PDA

View Full Version : How is New York minus smoking?



Jonny
May 27th, 2003, 10:22 AM
I'm curious as to how those of you on this forum living in New York City find life after the no-smoking policy? *Whether you are a smoker or not, I would like to know if it has affected you in any way, such as being more or less likely to visit a bar or club, etc? *Are there visibly more people smoking on the streets now?

Also, does anyone know the penalty of being caught smoking where it has been banned?

Thanks,

Jonny

Schadenfrau
May 27th, 2003, 12:37 PM
Bar owners pay the fines for illegal smoking.

Personally, I think the city's going to hell in a handbasket, thanks in large part to the smoking ban. Bars are empty, business is down by huge numbers, smokers crowd doorways and people are miserable.

Call me crazy, but I don't think it's going to last.

NYatKNIGHT
May 27th, 2003, 01:40 PM
You'll find another conversation about the smoking ban here (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/topic.cgi?forum=1&topic=205&start=0).

Eugenius
May 27th, 2003, 06:20 PM
I think that other thread is used to discuss the law, while this one is for personal accounts.

Personally, I find myself more likely to go to bars, and to stay longer. *I have not seen any more people crowding outside than usual (when people would still pop out to use their cell phone). *In general, I think it's a positive change - no haze in the air, clothes don't smell like crap.

But that's my own personal opinion, I'm sure many people will disagree.

enzo
May 28th, 2003, 05:05 AM
I smoke as do most of my large circle of friends. We're talking middle to upper class, 20 to 30 something professionals, many of whom are Asian and European.

We don't go out very much anymore, at most for an hour or so which is the complete opposite from before the ban. These days house parties are much more likely than meeting in a bar or lounge.

I understand the health factors but for us the ban is demeaning and there is no reason to pay ridiculous bar prices when you can enjoy a get together at home without the hassle.

Before the ban I was out at bars on average three nights a week for several hours. Since the ban I've been out maybe once a week for a very short time and have spent a hell of a lot less. People in my demographic were the life-blood of these places, I only hope the non-smokers will take up the slack but I doubt it. I still think it should have been left up to the market.

Thats my personal take on it.

BrooklynRider
May 28th, 2003, 10:19 AM
I went out to Great Lakes bar in Park Slope Saturday night. *I was pleasantly smoke-free and it was PACKED. *No real impact in my neighborhood bar. (except for folks smoking on the sidewalk...)

enzo
May 28th, 2003, 06:35 PM
^Glad to know that BR. I have to say I'm seriously considering quitting and this ban has a lot to do with it so maybe there is an upside even for smokers! I just hate having the gov't telling me what to do.;)

czsz
May 28th, 2003, 07:12 PM
The smoking ban in Boston caused a lot of people to go out across the river in Cambridge. Is there a similar migration to, say, Jersey bars from NY?

Jonny
May 29th, 2003, 04:54 AM
I agree with you, enzo. *Being forced not to smoke when you're out can only be a good thing in terms of health and money, but why should there be someone telling you what to do? *Definitely a controversial issue.

When I visited NYC last summer I stayed in the Hotel Pennsylvania. *Regardless of the smoking policy in the hotel, my then-girlfriend didn't smoke and I chose to go outside. *I went to the stall outside Madison Square Gardens to get a pack. *It must have been my Scottish accent, because I asked for 10 lights, they gave me 20, and asked for a lighter, they gave me matches. *Oh well! *Anyway, I suddenly realised that I hadn't ever considered researching the state of play with smoking in New York (even before this current ban), and I couldn't help but notice that although the street was pretty busy (about 11pm) there were no smokers. *I decided to light up and take my chances anyway, then turned round and saw a policeman standing beside me! *Thankfully there was no problem, although when I visit again this summer I will be even more paranoid about it...

Quite a pointless story there, sorry!

ZippyTheChimp
May 29th, 2003, 08:24 AM
Last I heard, it was OK to smoke on the street - but I could be wrong. There's been a ticket blitz in the city lately. TV news reported that a woman (who was pregnant) was issued a summons for sitting down to rest on a subway entrance stairway.

Schadenfrau
May 29th, 2003, 11:34 AM
CZSZ, I go to Hoboken, NJ at least once a week now. Cigarettes are nearly half the price there, and you can actually smoke them. My friends who live in Jersey tell me they've seen a big increase in the number of hipster types hanging around in the past two months.

