Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not a smoker, but I hate when peoples freedom & rights are constantly taken away.
Why not have laws on bad breathe or car pollution?
There are laws on auto pollution and they get stricter and stricter over time.
Bad breath hasn't been regulated yet because so far nobody has proven that someone else's bad breath has given them lung or heart disease.
There is really only one reason why there continues to be increasingly stringent laws about smoking: It costs society too much money to treat and try to keep alive all of the people who have damaged their( and other's via 2nd hand smoke) bodies.
Government doesn't really care or want to prevent people from killing themselves.It is only concerned with the costs of all the medical care .
I'm not even a smoker, but I feel the no smoking in bars should have been left up to the owners, based on their clientele and staff. For example, I could think of several dive bars in which all the staff and customers are all smokers. In that case, the no smoking law doesn't do anything other than cause an inconvenience for everyone. On the other hand, there are other more upscale bars where if you pass by, you see one lone smoker standing outside. Those places should have a no smoking rule. Like I said, let owners have the freedom to make that decision and the customers choose where they would like to go. All Bloomberg is interested is in generating more fines for the city under the guise of "health."
I used to work in a restaurant that had a totally separate smoking room. It was nowhere near the other diners, and even had its own ventilation system. When the smoking ban went into effect, it definitely caused a drop in business and we eventually just closed up the room. I used to love volunteering to work in that room because the smokers were better tippers for some reason. I still don't get the ban...the smoking room wasn't hurting anyone and I was not forced to work in there.
I'm not even a smoker, but I feel the no smoking in bars should have been left up to the owners, based on their clientele and staff. For example, I could name several dive bars in which all the staff and customers are all smokers. In that case, the no smoking law doesn't do anything other than cause an inconvenience for everyone. On the other hand, there are other more upscale bars where if you pass by, you see one lone smoker standing outside. Those places should have a no smoking rule. Like I said, let owners have the freedom to make that decision and the customers choose where they would like to go. All Bloomberg is interested is in generating more fines for the city under the guise of "health."
I'm not even a smoker, but I feel the no smoking in bars should have been left up to the owners, based on their clientele and staff. For example, I could name several dive bars in which all the staff and customers are all smokers. In that case, the no smoking law doesn't do anything other than cause an inconvenience for everyone. On the other hand, there are other more upscale bars where if you pass by, you see one lone smoker standing outside. Those places should have a no smoking rule. Like I said, let owners have the freedom to make that decision and the customers choose where they would like to go. All Bloomberg is interested is in generating more fines for the city under the guise of "health."
I agree. Im tobacco free for a few months now. In a bar, people are there to drink, relax, Party etc. I mean it's not like they are juicing vegetables in there.
I am all for smokers having the freedom and right to smoke, so long as you have your own medical insurance and don't expect the tax payers (city) to pay for it. Unfortunately, that's not the case....you tout "freedom and rights" until the bill is due...and the city (taxpayers) or the federal government (medicaid/medicare) are on the hook to take care of you.
You want the freedom and right to smoke? Pay for it! Otherwise, you are just talking out of both sides of your mouth.
As for picking and choosing which bars can smoke, that already has happened. There are establishments in the city where you can legally smoke, like a cigar shop, where you will be surrounded by all the toxins your lungs desire. So what's the problem?
I'm not even a smoker, but I feel the no smoking in bars should have been left up to the owners, based on their clientele and staff. For example, I could think of several dive bars in which all the staff and customers are all smokers. In that case, the no smoking law doesn't do anything other than cause an inconvenience for everyone. ....
That's where you are wrong.
What it does "other than cause an inconvenience for everyone" is lead to that person racking up horrendous medical bills that we all have to pay for and jacking up the costs of medical insurance that we all then have to pay for.
I am all for smokers having the freedom and right to smoke, so long as you have your own medical insurance and don't expect the tax payers (city) to pay for it. Unfortunately, that's not the case....you tout "freedom and rights" until the bill is due...and the city (taxpayers) or the federal government (medicaid/medicare) are on the hook to take care of you.
You want the freedom and right to smoke? Pay for it! Otherwise, you are just talking out of both sides of your mouth.
So the city should ban every and all fast food joints in the hood?
Quote:
As for picking and choosing which bars can smoke, that already has happened. There are establishments in the city where you can legally smoke, like a cigar shop, where you will be surrounded by all the toxins your lungs desire. So what's the problem?
Traditional bar owners are still not allowed to decide for themselves if they want smoking allowed or not. This is actually killed a lot of business for a lot of owners throughout the country. Cigar bars are quite different and I think you know that.
You actually have to eat to live...but smoke? Clearly a reasonable person would say no to smoking, but not so easily to fast food. Although in theory I agree with you, the application of that is not feasible, although I would like to see a limit to the number of fast food places in any particular block/neighborhood. And the changes to the menu, like transfat and lower sodium make a difference....there are no safety measures for smoking.
As for your idea that it has killed business, that is the same line that was used to scare people when Bloomberg first pushed the smoking ban. And what happened to bars in the city? Did we see mass evacuations? Shuttering of half the East Village? Nope...we saw increased business. You can always smoke 2 steps outside...so what's the problem?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
