his wings were too greasy and his mozzarella sticks had too much breading.

I also think that crossing state lines to drink has the added potential of arrest for drunk driving arrests of NYers in PA...I wonder if we could get those stats.

[Norcom]

36. If its the ecomomy

How do you explain the tremendous increase in alcohol sales at grocery stores and liquor stores in NY? People are still drinking just as much, they are just doing it somewhere else.

[sangh0]

40. Price

That's how I explain it. Bars and restaurants charge more for alcohol. But I bet you already knew that.

[bleedingheart]

48. I get charged $4-8 bucks for a vodka martini depending upon

the grade of vodka and the bar....

I can buy a decent bottle of Vodka for about $25 and a bottle of decent olives for around $4.....I get a lot more bang for my buck at home...then if I spend it out. If I was hurting for cash but still wanted a drink...I'd go to the liquor store...

[sangh0]

39. Smoking bans have increased business

in other areas that have tried it. I know of no hard evidence that smaking bans reduce restaurant and bar business aside from the anecdotal evidence businesses provide through special interest lobbying groups, which tend to get support from the tobacco industry which has a well-documented history of lying.

[Blue_Chill]

78. I call bullshit

Show me evidence of increased business please. I live in the DC area and some Maryland counties passed a smoking ban. Their business went straight to shit as customers simpley went to DC instead.

But what about new customers? Well you see the funny thing is people want to be at the "hotspots". They follow the smokers to because they don't want to be at a clean air bar that's HALF EMPTY.

[sangh0]

It's already been posted

Someone posted info about El Paso. If you want to know about NYC, call NYC's Chamber of Commerce.

But what about new customers? Well you see the funny thing is people want to be at the "hotspots". They follow the smokers to because they don't want to be at a clean air bar that's HALF EMPTY.

Is that why NYC has a bumper crop of people applying for licenses to open new clubs?

[Blue_Chill]

86. NYC is not a model that fits many other places

it takes too damn long to get to a place that does allow smoking.

But what the hell are you going to tell bar owners that have bars that do allow smoking right down the street?

But hey why not pretend a city dominated by people that don't even own cars is a business model for the rest of the US.

[sangh0]

87. LOL

YOu can get to NJ in 5 minutes from Manhattan. Nice try.

But what the hell are you going to tell bar owners that have bars that do allow smoking right down the street?

The ban applies to all of NY.

But hey why not pretend a city dominated by people that don't even own cars is a business model for the rest of the US

Ban supporters have El Paso and NYC, both of which increased business.

Ban opposers mention two bars. Maybe it's just me, but two bars is not a "business model" for the rest of the US, either.

[MadHound]

98. Actually, from a historical and economic perspective, you're wrong

When times are tough, and the economy is down, bar business remains stable at worst, and most of the time goes up. Same with movies(though home theatre is probably skewing the stats this time around). People may feel the need to conserve money, but they equally, if not moreso, feel the need for escapism.

[treepig]

147. so perhaps ny's bar woes are due to the sizzling economy?

Empire State Index sets record reading, again
November's manufacturing conditions, outlook bode well

By Greg Robb, CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 9:11 AM ET Nov. 17, 2003

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Business conditions at manufacturers in the New York region improved substantially for the second straight month in November, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York said Monday.

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B8B801215%2D90C4%2D486D%2D9615%2D5616FFDA1827%7D&siteid=mktw

[treepig]

47. here's some stats from el paso

caution: PDF

www.tdh.state.tx.us/bdip/Revenue03.pdf

if you are scared of pdf's - the bottom line is that a ban on smoking did not decrease bar sales.

[pnb]

105. I moved away from NY 4 years ago

And I talk to friends there who smoke regularly and they are not going out to bars anymore...and these are people who can certainly afford to go. I spoke to two friends who are both bar owners who started losing business at a far faster pace then they had been immediately after bans took effect.

[sangh0]

112. Business is up in NYC bars

and the city has received a large # of applications for licenses to open new clubs. Seeing as how it costs millions to open a new club in NYC, I doubt these people are forseeing a drop in business.

Also, my brother's business depends on restaurants staying busy. The restaurants are doing extremely well.

[pnb]

124. And from all I hear it is down on Long Island

That is where I am from. I know when the enacted the cigarette bans in Suffolk county on restaurants, a number of people stopped eating out as much...or at least in Suffolk county anyway. I know because I was one of them. And if I still lived in NY now, I'd be one of the people no longer frequenting LI bars, at least not nearly as often as I once did.

[Norcom]

113. YOUR A LIAR!

No doubt. You are making that up. What do you mean your smoking friends are staying away from the bars and the bars are losing business? Haven't you read this thread? Smoking bans make bar business boom! Just look at El Paso!!!

Those who deny that bars in NY have seen a decline in business since July 24th are living in fantasy land.

[sangh0]

117. Typical name-calling when arguments are weak

I can name three bars that have opened and doing great business since 7/24.

[Norcom]

120. Ahhhh

1) My post wasn't to you

2) It was SARCASM!

And after all, every post you have made on this thread leads to a single conclusion... the poster was lying.

But I guarentee you he was telling the truth.

[sangh0]

123. Yeah, right

Are you trying to pretend that your post was NOT meant to imply that those of us who disagree with you are ignoring the facts?

ANd I haven't once said or implied that anyone was lying. I have said and implied that some posters are wrong.

[Norcom]

125. Was pnb

in post #105 "wrong"?

[sangh0]

128. I don't know

What I do know was that pnb was "irrelevant" in #105. Anecdotal evidence is not persuasive. Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence is all you got.

[pnb]

300. What other good evidence has been given on the other side?

Everything I've seen has been either just as anecdotal or just plain flawed.

[bread_and_roses]

8. The smoking bans

are a distraction from addressing the issue of the pollutants you breath, drink, and eat every day as a result of industry-friendly, inadequate environmental regulations. As a smoker who does not defend smoking, nonetheless, I have to smile wryly at the "smokescreen" effect - the usual keep attention focused on individual behaviors, not systemic problems.

[dreissig]

19. Systemic Problems, Systemic Solutions

Indoor air pollution is a systemic problem, and banning cigarette smoking in places of public accommodation is a systemic solution. Perhaps there are additional sources of indoor pollution, but cigarette smoking is up there at the top.

[bread_and_roses]

22. See replies #

11 & 17

[PapaClay]

15. We had to

close the bar, in order to save it.

[Bonhomme Richard]

18. It's all about power and money

Once in a while a snippet of the truth is heard on the local news. Here in Connecticut it was reported that some state legislators wanted to propose a bill allowing bars to permit smoking if they put it in a seperate room with it's own air circulation system. A anti smoking legislator said that it would not fly because the restaurant owners would lose a ton of money because thier customers would go to the bars that allowed smoking. Duh!
So there we have it. Control and money are the real issues here. It has very little to do with health.

[bleedingheart]

25. the funny part is that bars aren't exactly healthy for people...

in fact going to a bar to have a drink increase the instances of drunk driving...just a thought ;-)

[foxy]

24. Maybe they should have two kinds of bars

I think that they could have some bars where you can smoke and some where you can't. Then the people can make their own choice. I, myself, would like to be able to make my own choice of whether or not to be able to smoke while I have a drink.

I agree with one of the above posters that the home parties are getting more and more of a regularity. I would much rather be somewhere I can make my own choices.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

[dreissig]

33. Places of Public Accommodation

Regulation of places of public accommodation is well-accepted. People who don't like having to go outside to smoke are making libertarian arguments to the effect that their "rights" are being abridged.

I remember when fair housing laws were opposed on essentially the same grounds, a property rights argument. It's a good thing that those people didn't prevail.

[pnb]

109. That already existed...

...but then these laws were introduced.

So much for choice.

[dofus]

28. I've never seen any credible reports

of bars and restaurants going out of business because of smoking bans. I suspect quite strongly that any that did go out of business would have anyway. Both business are quick to fail -- there's a very high turnover rate.

All the Californians I know seem to hate it when they're in another part of the country that allows smoking in bars/restaurants.

[Norcom]

32. I can name a bar

that closed because of the smoking ban. O's in Endicott NY. I was a regular at this bar before I moved, and went to it every time I visited, and have many family and friends who went there all the time. The bar was always packed. Business was booming, and had been for well over a decade. Business was so good that they bought out the business they shared the building with for the sole purpose of gaining the extra space because they were always filled to capacity.

Then BOOM, the ban comes. The place is empty and closes the doors.

What was the one thing that changed causing a bar that was always filled to capacity to going out of business almost over night?

[bleedingheart]

43. Have any other bars or restauarants opened in that time?

Here in PA (where we allow for smoking in bars) bars close all the time. Even trendy places that are hot die out....they lose their appeal for something new.

So if no other bars or restaurants opened in Endicott since O's closed then I would say... you have a point. However if people are still trying their luck at opening a bar or restaurant then I would say smoking isn't the only reason that bars close.

Most businesses don't succeed due to lack of planning, poor timing, lack of interest...

There was a trendy bar that opened up the street from where I live...its theme was "robot wars"... it died in 6 mos....the food wasn't good and not that many people were interested in the concept.

[sangh0]

46. Argument by anecdote

If I might be so bold, I would suggest that one restaurant in Endicott NY proves nothing except the willingness of a poster to argue by anecdote.

[bleedingheart]

50. I know I should know better...

:-)

[Norcom]

55. The reason I named 1 bar

is that another poster said that they had never heard of a single bar closing because of the ban. So, I provided them with one.

