The Smoking Ban

[MidtownGuy]

Ninjahedge,
I stopped reading after the word "bullshoot".

[Ninjahedge]

Ninjahedge,
I stopped reading after the word "bullshoot".

That's great.

You never read the previous posts either, so why does that not surprise me.

[MrSpice]

I believe that this approach of taxing more things that are "bad for you" is dangerous and at least somewhat un-american. So some people want to smoke. They are already taxed beyond their imagination in this city. They because an easy source of revenue where any time the city needs more money, the government increases the tax on cigarettes since it only affects smokers. But tax is a tax. It's like saying: "we will increase taxes on donuts, but you can just have a bagel if you don't want to pay so much, and this tax will only affect dounut-eaters" Certainly, cigarettes are not donuts, They are more harmful to one's health than donuts by far. But one can make a case that hambjurgers are harmful to your health and to the environment (waster and farming of cows can be harmful), donuts are harmful since they contain a lot of sugar and calories and contribute to a variety of deceases that the public often has to pay for (through medicaid and medicare). This is a slippery slope where you want to change people's behavior through taxes. I understand limiting smoking in restaurants where it can affect others (workers, non-smokers). But when will we stop raising taxes on other people? We are already grossly overtaxed in this city. It's kind of interesting that Ninjahedge would be so mad about NSA spying on convesations with suspected terrorists from abroad without the FISA warrant, yet so happy that many New Yorkers will have less money in their pockets just because they smoke. Taking about misplaced priorities...

[Ninjahedge]

I believe that this approach of taxing more things that are "bad for you" is dangerous and at least somewhat un-american. So some people want to smoke.

Smoking is one of the leading cause for health problems in the city and it costs the city, and the taxpayers, money.

I think they should maybe directly affiliate any cigarette tax to the programs taht are most directly effected by it (medical services) instead of a general tax (similar to my other idea about parking tickets going toward funding public garages...).

Call it "Smokers Health Insurance. Because dispite what any smoker says while they are lighting up, MOST will not refuse medical care when they are having a heart attack, and no medic will just stand by and let the guy die.


They are already taxed beyond their imagination in this city. They because an easy source of revenue where any time the city needs more money, the government increases the tax on cigarettes since it only affects smokers. But tax is a tax. It's like saying: "we will increase taxes on donuts, but you can just have a bagel if you don't want to pay so much, and this tax will only affect dounut-eaters"

No it isn't. the analogy is not well suited. It may be akin to taxing all fast food restaurants due to the fact that things liek type 2 diabetes is starting to take a huge toll on our medical system, and that simply being overweight is putting a strain on things like air travel, mass transit, and other public services.

Certainly, cigarettes are not donuts, They are more harmful to one's health than donuts by far. But one can make a case that hambjurgers are harmful to your health and to the environment (waster and farming of cows can be harmful), donuts are harmful since they contain a lot of sugar and calories and contribute to a variety of deceases that the public often has to pay for (through medicaid and medicare).

The analogy was weak, just let it go.


This is a slippery slope where you want to change people's behavior through taxes.

Oh, and I guess it is OK to do so through lobbiests that get farm subsidies for tobacco farmers, or for peoples opinions and habits to be shaped by advertising. If they want to spend money to make money off of making people consume something that will kill them, I guess that is OK too.


The main reason for the tax is to offset the expense. The main PR reason is to get children to stop/never start.

I understand limiting smoking in restaurants where it can affect others (workers, non-smokers). But when will we stop raising taxes on other people? We are already grossly overtaxed in this city.

You think so? Try NJ with the property taxes. Everyone is taxed in different ways, but the percentages, for urban areas, is not that different.

It's kind of interesting that Ninjahedge would be so mad about NSA spying on convesations with suspected terrorists from abroad without the FISA warrant, yet so happy that many New Yorkers will have less money in their pockets just because they smoke. Taking about misplaced priorities...

Again, two totally unrelated subjects. You might as well bring up the fact that I don't like the Iraq War and that means, somehow, that I should be against a cigarette tax.

Straw man arguement.

[MidtownGuy]

ninjahedge,
i am going to indulge you by doing what you seem to like best- quoting every line of a post and then picking it apart like a lunatic. But I'll warn you, I'll only stroke you on this one occasion, because I have more stimulating ways to spend my time here. I find this whole line for line quoting thing to be juvenile and niggling.

Who says it was in insult? And how is it hypocritical?
Do you often use "addict" in an endearing way? I't hypocritical for the reason stated in my next line, which you must have read since you quoted it next.

Um, when that is ALL OF THEM, it gets hard to be choosy. Do you live in Hoboken? Try coming in here and finding a restaurant that you can eat at without walking near a bar. It is not easy.
So now you don't want smokers to have a choice. I don't live in Hoboken but if you are so intolerant that even walking by a bar where someone is smoking is means for legislation to you, then you are an obsessive personality. This might be further evidenced by your previous rantings on this very thread, which you erroneously assumed I have not read:

Read the rest of this thread to see the reasons why, they have already been stated, and restated.
It's true, you HAVE stated and restated and triple stated YOUR reasons, the trouble is that none of your views are evidenced by fact. After reading the exchanges between you and Shadenfraud it seems she cleaned your clock, my friend. (condescending tone fully intended.)

And the smoke does not have to be thick to leave you smelling like it for hours afterwards.
That is BS, to use one of your favorite expressions.

I don't force you to drink, and I do not spit on you when I am drinking. If you would let the person next to you, totally healthy, piss on you in the mens room, then I can see where you can validate the whole "free to do what you want if it is not hurting anyone" position.
Look, you have repeatedly employed that comparison on this thread and it is laughably outrageous, and getting quite tiresome to read.

You have not seen the taxes on alcohol?
I have, and alcohol is just one example. When I called for some consistency, my point was that this whole law sends us on a slippery slope towards over-regulation and over-taxing of more and more behaviors.

And that is more BS. The whole thing is that it is a DETERRANT! There are not enough rich people out there to make it worth a damn if they got every single one of them to stop. But make it cost 50¢ a cig and the kiddies will be less likely to start.
My point about rich people, which flew completely over your head, was that
using economic means like taxes to deter behaviors which are not already ILLEGAL (like putting 'em in kiddies' hands), is inherently unfair because only lower economic classes feel the pinch of paying them. Let's face it, people are going to get cigarettes somehow even if it is illegally like the 5
dollar packs on 125th street. Oh, and that 50cent a cig thing- where have you been? The "kiddies" all over this town buy "loosies" all the time for 25-50 cents each, so if parenting hasn't prevented them from smoking, neither will higher taxes.


But the smell does not stick on you. It is also very easily controllable. It is liquid, so the spill is the only thing you are talking about.
The dreaded "lasting smell" thing again! I've had booze spilled on me. It wasn't nice, and it smelled horribly. left a stain too. Know what? I never complained to a bar owner, the legislature, or anyone else except whoever was standing next to me at the time. And sticky, smelly spills happen in every bar, every night. So give up the smell thing, ninjahedge. Bars don't naturally smell like rose gardens, and boozers don't smell like lilies either.
Someone like you , with his sensitive (if somewhat selective) smell and all, might be happiest at home-far away from nasties.

That's great.

You never read the previous posts either, so why does that not surprise me.
*This is a bonus one. It is an illustration of how to really piss someone off by being so completely, arrogantly, presumptuously, WRONG.

After this post, I will no longer waste my time answering anything addressed *by you, to me or anything I said*. It's like arguing with a smarty-pants 7 year-old. I am not in the habit of making attacks on people in this forum. I will not do so again. I am here to learn and exchange ideas. Disagree with the spirit of my post , but don't try to talk me down, call my views BS, or do the idiot quote-for-quote thing. [Deleted]

[MidtownGuy]

2. Your arguments are a better case for further restricting alcohol, rather than easing the restrictions on cigarettes.

I agree with many of your points. However, I need to make clear to everyone that I am as against any further restrictions of alcohol, as I am against the recent ones on cigarettes.

This is what I would like to see: I believe in compromise between smokers and non-smokers, not "my way or the sidewalk". Such compromises, such as were allowed under '95 laws, could be a starting point. Business owners should be allowed to choose, within guidelines, what they will do...
A possible compromise previously mentioned- allowing some bars and clubs to apply for tobacco licenses, for example? Perhaps the zealots who like the total ban are afraid of what capitalist competition will prove- that most tolerant people think there should be choices when it comes to smoking in bars and clubs.

[lofter1]

Calif. classifies second-hand smoke a toxic risk

Reuters
Jan 26, 2006

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=10991744&src=rss/domesticNews


SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - A California agency voted on Thursday to classify second-hand tobacco smoke as a "toxic air contaminant," a first-in-the-nation move that could ultimately toughen state regulations against smoking.

The designation by California's Air Resources Board starts a process that could lead to further smoking bans in the nation's largest state, which has often pioneered in health and environmental regulation.

Scientific studies in recent years have warned about the health impact from second-hand smoke and linked it to a wide array of ailments including heart disease, lung cancer and other respiratory ailments, and breast cancer.

"I think there is no question that this puts California way ahead," said John Froines, chairman of the Air Resources Board's Scientific Review Panel.