Agglomeration
May 29th, 2003, 01:58 PM
I knew all along that the smoking ban could be hurtful to the city. I still oppose it because of the fear that it could lead to further crackdowns on virtually everything. Now we've got pregnant women being ticketed for sitting on the subway steps!:angry:

http://www.petitiononline.com/nycsm619/ Read this petitiion and you'll see what I mean by this.

clubBR
April 5th, 2007, 11:18 AM
Its illegal to smoke indoors in New Jersey too. Anyone know if this ban applies to Connecticut, Pennsylvania, or the Greater New York area?

fishermb
April 5th, 2007, 10:52 PM
I think it's absurd that people who smoke are complaining about the ban. I personally cannot stand cigarette smoke and start coughing and get sick easily when around it. If smoking was still allowed in bars and clubs, I wouldn't go out as much, and why should I be punished for choosing to live a healthy lifestyle and not put other people's lives in danger (anyone heard of secondhand smoke?).

Smoking in a public place would be like someone walking around spraying rat poison in the air, I don't understand how anyone could possibly defend the right to smoke in a bar or restaurant. I grew up in Miami and avoided several places that I knew were very smokey, I love being to go into a bar now and enjoy myself without getting sick. If you need a smoke then go outside for a few minutes and light up, but anyone who claims that they don't go out because they aren't allowed to smoke, I think they should reevaluate their priorities (since when is killing yourself more important than going out and having fun?).

Schadenfrau
April 5th, 2007, 11:00 PM
Even after quitting, I still think that NYC bars suck far worse after the ban than they did before.

Maybe it's my age, but the crowds are intolerable. I'd much rather deal with smoke than scores of self-righteous, self-involved, self-congratulatory dullards who've just moved to the city and think that nothing is more appealing than the sound of their own voices.

I obviously realize that not all non-smokers fit into that category, but that demographic certainly seems to LOVE the smoking ban. They preach it (along with many equally fascinating subjects) loud and proud all the time, and that's why I'd rather drink my wine at home, thanks.

macreator
April 5th, 2007, 11:32 PM
Being a non-smoker, I love the ban. I find myself lingering longer at restaurants and bars, and I no longer have to dread getting seated near a table with someone producing a thick plume of smoke that would inevitably head my way. Plus, if I'm paying for a good meal, I'd rather savor my entree rather than have it tainted by the smell of someone's cheap Camel cigarettes

Schadenfrau
April 6th, 2007, 12:13 AM
A table? Come on now, how long have you been in New York?

Punzie
April 6th, 2007, 01:17 AM
^^ I was wondering the same thing!

Unless... Mac, did you often eat meals with your friends at the tables in the bar area (that allowed smoking)?

Neither I nor my friends smoked, but sometimes we ate at those tables because the bar area has the TV screens. It was usually when there was a really big game or the Olympics. It sort of goes without saying that we ate around second-hand smoke, and it's nice that it's not there anymore.

At clubs and bars that have no food but munchies, however, I think that the smoking ban is extreme. I mean, isn't that what clubs and bars are all about -- a smoke-filled room with drinking, flirting, dancing, chips & pretzels, and really loud tunes?

BTW, Schade, congratulations on quitting!

ryan
April 6th, 2007, 01:19 AM
Ditto macreator - smoking ban is a glorious success indoors. Now to ban smoking on patios and sidewalks...muahaha

Punzie
April 6th, 2007, 01:26 AM
Well, then, you'll just have to move to Nassau County -- or better yet, Belmont, California: ;):D

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-lismok0404,0,7138700.story?track=rss

Ninjahedge
April 6th, 2007, 09:10 AM
Even after quitting, I still think that NYC bars suck far worse after the ban than they did before.

Maybe it's my age, but the crowds are intolerable. I'd much rather deal with smoke than scores of self-righteous, self-involved, self-congratulatory dullards who've just moved to the city and think that nothing is more appealing than the sound of their own voices.

Speculation and tainted personal opinion.

Basically the crowd changed schade. It is kind of unfair to apply the label to all of NYC when I doubt you have been to all of the NYC bars.


I obviously realize that not all non-smokers fit into that category, but that demographic certainly seems to LOVE the smoking ban. They preach it (along with many equally fascinating subjects) loud and proud all the time, and that's why I'd rather drink my wine at home, thanks.

I forget, do you still smoke?

If you don't, you just have to find a different bar! I have been over to Collins and the Spring Lounge and they are always crowded with people who like BEER (different beers).

It is not as if the entire city went to hell in a hand-basket!

I also like the fact that I can drop into any of these places on my way home from work and grab a happy hour brew and not come home smelling like crap. And I am sure I am not alone with this.


As for all of NY suffering and bars having problems etc etc, I have not really seen a mass Exodus of bars from NYC. I have not seen that in Hoboken either after the ban. I have seen a shift though, as the crowd that is now coming out has slightly different tastes than the ones that used to come out.