[sangh0]

59. Poor excuse

another poster said that they had never heard of a single bar closing because of the ban

All you've done is provided the name of a bar that closed, when the other poster asked for a "bar that closed BECAUSE OF THE BAN"

Try again. This time, use some facts. Anecdotes are not facts.

[NashVegas]

256. More ANECDOTES

Happy hour? Not for Patti Howlin, owner of the Corner Pub restaurant in Four Corners.

A week after restaurants and bars in Montgomery County went smoke-free, there were more long faces than smiles in her Silver Spring restaurant's bar. And, at one point Friday afternoon, there were more customers in the restaurant's parking lot smoking cigarettes than there were sitting on barstools, eating, drinking or playing Keno.
...

"Is it affecting me? I'm dying!" she said. "I'm minus $7,000 a week. I can't take a paycheck and I can't pay my daughter. I've been here 33 years, and I've never been in such dire straits. I've never been this desperate."

http://www.gazette.net/200343/takoma/news/183569-1.html

About 25 bar owners, employees and patrons protested the state's indoor smoking ban outside the Hotel du Pont in Wilmington on Tuesday night, where a $250-a-ticket re-election fund-raiser for Gov. Ruth Ann Minner was being held.
...
Most of the protesters were owners of small bars who said they have seen a drop in business since the smoking ban took effect two weeks ago.

Liz Moorhead, owner of Just Mugs Saloon in Bear, said her business is off by 33 percent. She said her patrons are driving 15 minutes down the road to bars in Maryland.

Dan McAvaney, who owns McAvaney's Pub near Prices Corner and 2-Can Dans in New Castle, said his business is off by 50 percent.

Johnna Burroughs, 71, a bartender at Buddy's in Wilmington, said she was protesting to keep her job. "Ruth Ann is closing us down," she said.

http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2002/12/11barowners,other.html

iIn Tempe, the ban has been blamed for numerous bar closings and a loss of business.

Richard Bank, chairman of Citizens for Fair Non-Smoking Laws, said some bars have lost up to 70 percent of their business. He cited one Budweiser representative telling him that Tempe beer orders are down 25 percent, while beer orders in Scottsdale, a nearby city, are up 25 percent.

http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/96/91/01_2.html

[Norcom]

54. Not a trendy bar

O's wasn't a trendy bar or a "theme bar" in any way shape or form. It was a regular sports bar that had been operating for as long as I can remember (and I'm 30). And no bar has been opened in its space to replace it.

And others in the area are teetering on the edge of closing, including a friend of mines bar. And it is directly attributable to the smoking ban as the vast majority of his clientel are smokers.

[sangh0]

57. Still "argument by anecdote"

The upstate economy is in shambles, with dozens of businesses going under, and that's not limited to bars and restaurants. Restaurants and bars are notorious for volatility. Worse, you're still arguing by anecdote without acknowledging the weakness of your argument, while at the same time, ignoring all the evidence that smoking bans INCREASE business.

[Norcom]

61. Like I said

lets take a look at sales for the year prior to and post ban (when the year has passed) and see what the sales figures say. That is the only way to determine what effect the ban had on bar/restaurant sales in NY.

[sangh0]

64. It's been done. You are ignoring it

Someone posted a study from El Paso that shows business not dropping after a ban. BTW, in NYC, restaurant and bar business is up. My brother is in the food industry. He follows this stuff.

[Norcom]

66. Using a single town

such as El Paso is not a good way to do it when talking about NY. STATE WIDE numbers are the only way to do it regarding a STATE WIDE ban. And it must be done for the SAME STATE.

[sangh0]

71. You use a single BAR

and you're criticizing someone who used a whole CITY while you only cite one BAR. And why do you describe El Paso as a "town", when it's really a city? Are you so aware of the weakness of your argument that you know you must dismiss and criticize any use of facts, while at the same distracting from your lack of supporting facts?

[treepig]

77. o come on

the negative effects should be magnified, if anything, when considering a single town (after, can't anyone who wants to drink and smoke just head on over to the next town?) - it's like the border effect to the nth power.

[OldSoldier]

89. Maybe it was the business buyout

I'd have to look at this guy's P&L statement and nightly headcounts to see the real picture.

Bars make a lot of money but it's illusory. Deduct food cost, liquor cost, taxes, insurance (really, really high in the case of a bar, especially if your state has a Dram Shop law), salaries, ASCAP/BMI, utilities, etc., etc., etc., and the profit just about disappears.

Then throw in all the costs of the buyout.

Was he making tons of money--or was he squeaking by?

[NashVegas]

230. More Stats

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html

Just listing a few of the examples on the page:

Laurel Bowl Bowling Alley Closed 100% 100% San Luis Obispo CA
385 league bowlers quit when the smoking ban went into effect, with a loss of $200,000. Laurel Bowl had been in business for 37 years before the ban.

Alexander Mackenzie Inn Hotel Not Yet 92% 16 Fort St. John CAN
"Since we were `beaten' into compliance by the WCB, our business has dropped in the lounge from $1,000 a day to $80. "

Beacon Hill Arms Tavern Closed 100% 100% Ottawa CAN
Dave O'Connor, who successfully ran Ottawa's Beacon Hill Arms pub for nine years, said the ban forced him out of business. "From September to February, we lost close to $80,000 in sales"

Elks #1795 Lodge (Private Club) Not Yet 40% 22% Fort Walton FL
"Charity money is down 45%. Our Charities are Kids of Florida and the Veterans. That is who is really getting hurt the most by this!"
Elks #2256 Lodge (Private Club) Not Yet 20% 30% Pensacola Beach FL
"We've lost 70 members because of the ban"

The Falls Restaurant Closed 100% 100% Naples FL
"We lost 70 percent of our income," Renzello said. "The law put us out of business." 90 percent of her customers were smokers.

Uncle Jed's Roadhouse Tavern Not Yet 50% 70% 2 Bethesda MD
...Smaller establishments have seen total sales decline by an average of 30 percent during the week and 50 percent on weekends, according to Melvin Thompson, vice president of the Restaurant Association of Maryland

D&S Diner Restruant Closed 100% 100% Savannah NY
Sales were down $3,000 in July 2002 compared to July 2001. Hardest hit were on Friday nights and Sunday mornings.

Delmar Sportsman's Tavern Tavern Not Yet 30% 1 Massena NY
"We had hoped...nonsmokers who haven't been frequenting taverns due to the smoke-filled air would make up for at least some of the financial loss. Unfortunately, at least in our place, this has most definitely not happened. Our sales are at an all time low"

Desperado's Tavern Not Yet 90% Wallkill NY
"I can count on my fingers the people who don't smoke who come in here. The regulars say they won't come."

===

Lots more, and a long, long list of NY closings.

[sangh0]

246. Libertarian spew

they also think that taxes are unconstitutional

[dreissig]

282. Legalize Heroin and Prostitution

and child labor.

[Norcom]

308. You have a hard time

accepting anything that contradicts your perceived notion of "how things are" don't you?

A quick little libertarian this, or libertarian that and you dismiss information not to your liking.

To deny that there are many bars in NY (and elsewhere) that are being negatively affected by the ban is to ignore reality.

Tell those laid off after the ban went into effect that business is booming.

[JHB]

37. We certainly know different Californians...

...The ones I know who are smokers love it when they can light up after a meal like they used to.

[angka]

45. prohibition doesn't work.

we go through cycles in this country where we figure part of that out, then revert back to criminalization (usually for reasons other than harm prevention).

alcohol, pot, tobacco. turns like a wheel.

[dreissig]

53. Smoking Bans Work

When I was a student we smoked in class. It's unimaginable now. Smoking bans actually work! Now that the bans have reached into beer halls, we're hearing smokers squawk.

[Norcom]

56. For your analogy

you would need to provide evidence that people didn't go to school because smoking was allowed and that upon banning smoking people decided to go to school.

[sangh0]

63. All of a sudden you're a stickler for evidence?

Gee, it seems like just minutes ago you were arguing that one bar in upstate NY supported your argument, even though evidence gleaned from studying numerous businesses in El Paso received no comment from you, and no consideration.

Your own case is incredibly weak, but you seem well aware of the difference between strong and weak arguments when it comes to those who disagree with you. It's enough to make me wonder if you realize what you are doing?

[Norcom]

67. And as I posted

comparing El Paso Texas to the entire state of NY is not a worthy or acceptable comparison.

[sangh0]

73. You posted a comparison based on ONE BAR

and you criticize someone for using a whole city?

[angka]

62. smoking in class?

god i wish.

what was that movie with stallone in the future where everybody wears robes and the only restaurant is taco bell? 'they're bad for you, hence they are illegal.' sounds about right, daddy.

[pnb]

143. The move was Demolition Man

And you are 100% correct.

Perhaps they'll want to ban vulgarity in bars next.

[MadHound]

102. Actually, smokers have been squawking for a long while

It has now gotten justifiably louder as the last public refuge for the smoker is biting the dust. Perhaps you only think this is a recent phenomenon due to the fact that you are hearing the squawking, but trust me, it has been there for years.

[dreissig]

215. Pity the Poor Smoker

Actually there's lots of public refuge for people who crave a cigarette - just step outside into the Great Outdoors. Your private decision to smoke should not have public consequences. If I happen to be eating in a restaurant I don't want to share your cigarette habit - keep it to yourself!

[angka]

307. perhaps you should consider starting.

didn't you hear that all the cool people smoke? don't you want to be cool?

and oh yes, the occasional secondhand smoke is so much worse than the orange air you breathe in the average american city. does the phrase 'much ado about nothing' mean anything to you?

[Norcom]

309. Not always an option

just step outside into the Great Outdoors.

More and more "great outdoors" areas are banning smoking too.