"To actually have the major air pollution agency in the state of California to list ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) as a toxic air contaminant is going to have immense impact, we think, in terms of public education around other states," he said. "It will clearly lead to regulatory changes within the state."

The panel's 2005 study found that about 16 percent of all Californians smoked, but 56 percent of adults and 64 percent of adolescents were exposed to second-hand smoke.

"Because the diseases are common and ETS exposure is frequent and widespread, the overall impact can be quite large," the study found.

California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment estimates that as many as 5,500 non-smoking Californians die annually of heart disease related to second- hand smoke and as many as 1,100 die from lung cancer caused by second-hand smoke.

GROWING TOBACCO BANS

The decision in the California state capital kicks off a process that will likely take two or three years as officials study ways to reduce exposure to second-hand smoke.

A spokeswoman for tobacco giant Philip Morris USA, a unit of Altria Group Inc., declined to comment.

In 1994, California became the first U.S. state to bar smoking in the workplace, and then followed up with bans on smoking in restaurants and bars. Other American cities and states have since adopted similar prohibitions.

Several California cities have enacted wider bans, such as San Francisco, which now prohibits smoking in city parks, and Los Angeles, which bars smoking at piers and beaches.

Some health experts say the ultimate impact of California's decision to classify second-hand smoke as a toxin could reach beyond the United States.

"It is important because it has included important new findings, new scientific information that will not only help California policymakers but will help those across the United States address this issue," said Paul Knepprath of the American Lung Association of California.

"And, as I think some board members mentioned, this impact on the international community could be very helpful." Some foreign countries, including Ireland, Norway and Sweden, have workplace smoking bans.

© Reuters 2006

[Ninjahedge]

Midtown, in response to your rant:

Are you saying that smokers are not addicts? If the truth hurts it is still the truth.

Smokers always had the choice. It is an INVASIVE PRACTICE. We have laws against noise, public urination, and people, in general, don't take it kindly if you pass gass in a restaurant. But somehow it is a right of the people to spew an unhealthy, distrubing, damaging substance into the air because it is their choice? No, it isn't.

None of my views are evidenced by fact? Where have you been living? She did not clean ANYONES clock. Thank you for just reaffirming that you are in this as an emotional tirade, not as a logical position.

You say that it doesn't last for hours? Let me introduce you to my GF who can smell it on me hours after, and is worse with her with long hair.

Or my father, who when he sneaks one, OUTSIDE, still has the smell on his shirt THE NEXT DAY, or a miriad of other people that have expressed the same FACT. I call your BS and I announce a red herring.

As for me making the comparisons/analogies and you calling it laughable, that is another straw man. you have not refuted it, just called it stupid. I am sorry, but that does not work on anything but Reality TV.

Your point about rich people was a worthless distraction brought on in full force by those trying to turn this into a class issue instead of the fact that they are pissed that they ghave to pay more for their addiction.

As for "looseys" I was referring to the price per cig if you buy a pack. If that goes up to 50 cents a cig, the "loosies" would go up to 75 or a dollar. You think kids would do that? You think ALL of them would? Or would they want their cash for other more pressing matters like clothes, food, and cell phones?

And as for higher taxes not reducing juvenile participation, please show me where the ammount of teen smoking has gone up after the price has gone up.


As for booze being spilled on you, that is akin to having ash flicked at you. Neither is nice, but booze spilling is not akin to smoke. I have also yet to see anyone die from lung cancer, or suffer an asthmatic attack from a beer spill. Are you a smoker? If you are, I suggest you stop smoking and be able to smell the roses.

ALL the ex-smokers I have heard and talked to have mentioned how they never realized how bad it smelled.

Also, if the smell is so great, why do SO many smokers not smoke at home? Why do they dislike the smell on their clothes, they ARE smokers, aren't they? If they find no problem having other people smell like that, why do so many of them not subject their family to the same?

*Thanks for the bonus, the bonus being you will not post on this anymore. You are a pig-headed bullistic individual that doesnot like being told he is wrong even when he is wrong.

And you could do yourself a favor and listen to the "smarty pants 7 year old" if he is making more sense than an insulting, downcasting individual that does not refute statments, but simply derides them.

As for talking you down and calling your comments BS, I have already done so. They are BS and they will always BE BS on this issue.

And thank you for proving who s the real juvenile. Nice call on the "prick" comment. You really no how to "debate" an issue, don't ya?

[Ninjahedge]

I agree with many of your points. However, I need to make clear to everyone that I am as against any further restrictions of alcohol, as I am against the recent ones on cigarettes.

This is what I would like to see: I believe in compromise between smokers and non-smokers, not "my way or the sidewalk". Such compromises, such as were allowed under '95 laws, could be a starting point. Business owners should be allowed to choose, within guidelines, what they will do...
A possible compromise previously mentioned- allowing some bars and clubs to apply for tobacco licenses, for example? Perhaps the zealots who like the total ban are afraid of what capitalist competition will prove- that most tolerant people think there should be choices when it comes to smoking in bars and clubs.


Again, they tried this and it does not work.

You allow both and all become both. You have one smoker in a group of five, and more often than not they will go to a place that allows smoking.


Financially, a partial ban will never work.



The only thing you can do that would work would be to simply have LITERAL smoking bars. No alcohol, but the thing like the turkish smoke houses.

If you want to go in to have a pipe, cigar, cigarette, or Waterpipe (forgot the name) you can.

Hell, they can even serve small foods (donuts and the like). But nothing else.

Draw the line and keep to it.

The whole fallacy of a smoking section has never really worked well because of two things.

1. The smoking section always had the bar.
2. It was almost impossible to keep the smoke out of the non smoking sections, especially in small places (like the ones found in NYC).

So whatever. You know this to be true too, and as unfair as you see additional taxes, or a ban, you know that other solutions, although they sound feasable, would never work.

[MrSpice]

It seems like what NJ and many other states have done is a great compromise where most restaurants and bars have special smoking sections where those who smoke can enjoy their time and do what they like doing.

I am frankly surprised to see people like Ninjahedge in this "land of the free" advocating draconian measures to teach people a lesson. We all make choices in life. Many of those choices may be viwed as harmful to us and to others. Those riding a motorcycle have a higher chance of hurting themselves and others than those riding in the car. Those eating unhealthy food contribute to higher medical costs and lost productivity. Those who drink a lot of beer are not very healthy either. I am sure those who are pro-choice (like me) would admit that abortions have high social and economic cost associated with them. We cannot respond to anything that can be deemed unhealthy or wrong or harmful with more and more taxes and more and more regulations/bans/restrictions. People should be free to do what they desire if it does not adverselu affect other people. One of the great virtues of free country should be respecting other people's choices even if they appear inappropriate or wrong to you.

[lofter1]

IMO (and I've been known to enjoy a puff or ten, so I'm not a non-smoker but do know the nastiness of the habit -- all described in gritty detail by ninjahedge) the California-type laws mentioned in the article above are the wave of the future. Don't be surprised if before too long there is no smoking allowed in NYC parks.

Think of the revenue the city could bring in with all those tickets!!

[ZippyTheChimp]

I've allowed a few inappropriate personal remarks to remain in this thread to illustrate the passionate nature of the smoking ban.

No further remarks of that nature will be permitted.

I know it's hard, but if you smoke, try to quit. It's a pain in the ass, and will get worse.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Obviously name-calling is disrespectful and is not allowed, nor does it help promote any argument and won't be tolerated.

However, this is a subject open for debate, no matter how strongly anyone feels about it. Claiming that anybody does not like being told he is wrong even when he is wrong is irritating and as disrespectful as name-calling.

Let's everyone stop the use of drowning out each other's opinions with three feet of nitpicking posts, in this and all threads, the immaturity is embarrassing to this otherwise respected board.

[Ninjahedge]

It seems like what NJ and many other states have done is a great compromise where most restaurants and bars have special smoking sections where those who smoke can enjoy their time and do what they like doing.

But that simply does not work.

they had the smoking rooms at workplaces too for a while, but they found that to be an inconvenience, an added expense, and it did not really accomplish anything.

I am frankly surprised to see people ... advocating ... measures to teach people a lesson. We all make choices in life. Many of those choices may be viwed as harmful to us and to others. Those riding a motorcycle have a higher chance of hurting themselves and others than those riding in the car.

But it does not directly effect others if they ride responsibly. Repeated use does not make others get sick or die. AND you cannot ride a cigarette to work. So the analogy does not fit Spice....

Those eating unhealthy food contribute to higher medical costs and lost productivity.

I never said I was against taxing the people who not only sell this to people, but market it and make wads of cash from it. I do, however, feel that any tax placed to try to alleviate a problem should have its funds directed towards mitigation methods. Parking tickets for Garage Building, "fat tax" for weight loss programs and health studies, Tobacco Tax for cancer wards and research, alcohol for city run AA clinics. The whole 9 yards.

Those who drink a lot of beer are not very healthy either.

Bad example. Those that drink a little lower their cholesterol, and those that drink a healthy ammount of red wine actually do their body good!

I am sure those who are pro-choice (like me) would admit that abortions have high social and economic cost associated with them.

This is a confusing point, and it brings in the red herring of abortion, which I will not even touch.

The purpose of smoking prohibition is to limit exposure to non-participants without forcing them to go out of their way to do so. The purpose of the taxes is to discourage use, limit initial use, and provide funding which SHOULD be earmarked to help with the costs the habit incurs.