So whatever. Take it as you will. I personally think the ban is a good idea. I think they should take an example from Tokyo, however, in that they should provide more smoking stations for people to be able to have one. Making it so that people do not have to suffer from someone else's habit does not mean sticking all the smokers out in the rain. But it does not mean requiring a separate smoking room either....

Tough to please all parties...

milleniumcab
April 8th, 2007, 09:47 PM
I am a smoker yet I actually enjoy going to my neighborhood pub and not end up smelling like a chimney...:)

Schadenfrau
April 8th, 2007, 11:51 PM
Honestly, have people never heard of washing machines nor Febreeze? It's like going to an Italian restaurant and complaining that you smell of garlic.

And Ninjahedge, I've been to A LOT of NYC bars. The crowds are different since the ban, and they pretty much unanimously suck. If you referred to the Spring Street Lounge- I've found that the place sucks even worse than most, so I think we might have different taste.

I really just think it's pathetic that people would sacrifice habitable social environments for a pittance in dry-cleaning savings. Really, just go to Starbucks- that's what the place is there for.

fishermb
April 9th, 2007, 08:13 AM
Honestly, have people never heard of washing machines nor Febreeze? It's like going to an Italian restaurant and complaining that you smell of garlic.



I'm not sure how you can possibly compare the aromatic smell of garlic with the putrid smell of cigarette smoke. And garlic is good for your health, cigarette smoke kills.

ZippyTheChimp
April 9th, 2007, 08:38 AM
Do you really want to walk around all day smelling of garlic?

Ninjahedge
April 9th, 2007, 08:52 AM
Honestly, have people never heard of washing machines nor Febreeze? It's like going to an Italian restaurant and complaining that you smell of garlic.

Straw man.

Garlic is something I, and a lot of people eat. Not many people eat ashtrays.

Please, refrain from further ill-suited analogies.


And Ninjahedge, I've been to A LOT of NYC bars.

Great, here's your medal.


The crowds are different since the ban, and they pretty much unanimously suck. If you referred to the Spring Street Lounge- I've found that the place sucks even worse than most, so I think we might have different taste.

I went there for the beer. So long as you avoid the NYU crowd and the Happy Hour rush, the people left were not bad. Same goes for Collins, Ear, Village Tavern, 2A, Leffy's, the old Blind Tiger (have not been to the new yet), Kettle of Fish. The list oes on from there.

Thing is, crowds did not completely change, they shifted. YOUR comfy spot changed and you are not happy with it. But all those people that "suck" must be happy.

Quite honestly, 3/4 of the people out there will always suck. Was teh same before smoking, and after. Only difference is that they do not suck the way you like them to now... ;)


I really just think it's pathetic that people would sacrifice habitable social environments for a pittance in dry-cleaning savings. Really, just go to Starbucks- that's what the place is there for.

Um, no.

Ninjahedge
April 9th, 2007, 08:54 AM
Do you really want to walk around all day smelling of garlic?

All day?

Nope.

That is why I cut my Italian Food Restaurant visitations to a Lingini Marinara a day... ;)

MidtownGuy
April 9th, 2007, 09:04 AM
Garlic is something I, and a lot of people eat. Not many people eat ashtrays.

Please, refrain from further ill-suited analogies.

I have to laugh here.:D
Ninjahedge is the KING of ill-suited analogies!!
Eating ashtrays?

Schadenfrau
April 9th, 2007, 09:23 AM
Do you really want to walk around all day smelling of garlic?

I tend to avoid spraying it on until cocktail hour.

Ninjahedge
April 9th, 2007, 09:45 AM
I have to laugh here.:D
Ninjahedge is the KING of ill-suited analogies!!
Eating ashtrays?

Smelling like garlic =/ smelling like an ashtray.

Do not play the idiot here MTG. You know what I was saying.

As for ill-suited, hers was. Bringing up the fact that I use a lot of analogies that you do not like is no grounds for you to criticize their validity.

AAMOF, I believe that since I do try to keep my analogies as close to the intended comparison as possible, that I am indeed qualified to say when one isn't.

Especially when it is comparing cigarette smoke to garlic. :rolleyes:

Ninjahedge
April 9th, 2007, 09:45 AM
I tend to avoid spraying it on until cocktail hour.

Perfume or breath mint?

MidtownGuy
April 9th, 2007, 10:13 AM
I'm gratified...you've taken me off your "ignore" list.;)

ryan
April 9th, 2007, 11:00 AM
Honestly, have people never heard of washing machines nor Febreeze? It's like going to an Italian restaurant and complaining that you smell of garlic.

Weak. I thought you said you quit - everyone around you still smoking? When you're used to it, cigarette smoke is fine. If not it's most vile. On par with hot sewer smell in the summer.