[dkamin]

52. the simple solution

for everyone on this site oughta be this:
licenses for being a smoking establishment, just like the licenses we have to serve alcohol.

after a bit of tinkering, in theory, the govt. oughta be able to figure out the right cost so that enough places are smoking and enough places are smoke-free.

unless you believe the government has no place in regulating businesses, in which case i think you oughta head over to http://www.freerepublic.com, or you believe that the government oughta regulate every aspect of our lives, in which case i think you might consider emigrating to N. Korea, i think the middle ground is the proper, if inelegant, solution.

[rman]

68. prohibition works every time, doesn't it

-

[dreissig]

70. This Isn't Prohibition

If you want to smoke, go outside. There is a secondary benefit to the neighborhood, I might add. With all the smokers out on the sidewalk, you can cruise the bar without having to go in!

[Norcom]

79. NY smoking ban leads to job losses

http://www.thepublican.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=11342&d=32&h=24&f=23&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y

This is from the UK, not some tobacco front group in NY.


Some snips...

The research was undertaken by an independent New York research company International Communications Research and was based on a survey of 300 bars, cocktail lounges and hotels in the city.

It showed that two-thirds of all establishments reported a decline in the number of customers since the ban was introduced. Establishments reported an average decline of 17 per cent in the number of waiters and waitresses they employed while there was an 11 per cent drop in the number of bartenders.

The three Irish associations released a joint statement: “The findings of this research provides concrete proof of the negative impact that the smoking ban has had on the hospitality sector in New York. Until now we have been listening to anecdotal evidence from health and City experts talking about business booming. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[sangh0]

88. Bar lobby

Is a lobbyists lies all you've got?

[Norcom]

126. Bar Lobby?

International Communications Research is the "Bar Lobby"?

[sangh0]

146. ICR didn't pay for it

and you know that.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnb]

152. Works both ways

Virtaully all surveys I've seen regarding bar patronage in areas where smoking has been banned has been done after those who won't go already stopped going...therefore insuring that the numbers look good for the smoking-ban lobbyists.

[dreissig]

93. New York's Job Losses

New York's job losses have a wide variety of causes, not the least of which is the terrorist attack on September 11th. Jobs have been declining since March, but they were declining before that.

New York's ambient temperatures steadily rose after the smoking ban went into effect in March. The number of freezing days, for example, declined to zero within two months of the first day of the ban. However, the effect does not seem to be lasting.

[Blue_Chill]

81. Smoking bans do destroy business

They are doing this crap in Maryland and finding out that people drive 5 more minutes (into DC) and find a better bar that allows them to smoke. You see as long as you don't have to go way out of your way to smoke, you will. So a smoking ban will absolutely destroy bars that are near borders.

[dreissig]

91. Border Bars

If border bars are going out of business, it argues that smoking bans should be imposed in states that currently permit smoking in bars, not that they should be lifted in states that have them. Smoking in bars will soon go the way of smoking on airplanes.

There is no intrusion here on the alleged right to smoke in a bar. Such a right does not exist. Smoking is an annoying habit that at a minimum damages the health of the smoker, and quite likely damages the health of people in the vicinity. There's nothing redeeming about it, especially with the options available to people who voluntarily choose to smoke. If you want to smoke, step outside.

[MadHound]

119. You keep mentioning stepping outside dreissig

And while that is an option, bear in mind that is an option with a cost. Being outside smoking in the rain and weather will take a toll on health. More sick days by smokers(who are already vunerable to getting illnesses due to their smoking), productivity goes down, health costs go up, all of this and more is affected by a smoking ban. Granted, allowing smoking inside a bar can cause health problems for a non-smoker, but since a smokers' immune system is deginerated from smoking, I think that smokers' health problems from smoking outside will be more severe, and cost us more money.
Only the stats will tell in a few years.

You say that we should ban smoking because it adveresly affects the health of a non-smoker. Thus should we ban all things because it adveresly affects somebody else's health? My wife is extremely allergic to perfume(as are a few other million people in the US). I've had to pop the eppy shot for her when she went into anaphalactic shock. By your logic, should we ban perfume in bars? Or should my wife and I simply find another bar where there is less perfume in the air(which is what we do now)

Rather than a blanket ban on smoking, why not satisfy both customer bases? Have a group of bars that cater to smokers, and those who want to be with them, and another group of bars that cater to non-smokers, and those who want to be with them. That way the customer gets to choose where they wish to drink, the potential employee gets which bar to work at, and everybody is happy. Why this nanny need to take decisions out of the hands of adults who are capable of making those decisions?

And before you damn me by saying I'm some sort of "Loony Libertarian" since I'm proposing a market based solution, let me ask you something. Do you favor the legalization of pot? If you do, then you too are taking a libertarian stance. Nuggets of truth and good solutions to problems can come out of a variety of philosophies, and damning a good solution simply because it arises from a school of political thought you abhor is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[sangh0]

127. hmmm

1) There is no ban on smoking. Saying so is just rhetoric.

2) Allergies aren't universal, while tobacco harms the health of everyone exposed to it.

3) Going outside to smoke is an option. If they're concerned about getting a cold, they can stay inside and not smoke.

4) Allowing bars to choose somking/no-smoking results in all of them being smoking bars. That's what we had.

BTW, I do not support marihuana legalization.

[Norcom]

131. Absolutely FALSE

4) Allowing bars to choose somking/no-smoking results in all of them being smoking bars. That's what we had.


I live in NC, what you could call Tobacco Country. Tobacco is not only a part of life but a way of life for many here.

There is no smoking ban in bars/restaurants here. It is the decision of the owner as to wether or not smoking will be allowed. There are a great number of bars and restaurants in the Raleigh/Durham/RTP area that are NON SMOKING. I recently spent a weekend in Ashville NC and 90% of the bars and restaurants I went into were NON SMOKING!

How is this possible?

1) There is no ban on smoking. Saying so is just rhetoric.

Your right. Smoking is still legal. Will saying "a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants" make you happy? Seems a waste of typing to me. We all know what is meant when "smoking ban" is said.

[sangh0]

141. We're talking about NY, remember?

After all, you started the thread.

[Norcom]

144. Well

Well, if El Paso Texas is a good enough example as to how business booms after smoking bans, then the wide availability of non-smoking bars and restaurants in areas without a smoking ban is a good example to prove your claim false.

And you claim is false.

[sangh0]

149. Very poor argument by anecdote

So far, all you've posted is anecotal evidence. And true to form, you once again base a ridiculous claim (ie. there are as many non-smoking bars as there are smoking bars) on an anecdote.

[Norcom]

157. I did no such thing

you once again base a ridiculous claim (ie. there are as many non-smoking bars as there are smoking bars) on an anecdote.

I did no such thing. YOU however did say, without reserve or question, that when the option of being smoking or non-smoking is available, bars will all be smoking. I have proven your claim to be false.

[sangh0]

164. Yes you did

You claim that non-smoking bars are common enough that non-smokers have a choice. Your claim is based on your experiences in one state.

[Norcom]

165. Again your wrong

You said: 4) Allowing bars to choose somking/no-smoking results in all of them being smoking bars.

This is clearly false. Period.

[sangh0]

166. OK

Change it to "Allowing bars to choose somking/no-smoking results in too few no-smoking bars"

[Norcom]

171. Too few?

And just who should be the proper authority to determine how many is "too few?" You?

[sangh0]

176. The public is the proper authority

You're the only one who tried to usurp that power.

There are a great number of bars and restaurants in the Raleigh/Durham/RTP area that are NON SMOKING. I recently spent a weekend in Ashville NC and 90% of the bars and restaurants I went into were NON SMOKING!

You're the one who says there are "enough" non-smoking bars, even though the only support you've posted is your anecdote.

[Norcom]

182. Again your wrong

Find me a single post where I said there are "enough" non-smoking bars.

Again, you said that given the choice, NO bars choose to be non-smoking. I proved you wrong.

And you are right, the public (meaning CUSTOMERS) should determine how many are enough. And the greater the public demand (as shown by Customer demand and support) the more and more non-smoking bars there will be.

And YOU are the one who wants to and supports usurping that power. Not me.

[sangh0]

188. Nope, you're wrong

and trying to hide the fact that all you've got is weak anecdotal evidence by blustering.

The public in NY has decided that "enough" means "all" by passing the legislation

[Norcom]

190. I guess then the public

decided that the Bush tax cuts and war in Iraq were the right things to do by passing the legislation.

[sangh0]

194. Yep

That's how it works in a democracy.

[Norcom]

197. So then

i guess we should not complain about, nor try to change those things since "the public has spoken." We should just shut up and take it like the smokers.

[sangh0]

202. Are you asking for advice?

Or do you just want to impress us with your sense of self-entitlement and how it's being abused by the people who are telling you to "just shut up and take it like the smokers"?

Do you have any other fantasies you'd like to share?

[dreissig]

218. Advice to Smokers

Nah. Forget it. They get lots of advice.

[MadHound]

145. Well, I got a nibble

1. We are discussing the ban on smoking in bars, why are you being obtuse?

2. No, allergies aren't universal, but the reaction of a person who suffers from allergies is immediately much more life threatening than the health detrements suffered by those who inhale second hand smoke. If you wear a strong enough perfume, a person who is allergic to that can DIE, right there, in front of you. Whereas a person who inhales second hand smoke, even over the span of a few hours, suffers few if any life threatening symptoms. Oh, by the by, there are aprox. ten-fifteen million people who suffer from perfume allergies so severe that they can die from it. There are many millions more who suffer from perfume allergies severe enough to cause sinus and respiratory problems.