We cannot respond to anything that can be deemed unhealthy or wrong or harmful with more and more taxes and more and more regulations/bans/restrictions. People should be free to do what they desire if it does not adverselu affect other people.

But this does. It also costs other people money. It is not fair that I should have to pay for a medicare person with ling cancer he got from smoking. I feel bad for him but, as many smokers say "[he] knew what he was doing, don't tell him what to do!"


One of the great virtues of free country should be respecting other people's choices even if they appear inappropriate or wrong to you.

Unless they effect YOU. And this does.

[MidtownGuy]

I am proud do say that I do not smoke. In fact, I am what some would call a "health nut". I am also proud to say that I have a more tolerant and compromising view than many other non-smokers.

[Kris]

December 21, 2006
Mayor’s Curb on Smoking Is Credited With Saving Lives
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA

Could Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s antismoking crusade have already saved hundreds of lives? It has, city health officials said yesterday.

Smoking-related deaths in New York City fell by more than 800 a year from 2000 to 2005, a drop of more than 10 percent, according to the city’s annual Summary of Vital Statistics report, released yesterday. Asked how much of that can be credited to the mayor’s measures, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city health commissioner, said, “I think most of it.”

In another piece of good news, New Yorkers are living longer than ever, after an unusually big one-year rise in longevity. In 2004 (this statistic lags the others by a year) average life expectancy in the city reached 78.6 years, almost five months more than in 2003.

After trailing for six decades, New York City overtook the national average for longevity in 2000, and by 2004, the city led the nation by almost 10 months. Health officials say it is fairly clear why the city would have improved faster than the nation over the last decade, starting with the much reduced tolls of murder and AIDS, but they are not sure why the advantage continues to grow.

Infant mortality dropped slightly in 2005, to the lowest level ever recorded, 6 deaths among every 1,000 babies. But after decades of steep decline, progress has slowed nearly to a stop, and the infant mortality rate has changed little in the past five years.

The birth rate continued to drop, to 15.1 per 1,000 people. In more than a century of keeping track, the city has been less fecund in only two periods: the mid-to-late 1970s, and the Great Depression.

Even so, New Yorkers entering the world outnumbered those departing by more than 2 to 1, as the death rate fell very slightly, to a record low of 7 per thousand. The Bayside section of Queens had the city’s lowest death rate, while Brownsville, Brooklyn, had the highest, almost three times as high.

The leading cause of death, heart disease, continued to decline steadily as a killer, as it has for several years, possibly helped by the development of cholesterol-lowering drugs.

Dr. Frieden said he was frustrated by some areas that could be improved with education and better care, but show little or no change, including H.I.V.-related deaths and the racial disparity in infant mortality.

Black infants were twice as likely to die before their first birthdays as white or Hispanic babies. “Black women go into pregnancy and go through pregnancy in much worse health status, and that translates into higher infant mortality,” Dr. Frieden said.

H.I.V. deaths in the city peaked in the mid-1990s at more than 7,000 annually, then fell sharply with the introduction of new drug treatments, but progress slowed in recent years. The death count fell last year to 1,419, the lowest in more than two decades, but only 32 fewer than the year before.

After taking office in 2001, Mr. Bloomberg sharply increased the city’s cigarette taxes, and the state later imposed another steep increase. Then the mayor closed loopholes in the ban on smoking in restaurants and extended the ban to bars. The city also gave away nicotine patch kits to tens of thousands of people.

Despite fierce opposition at the time, the tax and the smoking ban were widely accepted. Since then, surveys have shown significant drops in the number of New Yorkers who smoke, which antismoking activists attribute largely to the city’s actions.

Using formulas developed by the federal Centers for Disease Control, the city calculated the number of smoking-related deaths at 8,096 in 2005, down from an average of 8,960 between 1999 and 2001.

Most of that decline was in death from cardiovascular disease. Death from the cancers associated with smoking also dropped, but Dr. Frieden said that was a continuation of a long-term trend, not a result of Bloomberg policies.

“Cancer takes 10 or 12 years to go down after people quit,” he said. “Cardiovascular disease goes down right away. For an individual smoker, within a year after quitting smoking, your risk of a heart attack is about half what it was before.”

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

[ZippyTheChimp]

June 22, 2007

City Smokers’ Ranks Drop 19%, Study Says

By ANTHONY RAMIREZ

The city’s department of health, citing a combination of high taxes, workplace limits and $10 million in grim television advertising, said yesterday that the number of smokers in New York City had declined by 240,000 in the last five years.

That change represents the sharpest drop since the city began keeping records in 1993, and one of the steepest declines in the nation since 1965, when the surgeon general first warned Americans about the dangers of smoking.

“When we look at the U.S. data overall, from 1965 to the present, this is faster than the United States as a whole in any period,” said Jennifer Ellis, the city health official who helped direct the study.

City researchers, writing in a widely followed publication of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the share of the city’s residents who smoked had dropped by 19 percent during the period of the study.

They said that in 2002, about 1,305,000 city residents smoked, or about 21.6 percent of the adult population, and that in 2006, about 1,065,000 residents, or 17.5 percent, smoked. The study was based on interviews with 10,000 city residents and used the same measures that the C.D.C. uses. The sharpest drops were in the Bronx, where smoking dropped from 25.2 percent of the population to 19 percent, and in Manhattan, where the rate dropped from 21.2 percent to 16.1 percent. Staten Island was flat, at 27.3 percent in 2002 and 27.2 percent in 2006.

Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the commissioner of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, said in a telephone interview, “The big picture is that if you are willing to do the right thing and take political risks as Mayor Bloomberg did” with curbs on smoking in public places, “you can get enormous health benefits.”

Moreover, Dr. Frieden said, the administration will continue to press for higher cigarette taxes of 50 cents more per pack. Adjusted for inflation, he said, a pack is actually 60 cents cheaper now than when taxes were last raised in 2002.

At that time, New York City increased the excise tax on cigarettes from 8 cents to $1.50 per pack. New York State also raised its excise tax from $1.11 to $1.50. Both resulted in the highest combined city/state tax in the United States at the time.

The tax increases raised the average price of a pack from $5.20 to $6.85. The city’s revenue from cigarette taxes has declined to $120 million this year from $123 million in 2005.

Councilman Tony Avella, Democrat of Queens, who has clashed with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg about smoking curbs in restaurants, said he would oppose higher taxes.

“People who smoke are addicted,” he said. “All you succeed in doing is making addicts pay more in taxes.”

Dr. Frieden said the city would continue to buy television advertising. “The tobacco industry is spending at least $400 million in New York City alone for marketing and promotion,” he said. Even if the city and state spent $20 million annually, he said, “We would still be outspent 20 to 1.”

Bill Phelps, a spokesman for Philip Morris USA, the nation’s largest tobacco company, declined to comment.

The health department researchers, writing in the most recent issue of the C.D.C.’s morbidity and mortality report, said the rapid drop in smoking in the city represented a continuation and an acceleration of long-term trends.

The drop, they said, represents as many as 80,000 fewer premature deaths from cancer and other smoking-related diseases, if the smokers quit the habit permanently.

The researchers attributed the most recent drop in the smoking rate to the 2006 television campaign highlighting the physical ravages of smoking.

The commercials ran on broadcast and cable channels. The researchers said that the typical New York viewer would see the city’s antismoking ads, called “Nothing Will Ever Be The Same,” as many as 110 times over the course of a year.

Moreover, the researchers said that separate research suggested that 9 of 10 city smokers had seen the ads.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[MikeW]

So when are they going to just ban smoking in public?

[Ninjahedge]

:rolleyes:

I am still amazed at the % of people that smoke. What is the average % of people that work in the city that smoke? (I don't remember seeing 1 in 5 walking along the street to work puffing away...)

[NYatKNIGHT]

^Smokers don't smoke constantly, so you wouldn't see 1 in 5 at any given time.

[Ninjahedge]

^Smokers don't smoke constantly, so you wouldn't see 1 in 5 at any given time.

Most that I have known try to get that last one in before they go to work. So I am surprised that I see less than 1 in 10 puffing when I come in in the morning.

Mid-day and other times is all up to the individuals......

[ZippyTheChimp]

Do you really count them?

[lofter1]

My self-imposed smoking ban is now starting week 13 ...

Funny what triggers the urge for a smoke ... this weekend while painting my bathroom I had huge urges to smoke when I would finish a coat or other tasks. In the past my breaks (no matter what it was I was doing) would usually start with a smoke -- and sometimes finish with one as well :cool: ...

I did not give in -- but did yell a few times, "G** Dammit, I want a F***ing Cigarette!".

Somehow that helps the moment pass :D ...

Finished the painting project without one smoke. For me I find that smoking is really a mental thing much more than a physical addiction. Sure don't miss coughing up the cash to pay for a pack or ten ...

[pianoman11686]

Congratulations on making that sort of progress, lofter. Even with all the patches, gums, and pills these days, I still hear from most smokers that it's too hard to quit.

[Ninjahedge]

Do you really count them?

Sadly, yes.

I also know that the red hand flashes 11 times before it goes solid and that you have 7 seconds between then and the light changing green on most of the avenues...


I don't know why, but I pick up on these things. I wish I could filter them out...