MidtownGuy
April 9th, 2007, 11:12 AM
I always thought the "smell like cigarettes" thing from second hand smoke is
weak and completely overblown. That's what you always hear people bring up when other arguments fail. It's a world full of smells, what are you people, some kind of delicate orchids? No, just intolerant and fussy in my eyes. If you are that bothered by some second hand smoke in a BAR for crying out loud, then open your own bar where you don't allow it. My God, one wonders how people make it through the day with all these icky smells floating around.
Go home and wash up for pete's sake.:rolleyes:

ryan
April 9th, 2007, 11:25 AM
I'm only taking issue with the lady's denial of the foul-ness. Her equating the smell to garlic is dangerous and morally suspect.

Ninjahedge
April 9th, 2007, 11:39 AM
MTG, you can't bring in the argument of "Open your own" when it comes to an addictive substance.

Reason being, when there are 1200 bars in the city and only 2 of them do not have smoke, you think that every drinking non-smoker fits into the same category and wants the same kind of bar? You think those 2 will bring in hoards of people that have been brought up on the dogma of "Smoke and drink and fool around" (North star CIT's). It just does not work economically.

You also cannot draw direct comparisons to all of this until you have a generation that is not brought up with the notion that smoking is a fixture in every bar. Once that is no longer a direct link, you will have less people squawking about it, but still some that would just like to have that where they relax.

A different argument entirely and one that can usually be more readily sympathized with.

If you want some analogies for comparison, try this.

Smoking in Church. Why should they be forced outside? God never said smoking was bad!
Farting in a bar/restaurant. Hey! If I am feeling gassy, why do I have to go outside or into the bathroom to relieve myself? It is not hazardous to your health and it is completely natural! Hell, some restaurant foods are actually RESPONSIBLE for the gas in the first place!

But no matter what is said, the argument will keep going on and on. Smoke does sting and irritate. When I came home from the bars (I would leave my coat at home even in the winter) I would blow my nose and see black. Hell, I never got that even when I was at ground zero! It does have an impact and it does reek.

But that is not really my point. Thing is, until the two are not linked in societies mind as being one and the same, then it will be very difficult to try to regulate them rationally.

You guys keep saying that "If you wanted smoke free, you could just open your own" but even you know that this would not be practical. Why were there no smoke free bars before the ban? It just does not work voluntarily.

So, what alternative to an outright ban do you suggest that would appease (although not totally please) both sides AND be achievable by the industry/service? Separate rooms were tried and that did not work too well. Smoking clubs might be better (I have seen the pipe/cigar rooms) but how can you restrict having a single malt with a cigar? Dual licensing for each vice might be a partial solution, but that would only mean that the owners would all just shell out more $$ to the government to get back to what we had before.

What would realistically work?

MidtownGuy
April 9th, 2007, 04:09 PM
Oh God, I'm afraid that if I answer these points I will be embroiled once again in a time-consuming back-and-forth, which is what happened yesterday with another poster. Since you're so wordy I'm forced to write paragraph after paragraph to adequately rebuke the assertions you've made. On the topic of the smoking ban, I recall we've already locked horns on the other thread about this topic (eventually leading, of course, to nothing illuminating). I think some of the points are the same too.
That being said, let me give this a quick parry...


when there are 1200 bars in the city and only 2 of them do not have smoke, you think that every drinking non-smoker fits into the same category and wants the same kind of bar? You think those 2 will bring in hoards of people that have been brought up on the dogma of "Smoke and drink and fool around" (North star CIT's). It just does not work economically.

So you're saying there would not be enough demand for such an establishment? Too bad! If people with your militant anti-second-hand-smoke exist in any numbers, you should have no problem filling your seats. If not, then why is this a law? For the pleasure of a vocal, PR savvy and militantly determined minority it would seem. The people with more tolerant attitudes who don't mind a smoking-allowed bar will have the freedom of choosing between such a place and your Alpine Air Bar or PurBar(add the umlaut), or whatever. I'm so used to hearing the virtues of the free market being sung around here, that this is really a shock.
If it doesn't work economically, the strength of your belief that we need all bars smokeless is weakened.


You also cannot draw direct comparisons to all of this until you have a generation that is not brought up with the notion that smoking is a fixture in every bar.
Why shouldn't they be brought up with the idea that smoking is a freedom in some bars?:confused: tsk tsk, such absolutes with you. no grey in your analysis.
We must eradicate all smoking in bars? Great, in a generation the proles won't realize how conditioned they've been to give up freedoms and tolerance!...why, they won't even realize what used to be permitted, its brilliant... social control at its finest and most benevolent! :rolleyes:


you will have less people squawking about it,
my god, do you even realize how Orwellian this sounds?
"Squawking"? :D You do make me laugh though. Always good for that.