3. Apparently you haven't been around drug addicts, which is what a smoker is. They are going to go outside, down the block, in the rain, sleet or snow to smoke. They're addicted, that is the way of addiction. Just pointing out the costs of forcing this addiction outside.

4. Really, every single bar in NY was a smoking bar? Somehow I find that hard to believe, do you have some stats to back that claim up? Even out here, in the middle of bumfuck Mid Mo, where we don't have a smoking ban in bars(yet), there are bars, restaraunts, nightclubs and other venues that are exclusively non-smoking. They seem do a pretty good business.

5. You don't support marijuana legislation? You must be a conservative wingnut!! Just joking, I'm just trying to point out the absurdity of blanket labeling somebody just because they find a good idea in another political/philosophical camp.

[sangh0]

155. another

1) Yes, I know, but your argument made it sound like there was a ban on all smoking.

2) It's not society's responsibility (or the govt's) to change in order to protect each and every citizen. However, govt DOES have the power to regulate businesses and workplaces and to regulate and ban the use of certain harmful substances in certain specific conditions.

3) I know many drug addicts. I know that some stop. I also know how they stop. It has to do with choices

4) AFAIK

5) No. I support marijuana decriminalization. But I get your point and I agree

[MadHound]

220. and still more

1. Sorry, I'll make it more clear for you next time.

2. But where do you draw this line? At hundreds of people affected, thousands, millions, where? A majority?

3. Addiction, especially once it becomes a physical addiction like smoking, has less to do with choice than you think. Many, many people wish to, pray to stop their addiction. And yet they simply can't. That's the nature of addiction. While it is fine for multi-millionaires like Rush to take the time off to go and get rehabbed, most people simply cannot take the time, or afford the treatment. And if you think that stopping smoking(or any other addiction) is simply a matter of will, you are sadly mistaken.

4. AFAIK? Please explain.

5. Nice to see we can agree at times, now while you're being so agreeable, lets talk Greens;-)

[sangh0]

224. thanks

1) No problem

2) At what the Consitution allows.

3) I do not think it is merely a matter of will. However, there is an element of choice there.

4) As Far As I Know.

5) Heh! Let's not and say we did.

[pnb]

You keep bringing up the lack of a "right"

So what gives you the "right" to not be around smoke in someone else's establishment? On what basis do you decide that smokers have no "right" but you do?

[sangh0]

168. Nothing

Where did I claim non-smoker's have such a right?

[pnb]

248. Sorry

That response was meant for another poster, not you.

[sangh0]

255. dreissig doesn't assert that right either

At least, I didn't see it

[pnb]

278. It seems to me he has

He/she so often brings up that there is no "right" to smoke anywhere and constantly implies or pretty much outright says that he/she does have a "right" to breathe clean air anywhere he/she goes.

[dreissig]

290. Smoking in Yankee Stadium

I've heard of an attempt to ban smoking in Yankee Stadium, which is actually outdoors. Even so, you can't move from your seat to get away from cigarette smoke. If somebody's cigarette is bothering you, you can't demand that they put it out.

I don't think a "right" to smoke exists. But I don't think there's a "right" to drink Scotch out of a paper cup, either. Rights are really important - too important to trivialize by asserting them on behalf of obnoxious personal habits like smoking.

[pnb]

294. Smoking was banned there close to 10 years ago

And I agree with you that rights are very important and I know I don't have an automatic right to smoke anywhere but if I am trivializing anything, you are just as guilty of trivializing them.

All of your arguments have been based on a premise that non-smokers should be able to have smoke-free air anywhere and anytime they feel. My point is you have no more right to that, especially when you can just as easily go somewhere else just like a smoker, than I have. Basically, these governments are enforcing something that should be strictly a business decision based on what the market wants...not what the voters want. They are not necessarily the same.

[dreissig]

301. Business Decisions

Governments can and do pass clean air legislation. Such legislation does not violate any putative "right" to smoking because this right does not exist.

As a practical matter, leaving this as a business decision wouldn't create enough clean air spaces. Smokers are really selfish. They don't care if other people don't want to breathe in second hand smoke. So it's necessary to make it a law and make non-smoking mandatory.

[pnb]

304. What is "enough clean air spaces?"

How is that defined? And if there were indeed not enough of this "clean air space," well then there wouldn't be enough clientele to keep these businesses going, right?

[dreissig]

306. Cutting Some Slack

You can't just allow smoking, you have to allow smokers to turn the place into a smelly mess. Smokers won't discipline themselves, they'll pollute the whole place. And the only way to put a stop to it is to pass a law against it; otherwise they'll blackmail the owner by going down the street.

Cigarette smoke gets all over your clothing, in your hair and on exposed parts of your skin. Smokers have no idea how disgusting their habit is. After I've been in a smoky place I hesitate to hang my coat up in the same closet with my clean clothes, but I have to put it away somewhere so it's not stinking up the room.

I was delighted when the smoking ban went into effect statewide. I really hated having that odor on my clothing. I can imagine that it wasn't doing my lungs any good either.

[sangh0]

291. "pretty much outright"?

Is that like "a little pregnant"?

Either way, dreissig hasn't asserted such a right. You read it in yourself. He said there is no right to smoke. He didn't say that non smokers had a right to be free of smoke.

[pnb]

299. Man, picky aren't we?

Anyway, his entire argument revolves around that idea or it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

This of course along with the fact that he actually HAS asserted it...

Post #3 - "The smoking ban isn't about the rights of smokers, it's about the rights of non-smokers. There's no way to accommodate both in an enclosed area. If you want to smoke, go outside."

In other words, we have rights, you don't so go to hell.

[dreissig]

305. A Clarification

My earlier post was made before all this discussion as to what is a right and what is not. Strictly speaking, clean air is not a right as such, but government can pass a law requiring it. I support this law because I like clean air, and also because I don't think there exists anything like a right to pollute.

I used the term rights figuratively. If I have to use the term literally, neither smokers nor non-smokers have "rights" as such. In fact, this assertion trivializes the nature of rights.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Capn Sunshine]

90. The fact that he's a first time owner

and probably isn't up to the task, isn't mentioned.

It's all anti-tobacco's fault.

That there is any argument about this at all is patently ridiculous.
Sorry, addicts. That's how it is. Your numbers are shrinking,just get used to it.

[redqueen]

100. Can't a proprietor open a smoking club? For smokers only?

If so, then what's the big deal? If not, well that's just wrong and they should be able to.

[Norcom]

101. They can not

To do such would be illegal.

Though such clubs have been opened all over NY. They are called house parties. Instead of gathering at your formerly favorite bar/restaurant for socialization and spending time with friends, or to watch 'the game' people now gather at each others houses.

[Norcom]

116. airlines as well

As we know, one can not smoke on an commercial flight. It would be a great idea for an entrepanuer to open "Smoker Air". If there was a large enough market, the investors would make a boat load of money and meet a market demand. If there wasn't enough demand they would go out of business. But, such an idea is illegal.

[Selwynn]

103. I am against hypocrisy, therefore against the so-called ban....

...cigarette smoking is legal. The utter hypocrisy of passing laws to ban smoking from privately owned and operated establishments but then fight in support of the tobacco loby to keep smoking legal is an utter hypocrisy.

Either make ciggaretts illegal, or quit telling business owners they don't have the rigth to allow legal practices in their establishment.

If a man (hypothetically speaking let's say its a man) owns his own building and starts his own restaraunt/establishment, then he should be able to set any kinds of rules he wants about the establishment so long as they don't violate any laws. If he wants to allow only people wearing pink tutus into his establishment, that is his right. If you don't like it, go somehwere else. The same is true for the legal activity of smoking. If lawmakers don't like this, then outlaw smoking. But nooooooo, of course they won't do that. Well then, if its good enough to be legal, then its good enough for legislators to stay the fuck out of the "business" of private business owners.

In short, I believe business owners should be able to set any kinds of rules governing their estbalishment they want, so long as they do not break any laws. That includes allowing smoking, banning smoking, or allowing only banjo playing architects with rubber chickens around their necks to come into their establishment.

[sangh0]

106. Sex is legal! Let's f**k in the streets

Who cares about the children?

In short, I believe business owners should be able to set any kinds of rules governing their estbalishment they want, so long as they do not break any laws.

I agree, which is why smokers can't smoke in bars. It's breaks the law which prohibits smoking in bars.

[Selwynn]

121. My point is that the law is a contradiction and hypocrisy.

And the new "law" against smoking is a hypocrisy and contradiction, I believe that would be my point smartass. And your argument is willfully circular.

My problem as you will know is with a law passed to outlaw an activity that is othwise AFFIRM AS LEGAL. Want to ban smoking? Then ban fucking smoking, but don't make money of an industry one of one side of your mouth and then come off with a bunch of self-righteous invasive legistation out of the other side of your mouth.

That's why I said in my post, if you want to outlaw smoking in private establishments then outlaw smoking, period.

I disagree with the new "law" on the grounds that it contradicts the legality of smoking and the rights of a private business owner to make whatever decisions he/she wants about his/her own business. Smoking is legal. If the government wants to force private people to not smoke in private places then they should ban smoking. Otherwise people who disagree with the rules established by the owner of a private establishment should get the hell out.

I love it how Democrats are all for privacy rights, for rights to choose, for freedom or speech, for civil rights.. right up until it comes to the rights of a buisness owner to make his own decisions about his own establishment. Then we're all for legislative restriction. Oh sure "legalize Marajuna!" everyone says, but we'd damn well better not see a bar that says "smokers welcome here" -- give me a break.