[Ninjahedge]

Congratulations on making that sort of progress, lofter. Even with all the patches, gums, and pills these days, I still hear from most smokers that it's too hard to quit.

It IS mostly psychological.

Geez, I find it hard not to bite my nails, and as far as I know there is nothing physically addictive about that!


Good job Loft! You will always get the cravings from time to time. But hopefully the return of the sense of taste and smell (FOOD!!!) will more than offset the nicotine rush. that is what I have heard is one of the most welcome thing from recent ex-smokers I know....

GL!

[ZippyTheChimp]

July 1, 2007

Staten Island Up Close

Even as the City Rejects the Habit, One Place Is Still Tobacco Road

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/01/nyregion/thecity/smok600.jpg

By EMILY BRADY

From the southernmost tip of Manhattan, even on a clear summer day, Staten Island can appear shrouded in a smoky haze.

There’s the pollution, which has earned the island the dubious distinction of having the worst air quality in the city. And there’s the cigarette smoke, which, according to a report released 10 days ago by the city’s Health Department, has hardly dissipated over the last four years, despite declining numbers in every other borough.

According to the report, 27 percent of adult residents of Staten Island puffed away in 2006, the same percentage as in 2002. During the same period, smoking rates among adults plummeted elsewhere in the city, bringing the city’s 2006 smoking average to 17.5 percent, a record low.

As to why Staten Islanders are the only city residents who don’t seem to be quitting smoking, no one is quite sure.

“It’s the $64,000 question,” said Sarah Perl, the assistant commissioner of the city’s Bureau of Tobacco Control, who credits the sharp drops elsewhere to higher cigarette taxes, a ban on indoor smoking and an antismoking ad campaign.

Donna Shelley, an assistant professor at the Columbia Mailman School of Public Health, was also unsure how to explain the Staten Island results, but she noted that the borough has a long history of high smoking rates. She also wondered, as Ms. Perl did, if the city’s antismoking ads need to be tailored more to the borough population.

Staten Islanders themselves are mystified by their behavior.

“God, I have no idea why,” said Christine Morrill, a 33-year-old Staten Islander from West Brighton.

“I had lymphoma, and I still smoke,” she added as she sat at the bar in Duffy’s, a neighborhood tavern on Forest Avenue, her miniature dachshund nibbling on her burger.

Down the avenue in front of Jody’s Club Forest bar, Norman Senk, a 49-year-old Staten Island native with a white stubbly beard who smokes two packs a day, had a more philosophical take on things. “We like to smoke; hey, what are you gonna do?” he said as he leaned back in a green plastic lawn chair and took a drag on a Marlboro Red.

As the Health Department works to develop a plan of action, Ms. Perl intends to send researchers to Staten Island to interview residents directly.

Maybe she should consider a suggestion from Kevin Gill, who said at Jody’s bar that his 23-year-old daughter has been a smoker for 10 years. “I’d like to take her to the morgue and show her a pink, healthy lung and then a black smoker’s lung,” Mr. Gill said. “I think that would make anyone stop right there.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[ZippyTheChimp]

January 3, 2008

Paris Journal

Even France, Haven of Smokers, Is Clearing the Air


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/01/03/world/03smoking.600.jpg
Tomas van Houtryve for The New York Times
As of Wednesday, people could smoke at outdoor cafes,
but not indoors. There are fierce pockets of resistance to the ban.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/01/03/world/03smoking_2.650.jpg
Owen Franken for The New York Times
A smoker puffed on a hookah on a heated terrace in a water-pipe
tea house on Wednesday.


By ELAINE SCIOLINO

PARIS — Overnight, conviviality has taken on an entirely new meaning in France.

Under a sweeping decree that took effect Wednesday, smoking has been banned in every commercial corner of “entertainment and conviviality” — from the toniest Parisian nightclub to the humblest village cafe.

No matter that cigarette is a French word. Or that the great icons of French creativity — Colette to Cocteau, Camus to Coco Chanel — all smoked. Or that Paris boasts a Museum of Smoking. Or, in fact, that Paris has named a street after Jean Nicot, the 16th-century French diplomat who took tobacco leaves imported from America to Catherine de Medici to treat her migraines. (Nicotine was named after him.)

The ban is the final step in a 2006 prohibition on smoking in public places, which had granted postponements to restaurants, bars, discos, casinos and other commercial pleasure enterprises so that they could better brace themselves for smokelessness.

On Wednesday, Health Minister Roselyne Bachelot visited the high-ceilinged, 100-year-old Wepler brasserie in Paris and announced that there was “perfect” compliance with the new rule.

“This is a new art de vivre,” she said, even as she warned of consequences for “repeat offenders and rebels.” (Smokers who break the rules will face fines of $100 to $661. Owners can be fined $198 to $1,100.) Michèle Alliot-Marie, the interior minister, has told the country’s police that they do not have to meet quotas in issuing fines and urged them to leave policing to “competent” agents like public health inspectors.

The ban was supposed to take effect on Tuesday, but to preserve the New Year’s Eve party spirit — and avoid the risk of violence — French smokers were given an extra day of grace.

About 12 million French people — about 20 percent of the population — are smokers, according to official figures, and more than 70,000 people die in France every year from smoking-related illnesses and secondhand smoke.

The decree coincides with a broad Europe-wide nonsmoking movement that began four years ago when Ireland banned smoking in public places. But here, there are fierce pockets of resistance. Opponents say the ban signals the erosion of French liberté. They say it is undemocratic because it was not passed through Parliament but imposed by government decree.

Some owners of smaller bars and cafes contend that the ban is unfair because it favors large, wealthy establishments that can take advantage of loopholes. (Smoking is allowed in outdoor cafes and sophisticated indoor “hermetically sealed areas, furnished with air-extraction systems.”) Indeed, in writing the ban, little thought seemed to have been given to the country’s 800 water-pipe tea houses, most of them extremely modest enterprises owned by ethnic Arabs.

“We have sacrificed everything to open these little places, borrowing money from our family members, using our cars and apartments as collateral, and what’s going to happen to us?” said Tariq el-Hamri, the 33-year-old owner of Dar Daffia (House of Hospitality), a water-pipe bar in Paris. “If the government wants to have healthy people, it should stop selling cigarettes — and alcohol.”

Mr. Hamri belongs to the Union of Hookah-Pipe Professionals, which plans to challenge the ban in French courts and is lobbying for the same exception for water-pipe smokers that is in effect in parts of the United States and Canada. Expensive and space-consuming hermetic sealing is not an option for most of them. “We are second-class citizens,” said Badri Helou, president of the union, which was created last February and has 270 members. “The reason you come to a water-pipe club is to smoke a water pipe. The mint tea and the pastries come afterward. We cannot survive on them. It would be as if you go to the movies and there’s no film — just popcorn.”

The Confederation of Tobacco Dealers, which represents 28,000 tobacconists in France, has accused President Nicolas Sarkozy of duplicity.

During the presidential campaign last year, Mr. Sarkozy called for flexibility to protect small businesses. “To ban smoking in places where tobacco is sold, is somehow strange,” he said at the time, adding that there should also be leniency for the small cafe-tabac in a village of 750 people where “if it closes, there is nothing else.”

The confederation’s newsletter reprinted the opening two-page spread in a recent issue of Paris-Match that shows Mr. Sarkozy at his desk, lighting a cigar. “Is the Élysée Palace a private space where one can smoke or a place of work?” said René Le Pape, president of the confederation. “The president is setting a bad example. This is a provocation.”

For Mr. Le Pape, the ban signals the demise of a part of French culture. “It means the destruction of village life,” he said. “What will happen to the ritual of arriving at the cafe in the morning to read the morning paper over a coffee and a cigarette?”

At Le Musée du Fumeur (The Museum of Smoking), there is concern that the French may not be able to think as well without their cigarettes. “All our great writers seem to have been smokers,” said Michka Seeliger-Chatelein, one of the curators.

Still, there are efforts to keep a sense of humor. The cafe-restaurant Le Fumoir (The Smoking Room) has made gifts of its signature ashtrays. The cover of the current issue of Le Figaro Magazine retouched black and white photos of Che Guevara, Jacques Brel, Brigitte Bardot and other passionate smokers; they grip giant yellow buttercups instead of cigarettes between their lips.

Most establishments seemed resigned to the ban. “We are not taking sides,” said Colin Peter Field, the head bartender at the Hemingway Bar at the Ritz. The bar will continue to sell 40 to 50 types of upscale cigars and is studying plans to renovate its outdoor spaces to accommodate smokers.

“Once you’ve hung yourself,” Mr. Field said, “you’re not going to drown yourself as well.”



Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

[Ninjahedge]

I feel bad for the Hookah bar owners, but this:

“What will happen to the ritual of arriving at the cafe in the morning to read the morning paper over a coffee and a cigarette?”

Garners no sympathy from me.


How do you think smaller establishments, who rely on smoking as their primary income, could get around this w/o others taking advantage of it and ruining the desired effect?

[Fahzee]

speaking as a non-smoker here: smoking a cigar at The Hemingway Bar will be missed.

lung cancer will not be missed

[Ninjahedge]

That is kind of what I am saying...

How can you sepearate the two though? How can you survive just on the sale of tea and pastry in France? (Especially when your consumer base was primarily smokers).