When I came home from the bars (I would leave my coat at home even in the winter) I would blow my nose and see black. Hell, I never got that even when I was at ground zero!
:D :D :D Stop, your killing me!


Why were there no smoke free bars before the ban? It just does not work voluntarily.

Perhaps because the people don't want or demand it! You're not convincing me this ban is wanted or needed with that.


Smoking in Church. Why should they be forced outside? God never said smoking was bad!....

And here you begin the colorful analogies that don't apply in any way whatsoever. Farting?? REally now, I stopped reading that paragraph there.


So, what alternative to an outright ban do you suggest that would appease (although not totally please) both sides AND be achievable by the industry/service? Separate rooms were tried and that did not work too well.

The problem is, your side is not interested in any workable compromise. You only offer ridiculous ideas like "smoking clubs" (why the hell would you have to go there to smoke if the patrons are not given the choice of imbibing like in other social clubs, and if they did the ban would be meaningless anyway?) so that you can then conclude that the current total ban is the only tenable course. Its exasperating and it is not logical, especially coupled with your complaint that you wouldn't even be able to fill a non-smoking club because of lack of patronage. Separate rooms didn't work so well...because you and those with your opinion don't want compromise! You want it your way or the highway.

Like I said, we talked about this before.
Me: non-smoker willing to be tolerant of smoke in some establishments that serve liquor.
You: non-smoker who sees only a total ban working. No smoking in any bars, EVER.

We disagree. Leave it at that. If you want more, go re-read the other thread on the smoking ban. I think we already covered most points.

ZippyTheChimp
April 9th, 2007, 04:20 PM
I can't weigh in here.

I grew up in a world sans seat belts, and dad's car had a full metal dashboard, and pointy knobs.

And he smoked like a chimney, blasting down the Interstate,

ryan
April 9th, 2007, 04:55 PM
I go to a utilitarian place for the smoking ban. The ban is uncool and nanny-ish, but if it decreases overall cigarette consumption, it's a good thing. The best way to decrease smoking would have been a campaign that showed unsexy people smoking, but the evil geniuses at Altria made sure the tobacco settlement could only fund bad advertising like "the truth."

Ninjahedge
April 9th, 2007, 04:58 PM
So you're saying there would not be enough demand for such an establishment? Too bad! If people with your militant anti-second-hand-smoke exist in any numbers, you should have no problem filling your seats. If not, then why is this a law? For the pleasure of a vocal, PR savvy and militantly determined minority it would seem. The people with more tolerant attitudes who don't mind a smoking-allowed bar will have the freedom of choosing between such a place and your Alpine Air Bar or PurBar(add the umlaut), or whatever. I'm so used to hearing the virtues of the free market being sung around here, that this is really a shock.
If it doesn't work economically, the strength of your belief that we need all bars smokeless is weakened.

You are getting combative right off the first mark MTG.

If you want an analogy, try movies. We have gotten absolutely nothing in good movies recently. The best being imported. Many of the places that they were viewed here in the city, by a very devoted crowd, are also being driven out by the need for quick cash to keep the property.

Something similar can be said with this. Being the oddball out that has to somehow satisfy all non smokers is not easy, especially when all it takes is one smoker in the group to say "hey, lets go here".

That being said, voluntary non-smoking would, and has not worked. Combined with the sheer physical, psychological and social addiction of smoking, it is not exactly fair to put it on the same level as other do or don't situations.

I know where you are coming from, and I can see what you are saying, but you and I both know it just does not work that way.


Why shouldn't they be brought up with the idea that smoking is a freedom in some bars?:confused: tsk tsk, such absolutes with you. no grey in your analysis.
We must eradicate all smoking in bars? Great, in a generation the proles won't realize how conditioned they've been to give up freedoms and tolerance!...why, they won't even realize what used to be permitted, its brilliant... social control at its finest and most benevolent! :rolleyes:

Again with the hostile confrontation. You who calls me a "Militant anti-second hand smoke" type person starts "Tsk"ing and demeaning my points.

Smoking is a freedom, so long as it does not infringe on the freedoms of others. The only argument that I have heard come from smoking supporters is a "you don't lie it, go somewhere else", which we have already covered was not available. So, you either put up with someone else's "freedom" or you were denied your own.

People do not like someone yelling in a bar, they do not appreciate farting, or other things that invade their own space, smoking was tolerated only because it was the standard and most that could NOT tolerate it angrily avoided it.

But now that the tables have turned, the smokers are screaming about their rights.

I will refer back to my own post and question, what is a SOLUTION to this besides the unworkable "Your way or no way" kind of selfish imposition?