[sangh0]

136. Sex is "otherwise AFFIRMED AS LEGAL"

So we should be able to f**k in the streets, according to your novel legal theory.

Want to ban smoking?

Not from bars. It's already banned there.

That's why I said in my post, if you want to outlaw smoking in private establishments then outlaw smoking, period.

I want smoking banned in bars, and it is. Period.

I disagree with the new "law" on the grounds that it contradicts the legality of smoking

I disagree with the "laws" that say I can't f**k in the streets on the grounds that it contradicts the legality of f**king.

the rights of a private business owner to make whatever decisions he/she wants about his/her own business

You mean like the "right" to "not pay witholding taxes"

If the government wants to force private people to not smoke in private places then they should ban smoking.

Bars aren't "private places". Bar are "public accomodations"

[Selwynn]

151. Not talking about "smoking in the streets" so the sex analogy is stupid.

So we should be able to f**k in the streets, according to your novel legal theory.

A) I don't care if you fuck in the streets or not, so I'm not real threatened by your analogy. B) I'm not talking about smoking in the streets, I am talking about smoking in a private establishment.


Not from bars. It's already banned there.


Not for long. Enjoy it while it lasts. Given a little more time it will either be repealed or it will become unenforcable exactly like it is in California. And then, oh my gosh, non-smokers will actually have to - gasp - think for themselves and make concious decisions and the kind of establishments they want to frequent, rather than crying like babies when they can't get their way.

I think that's what makes me so sick. I'm in the process of quitting smoking, which mean I am currently a non-smoker in the same boat as other non-smokers. And what makes me sick is how pathetically whiney non-smokers are. I take responsibility for my own personal decisions. If a place allows smoking, and I don't want to be in that environment, I leave and go elswhere. I don't demand that the entire world conform to MY point of view. That's what makes me sick about so many non-smokers. Is they, in a spirit that would make all neo-fascist ultra conservatives proud, say "this is what I believe, and therefore EVERYONE ELSE should be FORCED to do as I believe." That is what I hate about it.


I want smoking banned in bars, and it is. Period.


Like I said, enjoy it while it lasts. And hope you never move, because it doesn't seem that the rest of the country is following your lead.


I disagree with the "laws" that say I can't f**k in the streets on the grounds that it contradicts the legality of f**king.


Once again, you analogy while colorful is totally irrelevant. If I was talking about smoking in the streets then we could compare it to fucking in the streets. But I'm not talking about smoking in the streets, am I? You want to outlaw smoking in public? That's a differetn discussion and it is the ONLY place where youre analogy of public sex applies. I am talking about smoking in private, and I'm pretty sure sex in private is still ok...


Bars aren't "private places". Bar are "public accomodations"


No, bars are private establishments.

[sangh0]

159. But sex is legal!!!

So I should be allowed to f**k on the bar!!


B) I'm not talking about smoking in the streets, I am talking about smoking in a private establishment.

Bars are NOT private establishments. They are public accomodations.

No, bars are private establishments.

Nope. Read the Civil Rights Act and other laws that prohibit discrimination in "public accomodations". Maybe those "private establishments" should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. After all, if we can tell who they can't discriminate against, then we can tell them who they CAN discriminate against

[Selwynn]

167. Are you obsessed with sex? Feel free to fuck anywhere :)

I love it how you think I'm going to be dissuded by your analogy, especially now that you realize the "on the streets thing" doesn't work. You were talking about "sex on the streets" and I pointed out that we're not talking about "smoking on the streets" we're talking about smoking in private. So then you changed your tune a little bit. You can feel free to fuck on the bar if you want to, I don't care.

Bars ARE private establishments - there are non-contradictory laws on the books that to place some restrictions on what we can do in private - I can't rape you, I can't blow you're head off, etc. However in the case of smoking - its something that is completely legal. And it is one of the only examples of something that is LEGAL to do in public that is ILLEGAL to do in private. That's pretty messed up in my opinion.

Private business owners - yes that's what they're called - private business owners - unless its owned by the state its a private business - should be able to decide of they want to allow smoking in their private establishment or not.

I also continue to say that what makes me sick is how pathetically whiney non-smokers are. I take responsibility for my own personal decisions. If a place allows smoking, and I don't want to be in that environment, I leave and go elswhere. I don't demand that the entire world conform to MY point of view. That's what makes me sick about so many non-smokers. Is they, in a spirit that would make all neo-fascist ultra conservatives proud, say "this is what I believe, and therefore EVERYONE ELSE should be FORCED to do as I believe." That is what I hate about it.

[sangh0]

173. You mean, you're not?

Bars are NOT private establishments which ARE subjected to govt regulation. If you want to open a bar, just try and see what happens if you've got a criminal record when you apply for your liquor license.

If it were a private establishment, then like your home, you wouldn't need a license to serve liquor. It's perfectly legal to serve alcohol at home without a license. Not at a bar.

Private business owners - yes that's what they're called - private business owners - unless its owned by the state its a private business - should be able to decide of they want to allow smoking in their private establishment or not.

Try:

Private business owners - yes that's what they're called - private business owners - unless its owned by the state its a private business - should be able to decide of they want to allow blacks in their private establishment or not.

[Selwynn]

179. Touche - on the sex thing, not any other part of your silly argument :)

If it were a private establishment, then like your home, you wouldn't need a license to serve liquor. It's perfectly legal to serve alcohol at home without a license. Not at a bar.


Ever heard of the term private business owner? If its not run by the state, its a private buisness.


Private business owners - yes that's what they're called - private business owners - unless its owned by the state its a private business - should be able to decide of they want to allow blacks in their private establishment or not.


There happens to be a non-double standard non-contradictory law that prohibits descrimination wholesale. If you want to ban smoking wholesale in a non-contradictory way, fine. If we were saying that racial discimination was ok in public but illegal in private, I would have a problem with that contradiction. But we're not. The application of discimination laws is coherent. In the case of smoking, it is not coherent, but rather contradictory and hypocritical.

[sangh0]

189. Why does a bar need a liquor license

if it's a "private establishment"? You can serve liqour at home without a license, so why isn't the requirement for bars to have a liquor license the same sort of unfair regulation of private property rights that you say the smoking ban in bars is?

There happens to be a non-double standard non-contradictory law that prohibits descrimination wholesale

Really? You mean if I enforce strict policy of "No blacks in my home" I can be arrested or sued?

In which universe?

[Norcom]

199. They need a license

because they have to pay different taxes on liquor than you and I do if we go to the store.

In fact, I know a bar that was shut down because it wasnt buying liquor with its license, thus avoiding the taxes.

Personally, I don't think one should have to get a liquor license to open a bar. If I want to open a little hole in the wall, have two or 3 kegs tapped and sell it for a $1 a cup I should be able to.

[sangh0]

206. So what? I pay taxes and I don't have any license

I pay taxes when I buy the alcohol. So does the bar owner. The license isn't meant to assure payment of liquor taxes.

Personally, I don't think one should have to get a liquor license to open a bar.

Answer the question. I don't care what you think. How can we require that a "private establishment" have a license to do something (serve alcohol) it's legal to do in our own homes without a license?

[Norcom]

211. Money!

Money! The revenue from issuing the licenses is one reason they are required.

And yes, you have to pay taxes when you buy alcohol. But it is ILLEGAL for you to resell it. Because you don't have... A License! Nor will you be collecting taxes on the sale to forward to the government. Its all about MONEY!

On Edit: Not sure if you saw it, but check out post #196

[sangh0]

216. Why is a liquor license requirement for private establishments allowed?

when according to you, the govt can't stop the owner of a private establishment from doing things that are legal? Serving alcohol is legal. I can do it without a license in my home.

How can the govt prohibit a bar owner from serving liquor without a license if it's a private establishment where he's allowed to do anything that's legal?

[Selwynn]

200. Private. Business. Owner.

Familiar with the term? Private business owner. If its not state owned, its not a "public" business. It is what's it called... you know... its... its... you know.... a private business.

By the way the requirement for a liqour liscense IS the same sort of unfair regluation of private property rights. :)

[sangh0]

208. Smoking. Ban. Constitutional.

The govt regulates bars and is allowed to prohibit smoking there.

[Selwynn]

213. Nothing to do with the Consitution

It has to do with the hypocrisy of a contradictory law. And that's all I have to say, obviously we have to agree to disagree. I don't feel like arguing the same thing for fifty more posts. You may feel free to have the last word here.

Cheers,
Sel

[sangh0]

219. "Property rights" have nothing to with the Constitution?

That's a new one.

It has to do with the hypocrisy of a contradictory law

Contradicts what? The Constitution?

And that's all I have to say

I noticed that a while ago

[Selwynn]

135. As an aside: regarding your subject line - sounds fine to me! :D

[Norcom]

108. One flaw

one flaw in your post.

he should be able to set any kinds of rules he wants about the establishment so long as they don't violate any laws.

Problem is, the smoking ban is law. So if they allow smoking, they are violating the law.

The law however should have never been passed in the first place.

All to often this battle is couched as smoker vs. non-smoker instead of in its proper terms. Private property rights vs. over reaching government power.

As I, and you have said, it should be the decision of the owner. I took it even a step further in an above post. If a guy wants to open a bar and rents space from a building owner the owner of the building should have the power to tell the bar owner that there will be no smoking allowed. After all, it's his building.

And as far as property rights and government power go, I see no difference between the government telling a bar owner he can NOT allow smoking and telling him he MUST allow smoking. For if the government has the legitimate authority and power to force a ban on smoking in a private business they have the power to force them to allow smoking.

[sangh0]

110. An even bigger flaw

is your assertion of the fictional "right" of business owners to do whatever they want on their own property.