The line is tricky to draw between a bar that you smoke at and a smoking lounge that you eat/drink at.....

[Fahzee]

^ well put - I've wondered the same thing.

Harry's New York Bar (sure - it's a tourist haunt - but I freakin' loved it) had a cigarette girl - I'm actually a little worried about her. I guess she sells gum now.

But in the long run, bars & restaurants have all survived the smoking bans. After all, the pubs in Ireland are doing fine - why wouldn't the cafes in France do the same?

Also: In New York, Hookah Bars are still allowed to operate - they just can't serve tobacco (instead, you smoke dried fruit). More Hookah bars have opened SINCE the ban than before.

[TonyO]

Also: In New York, Hookah Bars are still allowed to operate - they just can't serve tobacco (instead, you smoke dried fruit). More Hookah bars have opened SINCE the ban than before.

I've been to Hookah bars here and they certainly sell tobacco as well as allow you to smoke it (and cigarettes).

Seeing the French adopt a no smoking law is surprising. If they could now take it a step further and require "pomposity free" establishments things would be that much better.

[Fahzee]

If a Hookah bar is allowing you to smoke tobacco, they are doing so illegally.

That being said, many (if not ALL) Hookah bars could potentially get away with allowing you to smoke flavored tobacco, as the testing & enforcement policies of the NYC Department of Health are notoriously lax

- basically, a DOH representative has to ask for a sample of whatever is being smoked in the Hookah - but the hookah bar doesn't have to give the representative the actual substance in the Hookah! Instead, the Bar owner gives the DOH representative a piece of "fresh" substance - and no tests are done to ensure that the fresh substance and the smoked substance are one and the same

Cigarettes are an entirely different story - if you've seen people smoking cigarettes in a Hookah bar, chances are it's only a matter of time before someone cracks down on that particular establishment

[Ninjahedge]

Maybe that is a deliberate blind eye that is being turned on those establishments....

The only thing I would find hard would be to try to seperate the Smoking Primary establishment from the Smoking Accessory establishment. You say you can have smokes at this and such a bar, but only if it does not serve beer, or food, or something, the line gets a bit blurry.

Maybe the Hookah is the only way to go with potential tobacco allowances. They definitely take up space that could be used to fill with more patrons, and they are not cheap in themselves....

I don't know. I do think it is unfair to have an absolute ban on all establishments, but I do not see any other way that would work with a substance that is that addictive and prevalent in a culture. If you want to protect non-smokers from it, i is very hard and very convoluted to give rights to some without taking something away from the non-smokers (like smoke free bars).

Although it is silly, maybe they need to seperate tobacco from full-food/liquor establishments. NJ does something similar with strip clubs (or is it CT) where Alcohol cannot be served where full frontal is shown. (that is the silly thing I was talking about). Theory being that it prevents unruly behavior, etc etc...

Would making it so that only wine/liquor could be served at a smoking bar (where only specialty ciggs/cigars/hookah could be used/sold) make it?

I think people would still be upset that they could not bring their own, but this would at least give them a place to try something different. It works for Alcohol (why pay $5 for a pint when you can get the same beer for $1 at the store?)......

I don't know. I like that they are doing this, but I still feel sorry for the small guys that are running smoking establishments, not bars where people smoke....

[Fahzee]

^ plus, it's economically unfair that owners of establishments with roofbars/outdoor bars can still allow smoking, but your average dive bar cannot.

all of this being said - I was recently in a bar where smoking WAS allowed (I forgot where I was - Virginia maybe?) - and it was awful. I will always feel bad for the little guy - but I have ZERO nostalgia for the smoke filled bar.

[Radiohead]

Smoking bans in restaurants don't bother me at all, since I'd prefer to eat a meal without the smell of smoke wafting my way. Bans in bars I can live with as well, since the majority of drinkers don't smoke anymore.

What does bother me is the Bloombergonian nanny-state that tells ALL establishments that they HAVE to be smoke free. Why can't an entrepreneur open a restaurant or bar exclusively for patrons and employees who do smoke? If you don't like the smoke, don't eat there and don't apply to work there. There are hundreds of other places in town to eat and work.

Unfortunately, the PC nannies, who of course have only the health of the the public in mind, will have none of this. The smokers are addicts who must be protected from themselves. A restaurant/bar for smokers? Egads!

[TonyO]

If a Hookah bar is allowing you to smoke tobacco, they are doing so illegally.

That being said, many (if not ALL) Hookah bars could potentially get away with allowing you to smoke flavored tobacco, as the testing & enforcement policies of the NYC Department of Health are notoriously lax

- basically, a DOH representative has to ask for a sample of whatever is being smoked in the Hookah - but the hookah bar doesn't have to give the representative the actual substance in the Hookah! Instead, the Bar owner gives the DOH representative a piece of "fresh" substance - and no tests are done to ensure that the fresh substance and the smoked substance are one and the same

Cigarettes are an entirely different story - if you've seen people smoking cigarettes in a Hookah bar, chances are it's only a matter of time before someone cracks down on that particular establishment

Legally, you are correct. There are only 8 establishments that legally allow tobacco smoking. However, as is everything here, reality is not the law. Hookah bars routinely sell/allow flavored tobacco and people smoking their own cigarettes.

[Ninjahedge]

What does bother me is the Bloombergonian nanny-state that tells ALL establishments that they HAVE to be smoke free. Why can't an entrepreneur open a restaurant or bar exclusively for patrons and employees who do smoke? If you don't like the smoke, don't eat there and don't apply to work there. There are hundreds of other places in town to eat and work.


That does not work.

People kept asking "why not let this and such do this". But what you end up with is ALL the bars becoming "special" and going right back to what they were.

Smoking is addictive both physically and psychologically. Most people have the hardest time separating past behavior from smoking after they quit (they can't do this or that because they start craving when they do). Bars are just that.

They developed the link over many years of the two being hard-linked and making it possible for an establishment to be "special" and offer both will prompt many to do the same.

So the hard part that I am talking about is drawing that line. How do you make it so that you can have a few establishments that cater to smokers without going right back to square one where anyone in NYC that wanted to be social (with alcohol) had to put up with the smoke?

[ZippyTheChimp]

Funny how the term politically correct has become synonymous with the simple incorrect, the added benefit being the implication that the offender knows his position is incorrect, and is just avoiding offending some group (the actual meaning of PC).

So just what group are the PC nannies trying not to offend? The non-smokers? That would be themselves.

[Radiohead]

That does not work.

People kept asking "why not let this and such do this". But what you end up with is ALL the bars becoming "special" and going right back to what they were.

Smoking is addictive both physically and psychologically. Most people have the hardest time separating past behavior from smoking after they quit (they can't do this or that because they start craving when they do). Bars are just that.

They developed the link over many years of the two being hard-linked and making it possible for an establishment to be "special" and offer both will prompt many to do the same.

So the hard part that I am talking about is drawing that line. How do you make it so that you can have a few establishments that cater to smokers without going right back to square one where anyone in NYC that wanted to be social (with alcohol) had to put up with the smoke?

I think most establishments would remain non-smoking so as not to alienate the majority non-smokers. Most would also not want to pay for any special license to allow smoking. Also, the government could choose to limit the number of such establishments if too many applied for such a license.

The bottom line is, in a free society, shouldn't adults have the CHOICE to go to a restaurant that caters to smokers if they so wish, and shouldn't business owners be able to open an establishment that caters to such a crowd? Who are they really hurting other than themselves. If you don't like the smoke, don't go there. Do we really want the government mandating what type of legal activities can be indulged in a particular establishment, no matter it's health effects. Alcohol itself can cause many negative health issues, but do we want the government telling a bar what types of alcohol it can serve? No shots, their alcohol content is too high. No double mixed drinks, it speeds up intoxication. A Red Bull and Jager?....nope, those energy drinks speed up the heart and promote more consumption. Where does it stop? Once the precedent is set with smoking, it likely won't end there.

And that is quite chilling....
http://www.fotosearch.com/thumb/ARP/ARP114/Chilled.jpg

[AmeriKenArtist]

Cigar Bars? Can they exist? (I didn't read all 20 pages here.)

[Sheff1]

I went to Lexington Bar and Books in the UES over Christmas. You must wear a shirt, but basically it is a bar that allows cigar smoking. No cover but a bottled beer is $9. No draught beers. No cigarettes allowed.

[Radiohead]

I went to Lexington Bar and Books in the UES over Christmas. You must wear a shirt, but basically it is a bar that allows cigar smoking. No cover but a bottled beer is $9. No draught beers. No cigarettes allowed.

Cigar smoke is far more invasive and odorous than any cigarette; I wonder how that is allowed. Likely that too many big shots with political connections smoke cigars.

$9 beers?? Now that's more offensive than any kind of smoke:eek:

[mykingdomlisa]

I agree.

I hate smoke and hate coming home wreaking of smoke, but it's NYC and it's a bar. *Hello, don't go and don't work there...

Also, the city needs to lighten up on bars, clubs (dance and strip), etc. *NYC nightlife has been and should always be a MAJOR part of NYC. *It's why many people are here and it is one major factor that sets us apart from everywhere else.

It annoys me that a business that makes a lot of money for the city and the owners/employees is looked upon as "evil."