What would work?


my god, do you even realize how Orwellian this sounds?
"Squawking"? :D You do make me laugh though. Always good for that.

So stop squawking about it and I will stop saying you are.

Keep laughing funny boy.



:D :D :D Stop, your killing me!

Too easy a mark.


Perhaps because the people don't want or demand it! You're not convincing me this ban is wanted or needed with that.

Um, that was not the point. The point was that it is not economically feasible to do that voluntarily.

How many people have volunteered to use alternate energy sources? You think auto makers would have one anything with emissions if they had not been required to by the federal government?

Nope.

You are trying to polarize the argument when I keep asking for a workable solution.

Note, "My way or the highway" is not workable. It has to make it so that smokers can smoke, and non smokers do not have to be exposed to it at all. That's it. Oh, and both are allowed in the bar.


And here you begin the colorful analogies that don't apply in any way whatsoever. Farting?? REally now, I stopped reading that paragraph there.

You never want to do the comparison. Tell me how it is different and it does not apply rather than mocking the fact that I made the comparison.

They both smell bad, as one poster pointed out (one that I have fought on this and other topics) it smells on the level of hot sewerage. So, someone smoking should be able to be compared to someone farting EXCEPT:

Farting does not stay in your clothing.
Farting does not impair the health of others.
EVERYONE farts.
Farts are not an addictive substance.

Silly as it may seem, it points out the ludicracy of your refusal to acknowledge the intrusive nature of smoke.


The problem is, your side is not interested in any workable compromise. You only offer ridiculous ideas like "smoking clubs" (why the hell would you have to go there to smoke if the patrons are not given the choice of imbibing like in other social clubs, and if they did the ban would be meaningless anyway?) so that you can then conclude that the current total ban is the only tenable course. Its exasperating and it is not logical, especially coupled with your complaint that you wouldn't even be able to fill a non-smoking club because of lack of patronage. Separate rooms didn't work so well...because you and those with your opinion don't want compromise! You want it your way or the highway.

The only tenable course that allows both smokers and non smokers to have a drink without exposure of the non is to forbid smoking in areas where they both congregate.

The question is, do you have any other solution besides yelling about your freedoms being impinged and "go somewhere else" rants?

You are yelling at me "don't want to compromise" yet you offer the same solution again and gain, like it your way or tough!

You are being hypocritical in your own argument.

All I ask for is for you to present a solution that is not banning or acceptance. Then we can try to work out the fine points to see if it would work or not. Otherwise your tenacious confrontary nature only affirms the only viable solution of absolute forbiddance.


Like I said, we talked about this before.
Me: non-smoker willing to be tolerant of smoke in some establishments that serve liquor.
You: non-smoker who sees only a total ban working. No smoking in any bars, EVER.

You are yelling again. Also putting words in my mouth. Give it up.


We disagree. Leave it at that. If you want more, go re-read the other thread on the smoking ban. I think we already covered most points.

No, we just yelled at each other.

I asked several times for a solution, but all you said is that the non smokers should put up with it.

That is not a solution, that is just turning the tables back around so the people that do not do this have to tolerate those that do.

What would WORK? You have offered solutions that you know have never worked (voluntary smoke free bars) and yell at me for not accepting them.

"Well if they don't work it is all the non smokers fault".

GMAMFB. That is an elementary school type argument and you know it.

So until you come up with a workable solution that you know will work not just know it will give you what you want, just keep the rest to your self.

Ninjahedge
April 9th, 2007, 05:01 PM
I go to a utilitarian place for the smoking ban. The ban is uncool and nanny-ish, but if it decreases overall cigarette consumption, it's a good thing. The best way to decrease smoking would have been a campaign that showed unsexy people smoking, but the evil geniuses at Altria made sure the tobacco settlement could only fund bad advertising like "the truth."

I think those ads are just plain irritating.

I think the first thing some of these guys should hav edone was start to write characters in movies that did not smoke.

Ageed that they smoke a LOT less then the old Bogart days, but still, every tough guy or rebel out there is sucking on something burning.

MidtownGuy
April 9th, 2007, 05:40 PM
posted by ryan

The ban is uncool and nanny-ish, but if it decreases overall cigarette consumption, it's a good thing.

Can we say with any reasonable certainty that this decreases cigarette consumption? Or are the people that would have been doing it in a bar simply doing it somewhere else, silently accepting their new position at the "fringe" of what increasingly restrictive laws and bans deem acceptable?
More and more people are quitting smoking because of the real health hazards, in most cases not because someone legislates them out the door or around the corner. They just get it, sooner or later...cigarettes are not healthy.

Ninjahedge, now I have to answer you again on all the exact same points IN THE OTHER THREAD... do you get it? Jesus, here we go again.....