And as far as property rights and government power go, I see no difference between the government telling a bar owner he can NOT allow smoking and telling him he MUST allow smoking. For if the government has the legitimate authority and power to force a ban on smoking in a private business they have the power to force them to allow smoking.

Gee, there's a big worry!

[dreissig]

153. Public Accommodations

Bars, restaurants, lunch counters, etc. are public accommodations and are subject to regulation. Because your argument would legalize segregation, I'm sure you don't intend to go as far as you do when you say "allowing only banjo playing architects with rubber chickens around their necks to come into their establishment."

I believe that public accommodations ought to be environmentally clean as well as being non-discriminatory. You don't have the right to pollute the air inside a place that serves the public. I don't know how you could create such a right except to derive it from discredited private property rights.

If you are one of the people who thinks that property rights include the "right" to refuse service to Blacks, I refuse to discuss the matter further with you. We fought this one in the 1960's, I'm not going to fight it again.

[pnb]

265. Your continual use of race segregation is faulty here

Fighting against segregation was trying to enforce an act that was already illegal everywhere. This is not the case with smoking.

ACcording to your flawed analogy, segregation should have been fought in only a few limited places but was OK everywhere else.

Its also an insult of course to people who actually fought for desegregation to be compared to this situation but that's a whole 'nother story.

[sangh0]

271. race segregation is NOT illegal everywhere

For example, I can legally enforce a policy of race segregation in my home. I can prohibit entry to my home by members of specific races. There's no law that prevents me from doing so.

If what we're allowed to do at home were the basis for what a business is allowed to do, then racial segregation would be allowed.

[pnb]

283. True

I did phrase that badly. But segregation, as an act, was deemed to be unconsitutional before hand, which is not the case at all with smoking.

Desegregation was enforced because of the problems with the whole separate but equal deal. That is not the case with smoking...this is the act itself being attacked.

[sangh0]

289. Segregation is not unconstitutional!!

Segregation by a public accomodation is. The govt is allowed to regulate public accomodations, and bars are public accomodations. The govt bans smoking in public accomodtions using the same powers and the same legal justifications as they use when banning segregation in public accomodations.

Desegregation was enforced because of the problems with the whole separate but equal deal.

Ummm, "seperate but equal" was how segregated schools were described in Plessy. It had nothing to do with segregation in bars, restaurants, hotels, banks, jobs, etc

[PapaClay]

104. This "step outside" notion

is hilarious. I have personally experienced verbal crap from non-smokers while smoking outside. I must have violated their outdoor non-smoking space. Of course they could have moved, but it's much more righteous to insist that I (the evil one) should move.

You zealots want to go absolutely anywhere at any time, with no restrictions, and know that us smokers will quiver and shake and slink away.

I have tried sweet reason and compromise and, in giving an inch, ya'll take a mile.

I think I'll try some rude for awhile.

:smoke:

[sangh0]

107. How awful!!!

We need a law which forces people to be polite to smokers who don't give a damn about how their smoking affects others.

[Selwynn]

129. How awful!

We need a law which thinks for non-smokers rather than allowing them to make choices for themselves - if they don't like the environment of an establisment they can get the fuck out. You know if there was really this huge self-righteous majority of people, there should be no problem finding plenty of establishments that would prohibit smoking on their own, as well as others that would allow smoking - then everyone is happy.

Fortunately, New York will go the same way as California. In California, people just smoke in bars anyway and frequently say a big fuck off to the ridiculous law. And I don't live in places where people are so quick to support the government restricting the rights of business owners and the right to make decisions about how to run your private business.

[PapaClay]

134. You're right about one thing.

When I'm standing outside in an open field smoking, and you have the option to stand somewhere else, I don't give a damn, and I'll move if and when it pleases me

I've always been considerate of non-smokers. I just don't seem to get any reciprocation from some of them.

And you don't have to be polite to me. Just don't be surprised when you get what you give.

:smoke:

[sangh0]

137. Well, that's a compromise!

They'll be rude, and you'll be rude right back. Sounds fair to me.

So why are you still complaining?

[PapaClay]

148. Not complaining at all...

Just taking a stand. In my home bar we smoke, drink, cuss, listen to very loud rock music (well over the 85dB threshold, btw) and engage in all kinds of rude crude and lewd, non-pc behavior. If you have a problem with that, go somewhere else.

And if we can't do it in a bar, we'll do it at private residences.

The harder you push, the harder We'll push back.

Try leaving us alone.

[Selwynn]

156. Nice. :)

[sangh0]

160. In that case

can I come by? :-)

[PapaClay]

169. Hell Yeah!

First Sauza Conmemorativo is on me. How close are you to Huntsville, AL?

:party: :toast: :smoke:

[sangh0]

178. Ummm

not very. I'm in NYC. It may be a while before I get down there. But thanks for the offer. Sounds like fun.

[Andyjunction]

111. sad

It's too bad that so many people are unwilling to work together to create some kind of middle ground here. I, personally, never smoke around non smokers because I know it annoys them. That's enough for me. Wheteher or not it is actually harmful is a can of worms I won't open. But there has to be some kind of middle ground we could work towards that would allow me to smoke in public places where I wouldn't have to be an annoyance to anyone because I was welcomed.

You could call it "Smokey's Smoke-Filled Bar for Smokers and Other Losers" if you want to.

[sangh0]

114. There is a compromise, but smokers won't compromise

They could "step outside, please"

[Norcom]

115. Compromise

your compromise is as uncompromising as the smokers wanting to be able to smoke in the bar.

So much for non-smokers compromising.

[sangh0]

118. Yep

that's because there is no market "solution" here. Just solutions the market prefers.

[Andyjunction]

122. why

Why would you even want to go into Smokey's Smoke-Filled Bar for Smokers and Other Losers? It would just be full of us nasty old smokers.

[pnb]

268. What?!?

If the market preferred everything to be non-smoking, there would be no need for any non-smoking laws in the first place...every establishment would be non-smoking on its own.

[sangh0]

274. Yep

but the market didn't preferred everything to be non-smoking, so the people banned smoking in all public accomodations.

[pnb]

288. I'm not sure I follow

How does that address your original point that the market preferred public accomodations to be non-smoking?

[sangh0]

292. I didn't say that

I said that the only solution the market provided was one which resulted in too few non-smoking establishments, which is why the public rejected the market solution and chose a political solution (ie legislation) instead.

You made the mistake of confusing "the market" with "the public"

[pnb]

302. Actually, I confused nothing.

You seem to be changing to suit yourself. You asserted that the market preferred this solution. I then asserted that if this were the case, there would have been no "need" for a political solution in the first place.

If as you say the market did not provide the "desired" result, then how did the market prefer this?

Also, I've already posted earlier here that the "public" has no business making this decision in the first place, but that it should be up to the "market." This is something I understand far more than most people who are for these bans.

[Andyjunction]

130. sure

That's not compromise, that's unconditional surrender. And it's what I do now.

No smoking ban where I live, by the way.

[Selwynn]

132. There is another compromise -

you could find a bar that better represents the kind of environment you prefer.

I don't go to a country-swing bar and raise a fuss because there's no pop dance floor. I don't go to an alcohol free establishment and bitch because there's no alcohol. I would NOT go to a non-smoking establishment that was non-smoking by private choice of the owners not a ridiculous law. And likewise you shouldn't go to an establishment where smoking is welcome then pitch a fit and cry like a baby.

[sangh0]

138. Not in NYC

the other bar also bans smoking

[Selwynn]

139. And therein lies the problem.

[sangh0]

142. Not a problem

.

[Selwynn]

154. It will be in about 6-10 months

When you don't have a smoking ban anymore. :)

[sangh0]

161. Any more predictions, swami?

.

[Selwynn]

174. Nope.

[spindoctor]

133. Smokers have compromised enough.

You got your airplanes and most airports, theatres and virtually all public places smoke-free.

Smokers should compromise??

Damn straight I won't go into a non-smoking bar. And I definitely am NOT going to step outside. Enough is enough.

[PapaClay]

140. Snarf...

actually, asking anyone in my home bar to step outside is ill-advised. :smoke:

[Ficus]

150. What is the point non-smoker activists?

Are laws like these to make people smoke less or not smoke around you?

Everyone says that this is for some sort of health related thing, but I believe it is more self-rightous than that.

If laws like these are in effect, than I believe that the point is to drive smokers outside and away from your social circles. To marginalize them in society, and to make yourselves feel better about not smoking. It is so you can drive by and say, look at those pitiful dirty smokers.

Look deep inside yourselves, and you hold this attitude because it makes you feel good, and you know it.

[sangh0]

162. To protect the workers

.

[Norcom]

170. Protecting workers

The NY Smoking Ban does NOT cover establishments that the workers are volunteers, such as the VFW for one example. Are these people not deserving of this protection? Or is it acceptable for them to work with the risk of 2nd hand smoke because they do so voluntarily?

[sangh0]

183. Changing your tune again

First you complained about the ban. Now you want the ban to be expanded to make it fair.

I have no problem with that.

[Norcom]

185. I have changed nothing

What did I change?

I mearly pointed out that under the guise of "protecting workers" the law does not protect all workers, as some establishments do not have to obey the law.

Why is it OK for them to not be protected from 2nd hand smoke, but all the other bar workers must be protected from it?

[sangh0]

193. You changed your argument

from opposing a ban to wanting to expand it.

And the laws protecting workers don't apply to non-paid volunteers, who are subject to less stringent regs. BTW, my employer uses lots of volunteers, so I'm a little familiar with this area of the law.