Damnit, I'm gonna start ranting, so...


good point

[Ninjahedge]

I think most establishments would remain non-smoking so as not to alienate the majority non-smokers. Most would also not want to pay for any special license to allow smoking. Also, the government could choose to limit the number of such establishments if too many applied for such a license.

I do not think that will work. There is still a strong pull for smoking by those that still smoke. Most establishments would go back to what would bring in people. And if the bars started smoking, the non-smokers would stop coming and the smokers would determine the course of the market.

I am not saying that issuing limited permits is not a bad idea, but it would be very hard to make it fair unless you had some other special requirement (like Hookahs) to allow people to smoke, only what YOU sell, in your establishment....


And do not get started with the "alcohol is bad for you too" svhpiel. I cannot make another drink by sitting next to them and drinking. Any of my actions CAUSED by Alcohol are limited, and against the law if it were to harm another. Someone does not go home smelling like Alcohol if they were simply in the same establishment as someone else who was drinking, and alcohol does not stain the walls, ceilings, and fabrics of an establishment unless used with wonton abandonment and kenetic exhuberance.


IWO, apples and oranges.

All they have to do is make it so that smoking is, well, smokeless and many people would have no problems with it.

[ZippyTheChimp]

All they have to do is make it so that smoking is, well, smokelessI think that thin blue line curling up from the tip, and the cirrus layers drifting in the room have a lot to do with the appeal.

I never enjoyed smoking on a windy day.

[Ninjahedge]

I hate smoke and hate coming home wreaking of smoke, but it's NYC and it's a bar. *Hello, don't go and don't work there...

*bzzzt*

Nope. SO because someone else wants to smoke, I can either stink or stay home? Is that fair to me? For something that has been rammed through the public eye by way of movies and very expensive commercial association, it would be very difficult to make a "free market" argument for any kind of bar being able to be smoke free "of their own free will".

As was said many times before, one smoker in a group can make many turn away from your establishment.

If people are expecting something when they go out, your clientelle, or lack thereof, is determined by what was the standard before.

Bottom line is, a free market model does not work in cases like this. This is not a question of Freedoms, and if it was a question of Democracy, there is a good chance that more people would vote for the ban than not if posted to the general population.

[Ninjahedge]

I think that thin blue line curling up from the tip, and the cirrus layers drifting in the room have a lot to do with the appeal.

I never enjoyed smoking on a windy day.

Actually, that is all "atmosphere", and I only saw it dramatized by people trying to create a specific image.

And it was pushed by the tobacco industry as well. Very good marketing.

But if everyone loves that "layer" so much, why do they smoke in the car with the window cracked open? Is there a limit to how much smoke a smoker can take? ;)


(PS, the *bzzt* was a little harsh, but I have a bit of work stress, so...... sorries!)

[MidtownGuy]

Good grief, didn't we go all through this a few pages back? Ninjahedge, you have an obsession about this. The Cerberus of this thread.
You do seem stressed and shrill, lighten up Francis!

[Ninjahedge]

"You call me Francis, I'll kill you!"

:p

[MidtownGuy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTUruCv4Qi4

:D

[Radiohead]

I do not think that will work. There is still a strong pull for smoking by those that still smoke. Most establishments would go back to what would bring in people. And if the bars started smoking, the non-smokers would stop coming and the smokers would determine the course of the market.

I disagree. Sure there are many customers who would like to smoke, but there are many more who would not and they would have a bigger say in determining the course of the market. Surveys say that only about 20% of NYC residents smoke (17% of Manhattan residents). Even assuming that the rate is a bit higher for drinkers, the minority of smokers will not cause most bars to become smoking environments again. Most bar owners will not want to alienate the 75+% of customers that don't smoke.




And do not get started with the "alcohol is bad for you too" svhpiel. I cannot make another drink by sitting next to them and drinking. Any of my actions CAUSED by Alcohol are limited, and against the law if it were to harm another. Someone does not go home smelling like Alcohol if they were simply in the same establishment as someone else who was drinking, and alcohol does not stain the walls, ceilings, and fabrics of an establishment unless used with wonton abandonment and kenetic exhuberance.

IWO, apples and oranges.


First off, you're taking my alcohol can be bad" comment out of context. That was merely to make a point about the potential dangers of excess government intrusion in a business' day to day activities under the guise of protecting the public health. Besides, you're totally missing my point. If you don't want to breath in the smoke or have your clothes smelling of it, don't go into the designated cigarette or cigar bars. These establishments would be for the ones who DO wish to have a cigarette with their drink. If you don't, then don't go there.

I don't understand why smokers having a few places to go and enjoy themselves and their unhealthy habit bothers you so much. You seem to think that it will cause a snowball effect, and the bans will be recinded. That is not going to happen; the ban is here to stay. But a limited number of special licenses for on-premises smoking should be allowed. The "fairness" issues could be worked out.

[pianoman11686]

That "minority of smokers" is sort of a circular argument, Radiohead. A major reason the smoking rate has kept going down is how much more difficult (and embarrassing, inconvenient, aggravating, etc.) it has become to smoke in public places. Try comparing smoking rates between places that restrict it, and others that don't.

You make it easier to smoke again, and more people may light up. Or, at best, the rate won't get much lower.

[MidtownGuy]

How very unlibertarian of you.

Not only should there be businesses that allow patrons to smoke cigarettes, but there should also be businesses where it is legal to smoke marijuana.

[Radiohead]

That "minority of smokers" is sort of a circular argument, Radiohead. A major reason the smoking rate has kept going down is how much more difficult (and embarrassing, inconvenient, aggravating, etc.) it has become to smoke in public places. Try comparing smoking rates between places that restrict it, and others that don't.

You make it easier to smoke again, and more people may light up. Or, at best, the rate won't get much lower.

Then we get into the argument of should the government be setting restrictions on behavior, however unhealthful, in order to eliminate it. It's easy to pick on smokers, because smoking obviously is bad for your health. But what if the government tries to restrict drinking in say, street festivals, because it encourages overindulgence (or god forbid, the premise of protecting children from observing alcohol consumption). Ninja calls it apples and oranges, but it's really not. There are already a number of supplements that the FDA has banned in the USA, due to trumped up health concerns (i.e. tryptophan(ban recently lifted), ephedra). And the push to severely limit dietary supplements has been ongoing in Europe the past several years, and could eventually cross the Atlantic:

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2003/2003_preprint_eu_01.htm

Governments can educate the public via PSA's all they want. But they do not need to be protecting people from themselves, or their bad habits, via legislation.

[lofter1]

Ah, c'mon .. stop telling us what to do .. anybody who wants to smoke, go ahead ... SMOKE (http://whyquit.com/pr/071806.html) :cool:

http://whyquit.com/whyquit/KimScar.JPG

[lofter1]

ooops ^ Sorry :o I meant to post the "Smoking is Sexy" pic ...

http://www.sexysmokingteens.net/uploads/smoking-fetish-teen-lorena.jpg

[Radiohead]

You know, there's a whole subculture of men (and women) who have a deep-seated smoker fetish. The leathery skin, the wrinkles, the deep, throaty voice. Do we want to deprive people of that by banning all smoking?......

http://seniorjournal.com/Photos/4-12-15Smoker.jpg

http://www.clauss.dk/Billeder/Cuba/Old_cigar_smoker_from__Havana.jpg

http://www.drunkhollywood.com/images/tarasmoke01.jpg

http://dermnetnz.org/site-age-specific/img/smoker.jpg

http://health.learninginfo.org/images/damage.jpg

http://www.treatment-skincare.com/Images/January07/Vitamin-C-Irritating-Aging-Ineffective.jpg



:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
http://www.plu.edu/~health/img/leatherface.jpg


Despite even that last picture, I still think smokers should have places in the city to smoke. It's called choice, whether good for you or bad.

[lofter1]

Precisely ^ The choice is to do it in the street or at home.

I smoked for many many years. But a certain body part recently made the choice for me: Stop now or else.

Were those many many years of enjoyment worth the eventual revolution within my body?

From my present standpoint ... Nope.

And I certainly shouldn't be inflicting any of that on someone who is employed to serve me ... especially if that server doesn't have the option to say, "Not going near that table."

But why should anyone let logic & reason get in the way of a few furtive puffs and momentary pleasure?

[Ninjahedge]

RH, I know where you are coming from, but the key thing here to keep in mind is how your own freedoms infringe on others.

Like what I said before, if they had the smokeless ciggie, then it would have little, if any impact on anyone else.

But think about this. If everyone loved it so much and there was nothing wrong with it, why did so many people leave their coats at home when going to the bars? I can't tell you how many times I saw people walking to bars in Hoboken, in February (30 degrees or so) with nothing but a skirt and a tube top or button up long sleeve shirt and slacks.

I will tell you why. Their clothes STUNK after being in the bar for only 5 minutes! God FORBID you wear a wool coat in there, it would take MONTHS to get all the stank out.

And that is just cosmetic. That crap gets into your lungs as well. The first few times you are exposed, you cough, get respiratory irritation, your eyes water. It is your body telling you that it does not like it and you should stop. That goes for passive smoke as well.

So people would have to put up with that just so some could have their "freedom" to cater to an addiction that so many say "I can stop any time" but few ever can, or do.