You are getting combative right off the first mark MTG.
The pot and the kettle.


If you want an analogy, try movies.....
No, I don't want your analogies because they are always off the mark, I told you.


but you and I both know it just does not work that way.

Stop, Ok? Stop doing that. NO, we don't both know that. You wonder why people become combative after you push every button. You need to chill out in general. The guy who talks about not letting things get to you so much. Someone writes 5 lines and you pound out a chapter full of certitudes. It's your style of debate. It doesn't rub right with me, all of the dumb analogies that aren't analogies at all.


Again with the hostile confrontation. You who calls me a "Militant anti-second hand smoke" type person starts "Tsk"ing and demeaning my points.
You are militantly(not as in toting a rifle, obviously) opposed to smoking. If the shoe fits....


Smoking is a freedom, so long as it does not infringe on the freedoms of others.

How is my operating a business that allows smoking, or patronizing one that does, amount to infringing on the freedoms of others?? On the contrary, my parallel-universe dwelling friend, it is the BAN that infringes.


Um, that was not the point. The point was that it is not economically feasible to do that voluntarily.

So you lose then. Your position, and your restrictions, are just too unpopular and people would not support you given the choice.


How many people have volunteered to use alternate energy sources? You think auto makers would have one anything with emissions if they had not been required to by the federal government?

This is a case of good regulations. Smoking ban=bad, see? Different cases, different verdict. It's because the situations are just too dissimilar.


the ludicracy of your refusal to acknowledge the intrusive nature of smoke.
I don't think I did that. I just think there should be bars where it is tolerated. Of course smoke is intrusive. Like you said, so is a fart. Wanna ban that with legislation also, or should we leave the gas-passing up to people's better judgement? Just indulging in your analogy a little, though giving it any credibility left a nasty taste.


You are trying to polarize the argument when I keep asking for a workable solution.

I gave it to you. Several times. You say it is unworkable. It is unworkable to your satisfaction, which is uncompromising.
Here it is again: some places for people to smoke, some places where it is prohibited. That is reasonable and more in tune with freedom than your approach.
YOU are the polarizing force. Your way or no way. I am the compromising force: let's accommodate everyone. Get it?


All I ask for is for you to present a solution that is not banning or acceptance.

Not banning, and not acceptance?:confused: :confused: :confused:
That doesn't even make sense or sound logical! Think about it man.


I asked several times for a solution, but all you said is that the non smokers should put up with it.

No, I said they should create their own smoke-free spaces instead of regulating the spaces of other people.


GMAMFB. That is an elementary school type argument and you know it.

Can the cryptic acronyms. Elementary argument? Logic IS simple, isn't it?


So until you come up with a workable solution that you know will work not just know it will give you what you want, just keep the rest to your self.
Already did. You just don't like it.

MidtownGuy
April 9th, 2007, 05:42 PM
Feel free to put me back on your ignore list any time you like. Gosh it was peaceful.

brooklynbaby9
April 9th, 2007, 05:56 PM
to be honest, i do smoke socially, especially when i'm having a few beers.

and although i do smoke, it used to be very hard to be out at a bar and then to come home with the smell of smoke in every piece of fabric you were wearing, and also in your hair and skin.

because of this, i kind of prefer having to go outside to smoke. i also love the social aspect of it. i love taking a break from the people i went out with, going out, grabbing a smoke, and often times meeting new people.

Fabrizio
April 9th, 2007, 06:52 PM
I NEVER though the smoking ban would work here in Italy, but it does. People are OK with it. People hang outside of bars and restaurants smoking now... so it's just created a new social scene and has made the streets even livelier.

Also, there's so much outdoor dining here, and fortunately the ban has no affect on that. So people can eat and smoke all they want.

And because everyone spends a fortune on clothes, people are happy that locales no longer have the heavy smoky air that they once did. But I've never heard anyone here worried about second-hand smoke and health.

ALSO... and this is important... you really don't have the nazi-style preachy anti-everything mentality here, so if it's the end of the evening with a few patrons... or a restaurant with a few familiar customers, they'll let you light up and no one has a fit.

fishermb
April 9th, 2007, 06:57 PM
This really shouldn't be an ongoing argument. Smoking is not something natural that everyone must do. It is not something that is beneficial to anyone's health. Therefore, anyone who chooses not to partake in smooking should not be forced to suffer the consequences of those who do.

Just because I like to go and have a drink does not mean that I should have to deal with smelling like crap and having my lungs destroyed. There is a perfectly good sidewalk outside of every bar where anyone who wishes to smoke can do so. To anyone who smokes and thinks that the ban is stupid and refuses to see the situation from someone's point of view like myself, that's just ridiculously stubborn. For those who make the argument that "I need to smoke when I'm drinking..." what if that became true of "I need to smoke when I'm grocery shopping" or "I need to smoke when I'm at the bank" ? If you insist on killing yourself, do so in your own space, we have enough to worry about besides second hand smoke.