[Norcom]

204. No

I do not want to expand it. I want it repealed. I was pointing out that not all workers are protected under the ban that is supposedly for the protection of workers.

But if the workers at the VFW are not worthy of protection why are the workers at Joe's Pub?

[sangh0]

209. Because

the VFW has unpaid volunteers. Joe's has paid employees.

[Norcom]

226. Paid vs. Unpaid

both are there by choice. Neither is forced to work there. Same with patrons.

[sangh0]

228. so what?

the laws are different.

[Ficus]

175. Well I understand that

my point is that this is just one of those issues that many people on DU carry this "I'm a liberal and better than you" self rightous attitude towards smokers and it irritates me.

[dreissig]

Seeking Clean Air

Feeling smug has nothing to do with it. We're discussing regulations affecting indoor air quality in businesses that provide public accommodations. You can read whatever motivations you want into the people who seek to ban smoking in such places, but you're not necessarily correct.

Really, all I want is clean air. I don't feel superior to smokers, I just don't want them polluting the air I breathe in a restaurant, cafeteria or saloon.

[Selwynn]

184. Hmm... I actually like the protect the workers argument...

First thing you've said that sounds at all reasonable...

I'll have to think about this.

(hums) I'm....re-viewing.... the situation...

[dreissig]

172. Getting Used To It

The point about public accommodations is that they are public. Yes they are privately owned, but private ownership doesn't given owners absolute rights to do whatever they please. My landlord owns the apartment I live in, but I have property rights too.

Everybody squawked about the smoking ban when the law was passed here, but people have gotten used to it. They used to squawk about not being allowed to smoke on airplanes and theaters, too, but they got used to it.

Not being allowed to smoke in a bar isn't outrageous. Smoking just isn't a right.

[Ficus]

180. When will you be happy?

When we can only smoke under our blankets in our houses? Sorry to steal that line from Dennis Leary, but it's true. You'll never be happy until smoking is outlawed, right?

[sangh0]

186. When will you be happy?

When businesses are allowed behind the "property rights" scam to do whatever they want to whomever they choose?

You see, I can imply bad intent on your part, just as you do to others. How about we stick to the issue and not attack each others good intent?

[Selwynn]

191. "They" don't choose (for you), you choose (for yourself)

They don't to whatever they want to whomever they choose. They would be doing whatever they want and then seeing how many people choose to voluntarily frequent their establishment, by their own choice.

[sangh0]

195. Business owners don't make decisions and choices?

How do they get menus if they don't make decisions and choices?

[Selwynn]

205. No, they don't make YOUR choices for YOU

[sangh0]

210. Sure they do

They decide whether or not I can have duck l'orange in their dining room by putting in on the menu (or not)

[Selwynn]

214. No, you decide whether you want to go to a resutaraunt

that doesn't have duck l'orange on the menu or not. No one puts a gun to your head and demands that you go.

[sangh0]

221. Nope the restaurant

decides if it wants the kind of customers who want duck l'orange by putting it on it's menu (or not). No one put a gun to the owners head and demanded that he drop the duck l'orange from the menu (or not).

[Norcom]

223. They have put a gun to his head

and dictated that they not allow their patrons to smoke.

[sangh0]

225. Really? A gun?

Dictated?

Since when is legislative action the same as what a dictator does?

[Norcom]

229. Dictated

Did the NYS Legislature dictate to bar owners that they can not allow smoking? Yes.

And the guns will come out when a bar owner decided to not follow the law, is fined, and refuses to pay the fine and continues to ignore the law. Armed agents will come in to seize the business.

[sangh0]

251. What you call "dictate"

the rest of the nation calls "the rule of law"

[NashVegas]

239. PETA Might Say Something Different

Then you have all those who protested about veal on menus back in the 1980s.

[sangh0]

249. That worked out well

didn't it?

[Ficus]

192. My point

is that all of this - whether it is smoking taxes or bans or whatever, is a roundabout way to eventually outlaw smoking.

and sorry, I do believe in private property rights - how un-Democratic of me.

[sangh0]

198. You dont have to insult others to make that point

by assuming bad intent on their part. This discussion is about a law that was passed. If you want to accuse people you never met of wanting to outlaw smoking, you might want to provide some evidence for that. No one here has ever said they want to outlaw smoking. If you have any additional info (as opposed to your baseless and unsupported fictions) you could post it.

[Ficus]

245. yes this is the hidden agenda

If you live in an area where you're allowed to smoke in a restaurant, accept it that attitudes are changing. You will soon have to smoke on private property that is truly private.

[PapaClay]

187. "Smoking just isn't a right."

Since it is legal, I have a right to smoke.

Go ahead and make it illegal. Prohibition works great! Nobody smokes herb since they made it illegal. LOL!

The harder you push, the harder we'll push back.

[dreissig]

203. Legality of Smoking

Actually it's never been legal to smoke when and wherever you feel like it - there have always been restrictions. Lately, the restrictions on smoking have increased, possibly reflecting the evidence that smoking is harmful.

There's nothing new about designating places where you're not allowed to smoke: courtrooms, airplanes, school buildings .... etc. Lately, however, these legal restrictions have been extended to businesses that are public accommodations: restaurants, laundries, movie theaters, and yes, even saloons.

You're making a big deal about a clean air initiative that's well established. Remember you do have a simple, easy option: if you want to smoke, just step outside. It's easier to get back into a bar than into a movie theater. You don't need to pay to get back in.

[PapaClay]

240. Reread #104

I have stepped outside. And I still get shit from people. Even outside. So much for compromise.

:smoke:

[dreissig]

261. No "Right" to Pollute

Not being allowed to smoke indoors doesn't grant you the right to pollute the outdoor air either. If you bring your stinky cigarette smoke near non-smokers, I'm not surprised that those people are displeased.

This whole discussion is about the alleged rights of smokers, but polluting the air is not a right. In an increasing number of cities and states it's not even legal. When you step outside to smoke in these places, you're simply obeying the law. If you want credit for being thoughtful, you should take the additional step of making sure not to smoke near anybody.

[PapaClay]

269. So when I am standing

outside and alone (not in an entrance-way), and someone approaches me, I should assume that they are a non-smoker and immediately move away so as not to risk offending them.

Yeah, right.

I got a better idea. When you see me standing outside alone and smoking. Stay away from me. Especially if you intend to get in my face.

:smoke:

[sangh0]

272. Tough guy, huh?

You're not scaring anybody, Papa

[dreissig]

277. Internet Bravado

He certainly has me frightened! (I love this internet bravado, don't you?)

[sangh0]

280. Internet bravado?

I call it "ten feet tall in ASCII"

[PapaClay]

286. Nobody scares

anybody on the internet. And I'm really quite mellow. Non-smokers have given me shit in situations where they had no legal right to do so. In the past, I have been accomodating. I'm just getting tired of it.

And the invite still stands if you're ever in the neighborhood. (Although it is a smoky bar)

:smoke:

[sangh0]

293. People have the right to "give you shit"

It's called "free speech". But I won't make any implicit threats just because I don't like it when it someone gives me shit.

[pnb]

284. The point many here have tried to make...

...is that yes, it is easy to step outside but it is just as easy to go to a different establishment if you don't like to be around smoke. Non-smokers don't seem to view this as an option though.

[dreissig]

310. No, It's Not An Option

You're assuming that one bar is the same as another, or that one event held in a bar (or other public space) is the same as another. That's just not the case.

At first I didn't believe that passing a law against smoking in places of public accommodation would be effective. But it is effective, it does work, and people do get used to it.

[sangh0]

222. You have no right to smoke

You have the power to smoke. You do not have the power to smoke in a bar, nor do you have the right to do so.

The govt, on the other hand, has no rights. However, the govt does have the power to regulate businesses and workplaces and ban/regulate dangerous substances.

Go ahead and make it illegal. Prohibition works great!

No one is talking about prohibition. Try to keep up.

[PapaClay]

244. Let's see...

>You have the power to smoke.

It doesn't require that much of an energy expenditure.

>You do not have the power to smoke in a bar, nor do you have the right to do so.

Damn, so I guess that last Friday and Saturday night were just a hallucination. I could've sworn I was in a club; smokin', drinkin' and carryin' on.

>The govt, on the other hand, has no rights. However, the govt does have the power to regulate businesses and workplaces and ban/regulate dangerous substances.

Duh! That's what this is all about. Try to keep up!

>>Go ahead and make it illegal. Prohibition works great!

>No one is talking about prohibition. Try to keep up.

Speak for yourself. I've heard plenty of people argue for prohibition. And it's hard to keep up when ya stop for a smoke break every once in a while.


:smoke:

[sangh0]

252. Look again

>You have the power to smoke.

It doesn't require that much of an energy expenditure.

I was referring to political power.

>You do not have the power to smoke in a bar, nor do you have the right to do so.

Damn, so I guess that last Friday and Saturday night were just a hallucination. I could've sworn I was in a club; smokin', drinkin' and carryin' on.

I was referring to NY, the topic of this thread. Try to keep up.

>No one is talking about prohibition. Try to keep up.

Speak for yourself. I've heard plenty of people argue for prohibition. And it's hard to keep up when ya stop for a smoke break every once in a while.

Who cares how many people you've heard. This thread is about NY States ban, not prohibition.

[PapaClay]

276. I care

and that is sufficient for me. If not for you...oh well, you'll just have to get over it.

The local zealots are trying the same shit with bars here, so it's not just a NY thing.

[sangh0]

281. Are you gonna threaten them

implicitly by telling them to try it over at your house?