Now, back OT, I think, as I said, that if the establishment was selling the tobacco, you were only allowed to get its product, and the bar was specifically set up to cater to just that, then that is different than just allowing smoking. You want to smoke? Go to one of those bars or just step outside for a puff. Better yet, petition the tobacco industry to put more $$ into research for a smokeless ciggie that does not look like a breathalyser mouthpiece (talk about humiliating) and tasting like licking a nicotine patch (not that I have tried, but that is another fault smokers have said about the smokeless).


Oh, OFF topic. That last pic looks more like a leatherback than a smoker. A Tan-a-holic.

Why she still does it when she looks that bad is, although not "beyond me", rather sad.... But, her life, her choice, doesn't effect me (although I am reluctant to have to pay medicare/medicaid if she needs it for skin cancer).

[ZippyTheChimp]

That last picture gave me the heebie-jeebies.

[MidtownGuy]

That one is definitely sun damage. A lifetime at the beach.

[pianoman11686]

Governments can educate the public via PSA's all they want. But they do not need to be protecting people from themselves, or their bad habits, via legislation.

The slippery slope argument is certainly valid, and we should always be on guard against restrictions of individual liberty.

Smoking is an unusual case, as Ninja explained, because it does harm not only to smokers, but also anyone in the immediate vicinity of the smokers. Why should a substantial majority suffer from secondhand smoke in restaurants, bars, etc. because some people can't kick the habit? I consider that in itself an infringement of rights. And while I'm no fan of majority rule to make policy, no one's saying smoking should become illegal. Just don't do it where it endangers others.

Even aside from all of this, I have no problem with seeing big tobacco companies lose more and more of their business. Who knows if we'll ever be able to put a number on the total amount of damage they've done through their deliberate attempts to get people addicted to their products. We're talking about the worst of the worst of American corporations.

[Ninjahedge]

Slight OT on that Piano, RJ Reynolds and the other Big Tobacco companies had some smarts. They did not stay all in one particular product. Many are buying things from property to cleaning products.

I would hazard a guess that they are paying their lawyers handsomely to make sure that their divestments are isolated, legally, enough from Tobacco so that they do not lose them when they are finally forced to close down some of their more illicit endeavors (such as research into more addictive plant progeny, etc).

They are probably trying to go the way of the coal mining companies. When enough people are successful in suing them, they close shop and say they have no $$, when really they have just been transferring all of their assets over to safer venues while making as much money off their sinking ship as possible while it is still above the waters surface.

Rats simply don't just jump ship these days. They make sure that others are tied to the hull to go down with it!


Back ON topic, yes, you got what I am saying. So long as I do not have to put up with it, and have my health effected by a completely voluntary act (in theory, we all know it is an addiction) I have no problem with it. But similar to, and worse than, other things I have mentioned which are NOT health risks but not tolerated (noise, body oder, etc), I see no reason they should be allowed or argued for under "free market" or "personal freedom" assertions/associations.

[Radiohead]

I keep hearing arguments about second hand smoke that you do not wish to be exposed to, which is irrelevent to my argument, which are for bars that cater exclusively to smokers. These would likely be new establishments that need special licenses anyway, not existing ones. If you don't like the smoke, don't go there to drink, and don't go there to work. It comes down to voluntary choice. When I lived in the city, and when I visit city taverns today, I rarely smoke when I drink. So I would probably frequent the overwhelming majority of bars that don't allow smoking. But adult smokers should have the choice to go into an establishment and enjoy their habit with other adult smokers if they so wish.

It's quite scary how many are so gung-ho on controlling the activities of others. And it's ironic that many of the same are equally vocal in espousing the freedom to choose in other areas. Maybe I'm missing something in translation. I don't understand how someone sitting in a "cigarette bar" puffing away with other smokers undermines the rights of anyone who wouldn't be caught dead (no pun intended) in that same bar anyway. The truth is, it doesn't undermine either their rights or their health. It should be of no concern except those who choose to be there.

New York City.....the great liberal, tolerant city:rolleyes:

[Radiohead]

But similar to, and worse than, other things I have mentioned which are NOT health risks but not tolerated (noise, body oder, etc), I see no reason they should be allowed or argued for under "free market" or "personal freedom" assertions/associations.

Ninja, that sounds a lot like prohibition. It didn't work with alcohol, and it won't work with tobacco. You sound like some self-righteous, bible-thumping evangelicals I've heard....
http://www.jesus21.com/img/news/angley_2.jpg

Please don't damn me to hell's fire:(

[lofter1]

So, based on that position ^ a question (or three) ...

If you're an employer and hire folks to work in your smoke-infused bar do you make your employees sign a waiver stating that anything that occurs in the workplace is not the responsibility of the employer -- nor is the employer liable for any costs which might stem from health issues due to the activites which are allowed in the employer's place of business?

Or do you agree that if an employee gets sick and that the illness is linked to tobacco smoke then do you as the employer agree to cover the insurance / health costs for same?

And what if the insurance company says, "We're not covering that. The illness was due to the employer's negligence. And the negligence of the employee for working in such an environment. Both should have known better. They are fully and mutually responsible and must pay all costs. We're not paying a cent."

:confused:

[Radiohead]

So, based on that position ^ a question (or three) ...

If you're an employer and hire folks to work in your smoke-infused bar do you make your employees sign a waiver stating that anything that occurs in the workplace is not the responsibility of the employer -- nor is the employer liable for any costs which might stem from health issues due to the activites which are allowed in the employer's place of business?

That could very well be the case. And if I was a smoker and wanted to work in a bar that allows smoking, I'd sign it. Liability waivers are a fact of life in modern day America. For owners of a cigarette bar, in the litigious society we live in, it's a no-brainer.

Or do you agree that if an employee gets sick and that the illness is linked to tobacco smoke then do you as the employer agree to cover the insurance / health costs for same?

If an employee makes the effort to apply for a job specifically in a "cigarette bar", more likely than not they already smoke. So I doubt the employer should be on the hook when they're the ones inhaling their own cigarettes. Blaming second-hand smoke would be almost laughable. And even if they didn't smoke, they would have probably signed the contract mentioned in the prior paragraph. That said, I do wish that even part-time bar workers could be covered by health insurance to some degree. Since I don't own a bar, I don't know how feasible that is.


And what if the insurance company says, "We're not covering that. The illness was due to the employer's negligence. And the negligence of the employee for working in such an environment. Both should have known better. They are fully and mutually responsible and must pay all costs. We're not paying a cent."

If that were the case, I would assume such specific language would be in the policy. The employer would want to verify that the policy didn't specify that. If such language wasn't there, the company should pay; you can't make up excuses not to pay after the fact. Not even "pre-existing conditions" would apply here.

If all insurance companies were smart, they would charge a hefty premium to cover smokers, which in the case of either a cigarette bar or an individual smoker, would be a significant cost. I don't have a problem with insurance companies charging higher rates for smoking, morbid obesity, high risk behaviors or hobbies etc. I work in health care and know the negative and costly effects of all of them.

And still I have a disdain for government setting restrictions on any of them
http://kevinrothermel.typepad.com/kevinrothermelcom/images/big_brother.jpg

[MidtownGuy]

There's the idea that the health care industry shouldn't be denying anyone necessary treatment, regardless of how the need came about. Mountain climber...buzz off with your broken leg, you shouldn't be climbing rocks?

The trouble with hypotheticals like this:

And what if the insurance company says, "We're not covering that. The illness was due to the employer's negligence. And the negligence of the employee for working in such an environment. Both should have known better. They are fully and mutually responsible and must pay all costs. We're not paying a cent.


is that our environment is full of health hazards that are the result of voluntary choices and things we should avoid. Breathing pollution from sources other than cigarettes , say for instance vehicle exhaust, is also harmful, are we going to have different classifications for people who live too close to a road or have a balcony above a busy intersection? Order pizza with bacon and extra cheese? Locate themselves and their children near cancerous wires or utility stations? Redline those neighborhoods and adjust insurance rates accordingly, perhaps?

What if a person chooses to eat factory farmed beef? I wouldn't touch it any faster than I would touch a cigarette. So do I conclude that meat eaters should pay more in insurance for their unhealthy choice of being an eater of non-organic, overly-marbled meat? Of course not. Then there is the pollution from cattle feedlots. Because of an unnatural amount of beef consumption, pollution is leeking into aquifers, you know...the amount is staggering... it's polluting the groundwater. The environment is being harmfully affected by a behavior I do not choose to partake in. Should we outlaw, restrict, or categorize by risk for that too? Mandate the consumption of 100% soy substitutes? Or maybe the government should determine what's an acceptable level of pork lard before danger of atherosclerosis rises, and ration it out by family according to genetic risk.

[MidtownGuy]

For-profit HMOS and insurance companies deciding about treatment is a fundamentally and FATALLY flawed system.

So is government playing nanny over every unhealthy behavior. Where does it end?

When technology allows, just give us a synthetic titanium body or genetically engineer us all to have the same behaviors and get it over with. Then we'll have zero risk.:rolleyes:

[Radiohead]

There's the idea that the health care industry shouldn't be denying anyone necessary treatment, regardless of how the need came about. Mountain climber...buzz off with your broken leg, you shouldn't be climbing rocks?