[dreissig]

311. Local Zealots

Passing laws against indoor smoking really works. It denies smokers the economic leverage they've used in the past to prevent local businesses from going non-smoking voluntarily. And what a difference it makes! The smoking bans mean you don't come home with stinky clothing.

It's really a liberation struggle. Smokers have no idea how much we feel backed into a corner by them.

[Ficus]

247. Same argument

that the RW uses to rail on us about free speech.

Your speech harms others, so you must be silenced to appease the group who doesn't like it.

Your smoke harms others, so you must go outside to appease the group who doesn't like it.

Same logic IMO.

[sangh0]

257. There's difference

you do have a right to free speech. There is no right to smoke in a bar.

[Ficus]

201. Smoking is TOO a right

The same type of people who rail about losing our liberties don't see that. It's okay for the government to infringe existing rights and laws as long as you don't use them. Same argument Ashcroft uses - "if you're not a terrorist - don't worry about."

[sangh0]

227. Smoking is NOT a right

Not everything that is legal is a "right". It is legal to get an abortion in the third trimester, but there is no "right" to do so. The SCOTUS has already decided that 3rd trimester abortions are subject to regulation and even banning.

[Norcom]

233. Hey, we agree!

Smoking is not a "right" in that I can do it when ever, where ever I want.

[Ficus]

243. Gradually rolling back rights

through laws or SCOTUS rulings is still not oaky with me, sorry. For example, the FBI used to not be able to look through your library records. So now you don't have the right to read in privacy.

[sangh0]

259. ridiculous

there is no right to smoke in a bar, so there's no possibility of losing such a right

[dreissig]

279. This is So Unworthy

Yes, the way personal liberties are being taken away is cause for concern. However, smoking in a bar is an unworthy issue for civil libertarians. Smoking is an ugly personal habit that pollutes the air inside public spaces. The government is right to ban it.

[dreissig]

241. Smoking In A Restaurant

There's no way that you can claim a right to smoke in a restaurant. It's a discretionary activity that pollutes the air and detracts from other people's pleasure. You also have the option of stepping outside to smoke.

As a practical matter, we wouldn't need to pass a law if smokers weren't so selfish. They think that because clean air isn't valuable to them then it isn't valuable to anyone else. Smokers' reasoning is entirely self-centered.

If you live in an area where you're allowed to smoke in a restaurant, accept it that attitudes are changing. You will soon have to smoke on private property that is truly private.

[Norcom]

242. Soon enough

You will soon have to smoke on private property that is truly private.

Soon enough not even that will be allowed.

[theboss]

181. It doesn't matter if business is up or down

Smoking bans in bars are still wrong.

Why don't we just ban alcohol? It's just as dangerous. Bars will be perfectly safe.

For the record, I don't smoke . . .except once in a while when I am drinking. And there is nothing sexier than a guy shivering on 5th Ave in February while trying to pick up a woman in a parka.

[dreissig]

207. Smoking Is Sexy?

Smoking is sexy only in the cigarette ads.

[Norcom]

196. Company Cars!

Another aspect of the NY Smoking ban that I totally forgot about is that it is so restrictive it even bans smoking in Company Cars!

Thats right. If you have a company car from your employer NY State has made it ILLEGAL for you to smoke in it. Never mind that you are the ONLY PERSON in the car.

Even you smoking nazi's should concede that this is going too far.

[sangh0]

212. Now you have right to smoke in someone else's car?

Boy, talk about a sense of self-entitlement!

[Norcom]

217. Not at all!

I do not have a right to smoke in anyones car but mine. But if my company gives me a company car, and company policy allows me to smoke in it, what right does NY State have to tell the company, and me that I can not smoke in the car?

[bleedingheart]

231. If the car smells like an ashtray when you turn it in then the

company should make you pay for the car....fair is fair...

[sangh0]

234. The smell doesn't justify the regulation

but the dangerous substances that smoking leaves behind does.

I would also like to point out that this issue has nothing to do with original post. The thread's starter brings it up only because he's been shown to be blowing hot air about bars losing business.

[Norcom]

238. I am not blowing hot air

and it does have to do with the original post as it is part of the NY Smoking Ban. It is not a side subject, but part of the law.

[sangh0]

260. Yes you are

The thread you started is clearly about how the ban affects the profits of bars. That's why you said NOTHING about this other aspect of the ban until after you've been shown to be blowing hot air.

[Norcom]

237. Thats for the company

to determine. Not NY State Government.

[sangh0]

267. Not anymore.

.

[sangh0]

232. It's called

a legal power. NY State has the power to tell your company that you can not smoke in the company car.

[Norcom]

236. Do you honestly support

the government using legal force to ban smoking in company cars?

The company owns the car. If they decide it is company policy that employees who smoke can smoke in a company car that should be AOK with EVERYONE. Just as if the company has a policy banning smoking in company cars.

Would you support NY State using its legal power to ban smoking in all cars? If so, why? If not, why not? And what is the difference between smoking in the car I bought, and smoking in the car provided to me by my company?

[dreissig]

250. Company Car Extends the Workplace

Your personal car isn't part of your workplace, but the company car is. The rights of non-smokers have been extended to include cars as part of an overall regulation of smoking and the workplace. That's also the reason homeowners who have people working in their homes don't have the right to smoke at home.

[sangh0]

262. Yes, I do

Would you support NY State using its legal power to ban smoking in all cars? If so, why? If not, why not?

It depends on the facts. If smoking while driving can be shown to cause harm (either actual or potential) to others, then I support it. Otherwise, I don't.

And what is the difference between smoking in the car I bought, and smoking in the car provided to me by my company?

The difference is, the law prohibits one and allows the other.

[Norcom]

266. Accidents

are often caused by a smoker dropping a cigarette. But then again, accidents are also caused by people changing the radio station, eating, drinking, yelling at the kids, etc...

Should we ban radios in cars?

Aside from the side benefit of cutting Limbaughs audience.

How about banning smoking in cars for the reason you listed in an above post, the harmful chemicals that it leaves behind in the car? After all, they will have an effect on the next owner of the car when you sell it or trade it in. Sound good? Support?

[sangh0]

270. Forgive, but I don't trust your "facts"

or should I say "anecdotal evidence"?

When I see some cold hard facts supporting that danger, then I'll support such a ban. Until then, no.

Should we ban radios in cars?

When I see some cold hard facts supporting that danger, then I'll support such a ban. Until then, no.

How about banning smoking in cars for the reason you listed in an above post, the harmful chemicals that it leaves behind in the car? After all, they will have an effect on the next owner of the car when you sell it or trade it in. Sound good? Support?

No, prospective buyers don't have to buy the car. They can buy a car from a non-smoker. A company employee has no choice.

[Norcom]

273. Cold Hard Facts

In post 234 you said, regarding banning smoking in company cars...

The smell doesn't justify the regulation but the dangerous substances that smoking leaves behind does

So it seems you have already seen the "cold hard facts" you are seeking.

[sangh0]

275. Read again

I edited that last post after I realized that there was a difference between selling a individually-owned car to an individual and the use of a company owned car by an employee.

[Malva Zebrina]

285. Bwahahah

I read this thread with interest. My father-in-law smoked cigarettes and died at the age of 95. He died from old age and collapse of his vascular system. His wife, did not smoke, but was, obviously, exposed to his smoke since they were married, died at the age of 88. :shrug: I think a lot of us know people who smoke who are still living and who are not dying because they smoke. People get cancer of the prostate and of the breast, and cancer of other organs and systems, who have never smoked-and die of the same-I know of a few of them. In fact, I know of one couple whose male member died of cancer of the liver in his seventies, who did not smoke at all, and his wife, who outlived him, who lived with cancer of the breast, smoking her brains out, for ten years after his death :shrug:

[creativelcro]

313. Yes, and...

just from the fact that you know a handful of people who did or did not smoke, and who did or did not get cancer, what can you conclude ? Nothing! These are statistical effects, you need to get big enough samples to see the consequences and draw conclusions. I wish people were thaught basic statistics in high school... Instead, no, stupid tests...

[Robin Hood]

295. Here is my experience.

I lived in California when they enacted their smoking bans. A lot of bars closed up shop in my area. I my self quit going to bars because of this ban. I now live in Oregon and people smoke in bars here and new bars are opening up all the time. And now I go out to bars again.

If I go to a bar, I like to have a drink and a smoke while strattling a bar stool. I'm not going to leave my drink to have a smoke out side. that's just stupid.

[dreissig]

297. Suit Yourself

Nobody's going to force you to go outside for a smoke. If you lived in an area where smoking is prohibited in places of public accommodation, you will not be allowed to pollute the common air by lighting up. Your rights are not diminished. Any time you feel like it, you can get up and leave!

[Robin Hood]

298. Pollute the common air?

That just reeks of judgment. We all pollute the common air, common water and soil. My neighbors spray round up on all their weeds, they use pesticides to control their pests, and we all drive or take the bus. Pollution is all around, yet only smokers get vilified as polluters.

We're all polluters beyond your imagination and understanding.

[Malva Zebrina]

303. Jesus the common air is polluted where I live

because people are firing up their woodstoves, sending smoke up into the air from the burning of various and different types of wood in order to keep warm.!!! LOL I mean it smells really comfy, romantic and nice as winter approaches, but nevertheless, the burning of wood has been a tradition here since the seventeenth century, when the forests were depleted in order to keep the people warm and it sends out smoke in the atmosphere that all are subjected to and breathe in. Smoke all over the place, lol.

[creativelcro]

314. Please provide links

to data showing that bars in CA closed down because of the smking ban. If the ban was statewide, it is unlikely that bars got out of business. That could happen if onw town has a ban and the nearby town does not have it, obviously... -CV