The trouble with hypotheticals like this:




is that our environment is full of health hazards that are the result of voluntary choices and things we should avoid. Breathing pollution from sources other than cigarettes , say for instance vehicle exhaust, is also harmful, are we going to have different classifications for people who live too close to a road or have a balcony above a busy intersection? Order pizza with bacon and extra cheese? Locate themselves and their children near cancerous wires or utility stations? Redline those neighborhoods and adjust insurance rates accordingly, perhaps?

What if a person chooses to eat factory farmed beef? I wouldn't touch it any faster than I would touch a cigarette. So do I conclude that meat eaters should pay more in insurance for their unhealthy choice of being an eater of non-organic, overly-marbled meat? Of course not. Then there is the pollution from cattle feedlots. Because of an unnatural amount of beef consumption, pollution is leeking into aquifers, you know...the amount is staggering... it's polluting the groundwater. The environment is being harmfully affected by a behavior I do not choose to partake in. Should we outlaw, restrict, or categorize by risk for that too? Mandate the consumption of 100% soy substitutes? Or maybe the government should determine what's an acceptable level of pork lard before danger of atherosclerosis rises, and ration it out by family according to genetic risk.

Good points, Midtown.

[Radiohead]

^Doesn't look real -- looks like a photoshop job or a wrinkled brown skin outfit.

Just passing by and commenting on the picture, that's all.

You might be right. The legs do look look like a rubber suit. Still, I might use it on some future "Sunbathing Ban" thread, should Bloomberg choose to ban that, too.:)

[pianoman11686]

I keep hearing arguments about second hand smoke that you do not wish to be exposed to, which is irrelevent to my argument, which are for bars that cater exclusively to smokers. These would likely be new establishments that need special licenses anyway, not existing ones.

Fair enough. But why would you draw the line at bars? Don't you think that, once certain smoke-only bars opened up, people would demand licenses for smoking restaurants, smoking movie theaters, smoking-only sections in office buildings and malls?

It may not be worth the effort. That's beside the socially-limiting aspect of your plan: segregating smokers and nonsmokers in public settings. In the current way, if you want to smoke, you just go outside for 2 minutes and come right back in, where you can socialize with everyone.

[Radiohead]

Fair enough. But why would you draw the line at bars? Don't you think that, once certain smoke-only bars opened up, people would demand licenses for smoking restaurants, smoking movie theaters, smoking-only sections in office buildings and malls?

My argument for specially licensed cigarette bars is a pipe-dream in itself; restaurants would be a bigger stretch, since eating and smoking are not as intertwined as are drinking and smoking for many. There could be demands for them, sure, and I don't have a problem with them as long as they're advertised as such, but I think they'd be denied. As for movie theatres, if an entrepreneur wanted to open a well-marked, smoking only cinema, I supposed they should be allowed, though I doubt it would happen either. Office buildings are another story. They're smoke free for good, since segregating smokers and non-smokers would be impractical in a work setting. Plus, employers wouldn't want to encourage smoking anyway. Malls and stores will never allow smoking, and shouldn't.

It may not be worth the effort. That's beside the socially-limiting aspect of your plan: segregating smokers and nonsmokers in public settings. In the current way, if you want to smoke, you just go outside for 2 minutes and come right back in, where you can socialize with everyone.


I remember when separate, well-ventilated smoking areas used to be a good enough compromise. But that was not enough. And soon I suspect stepping outside for a smoke won't be an option. Smokers congregating outside the door, which non-smokers will have to pass by to enter, is already outlawed in some businesses, and that will extend to bars and restaurants in time. And the time is coming when smoking anywhere on the street will be outlawed.

Unfortunately, I don't see any way other than segregation. But like I said before, I'm just promoting a pipe dream. Things are as they are.

[TonyO]

There will come a time when people look back at photos of smoke-filled bars and it will be as alien to them as a photo of spitoons in bars are to us. That's a good thing.

[Sheff1]

I fully agree that no one should be forced to breathe in second hand smoke or work in a smoky environment against their will. But saying that, I do think cigarette smokers are being unduly persecuted.

A bar equipped with heavy duty smoke extractors would not be at all uncomfortable for most non smokers. Today, it is possible to install machines in bars that suck up almost all smoke as soon as it appears.

There is no doubt that smoking is harmful. However, it has not been proven that second hand cigarette smoke is any more dangerous than, say, car exhaust fumes.

If smokers are not allowed to go somewhere outside the home to smoke, they are more likely to smoke in front of their partner and kids.

I have no problem with smoking being banned in most bars. But while it remains legal, I have a big problem with it being banned absolutely everywhere indoors - even if the owner of the building and all his guests want to smoke.

I also have a big problem with the signs banning smoking on sidewalks outside buildings when the sidewalk does not actually belong to the building.

[lofter1]

Meanwhile, in Berlin ...

Boss fires staff for not smoking

REUTERS (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1063983120080110)
Thu Jan 10, 2008

BERLIN (Reuters) - The owner of a small German computer company has fired three non-smoking workers because they were threatening to disturb the peace after they requested a smoke-free environment.

The manager of the 10-person IT company in Buesum, named Thomas J., told the Hamburger Morgenpost newspaper he had fired the trio because their non-smoking was causing disruptions.

Germany introduced non-smoking rules in pubs and restaurants on January 1, but Germans working in small offices are still allowed to smoke.

"I can't be bothered with trouble-makers," Thomas was quoted saying. "We're on the phone all the time and it's just easier to work while smoking. Everyone picks on smokers these days. It's time for revenge. I'm only going to hire smokers from now on."

(Reporting by Sarah Roberts; editing by Giles Elgood)

[Ninjahedge]

"We're on the phone all the time and it's just easier to work while smoking.

News to me.

[lofter1]

We're on the phone all the time and it's just easier to work while smoking.

News to me.



Maybe it lost something in the translation (http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_txt) ...

Wir sind am Telefon alle Zeit und it's, die gerade einfacher sind beim Rauchen zu arbeiten.
But then again maybe not, especially when you look at the reverse translation ...


We are simpler at the telephone all time and it's, the straight are at smoking to be worked.

[pianoman11686]

My argument for specially licensed cigarette bars is a pipe-dream in itself; restaurants would be a bigger stretch, since eating and smoking are not as intertwined as are drinking and smoking for many.

But many restaurants are intertwined with bars. I don't think you can address those separately.

I remember when separate, well-ventilated smoking areas used to be a good enough compromise. But that was not enough. And soon I suspect stepping outside for a smoke won't be an option. Smokers congregating outside the door, which non-smokers will have to pass by to enter, is already outlawed in some businesses, and that will extend to bars and restaurants in time. And the time is coming when smoking anywhere on the street will be outlawed.

Yeah, the outdoor aspect is starting to bother me as well. IMO, anything that is officially public space and is outside should be fair game for smoking.

[Radiohead]

Yeah, the outdoor aspect is starting to bother me as well. IMO, anything that is officially public space and is outside should be fair game for smoking.

Not that I was promoting any outdoor bans. I was just stating what I think is going to happen eventually.

How about smoking in your own car? And on the street, will there be "cigarette police" handing out tickets? I don't know what's more ridiculous, the idea of such a thing, or the fact that some people actually think it is enforcable. You'd actually get people smoking on the street just to spite the law. And any tickets would likely end up in the gutter.

http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/smoking%20is%20healthier%20than%20fascism.gif

[lofter1]

But don't forget ^ smoking can be dangerous to democracy ...

http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/3b49005u1.preview.jpg

http://www.shorpy.com/taxonomy/term/78%2C107?page=4

[MinnieMe]

[How about smoking in your own car? And on the street, will there be "cigarette police" handing out tickets? I don't know what's more ridiculous, the idea of such a thing, or the fact that some people actually think it is enforcable. You'd actually get people smoking on the street just to spite the law. And any tickets would likely end up in the gutter.

http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/smoking%20is%20healthier%20than%20fascism.gif[/quote]

I totally see that happening! Not just in NYC but everywhere!

[Ninjahedge]

Parking tickets also end up in the gutter along with Jaywalking and, ironically, littering. But that does not mean they are off the hook.

I think people do have a right to smoke in their cars if they want to. That should not be outlawed. But it should be frowned upon if they are doing so in the presence of their kids. That is just not right.

Not right, but NOT MY BUSINESS, so I do not have the right, in a case like that, to forbid them from smoking in their own "private" space.

Edit: Oops, mini, you need a [quote] at the beginning to separate what the previous person wrote!

I thought that was all your writing!! ;)

[Sheff1]

Is it still legal to smoke on the sidewalk?

I se an increasing number of businesses are putting "no smoking" notices on the sidewalk outside their buildings. But the sidewalk is not their property, is it?

[ZippyTheChimp]

Yes, it's legal to smoke on the sidewalk.

Those signs are only enforceable if the area outside the door is within the property lines.

There's probably a code violation against blocking a doorway, but it has nothing to do with smoking. The sign should read:

"Don't Block the Entrance"

[Ninjahedge]

I don't know. I thought there was a minimum space, unless things like ashtrays were provided. (Mostly for larger buildings).

Or is that just Cali?


I think what the buisnesses are trying to do is get the people to spread out a bit, so that workers, clients and tenants do not have to walk through the smoker crowd on the way in, or have the butt-litter to deal with at their front door.

Just a matter of presentation and first impression.