MidtownGuy
April 9th, 2007, 09:04 PM
This really shouldn't be an ongoing argument. Smoking is not something natural that everyone must do.


You're right. Among many things that humans do for pleasure and satisfaction, of which too many things to count are not "natural" in the way you suggest... and of which numerous are unhealthy. This is a slippery slope argument.


It is not something that is beneficial to anyone's health. Therefore, anyone who chooses not to partake in smooking should not be forced to suffer the consequences of those who do.

We all know it isn't healthy. They don't have to suffer any consequences...they have the freedom not to frequent venues where they feel the amount of smoke is too much for them. No one is FORCING them to go into a nightclub where smoking occurs. If they are so against it, they can create their own alternatives. The arguments Ninjahedge put forward against this are totally unconvincing to me. Hell, no one is even forcing the smoke-o-phobes to drink either. That, too, is not always the healthiest activity.


Just because I like to go and have a drink does not mean that I should have to deal with smelling like crap

Oh what a poor poor delicate orchid indeed, you might smell a bit until you bathe again.


and having my lungs destroyed.

really now, all from the second hand smoke inhaled during "a drink"? Please. Like I said, if someone is that neurotic and fearful of pollutants, they should create alternative spaces for themselves and like-minded people, not try to control someone else's establishment, whose patrons are there entirely of their own will. You can complete the endeavor at the PureAir Bar by installing infrared air filters to kill germs, electromagnetic pollutant reducers, and a no coughing policy to reduce the threat of pneumonia. Healthy lungs for everyone. Ooh, damnit, they might still hit a patch of smog on the way home. God, life is just full of hazards, isn't it time we build that Geodesic dome over the city and do this right?


There is a perfectly good sidewalk outside of every bar where anyone who wishes to smoke can do so.

And there is a perfectly good sidewalk outside of every bar where anyone who wishes to breath fresh air can do so. Sounds dumb, I know, but how else do I respond to a statement like that?


If you insist on killing yourself, do so in your own space,

Open your own smoke-free establishment! You can prohibit whatever you want.


we have enough to worry about besides second hand smoke.

B_I_N_G_O.

pianoman11686
April 10th, 2007, 12:38 AM
Why is this debate being confined to bars?

What about smoking in restaurants? Airplanes? Any other public place?

MidtownGuy
April 10th, 2007, 01:59 AM
I think the differences between a bar and an airplane are fairly obvious.
:cool:
Restaurants...depends on the size of the establishment and the type of room divisions/separations and filtering technology available. Pianoman, you often cite the values of the free market..why not here? Why not let business owners handle this within certain rules, as existed before the total ban?
"Any other public space" depends on what you're talking about. That's impossibly vague.... what, like an elevator? no way! a park or plaza? yes. I think reason should prevail here, not abstractions, or hysterics like describing nose-blackening smells that torment and make life unbearable.

Bars and nightclubs have always been places where people can relax their hangups and let loose a little, be a little less "nannied" to death. Be a little more tolerant, ya know? One can posture that there is no cultural difference between a nightclub/bar and other places like an airplane, but it's really disingenuous to do so.

Fabrizio
April 10th, 2007, 04:22 AM
One thing I will say: folks who are soooo adamant, so fussy about smokers and secondhand smoke and so on, can't be my friends.

I've never smoked in my life (except for an occasional cigar if I'm offered) but people with hang ups and phobias about smokers are usually a bore.... and have other complications that are downers.

It's an indication, a litmus test for me.

I'm convinced that nicotine, like caffiene, and the occasional joint, get the juices flowing. A creative all-nighter needs a little vice.

A smoke filled jazz club ( as an example) might smell up your clothes, but c'mon it's jazz... born with smoke. And so on.

I'm fastidious about my home.. but smokers are welcome and every smoker that I know, asks first. I have some huge swanky ash trays.

You want a little smoke in your life now and then, hard liquor, a rare steak, good sex.

I don't smoke. I'm not into drugs. I do draw a line, but you gotta loosen up.

You'll live longer.


---

fishermb
April 10th, 2007, 08:11 AM
really now, all from the second hand smoke inhaled during "a drink"? Please. Like I said, if someone is that neurotic and fearful of pollutants, they should create alternative spaces for themselves and like-minded people, not try to control someone else's establishment, whose patrons are there entirely of their own will.
Open your own smoke-free establishment! You can prohibit whatever you want.


I'm just having a hard time understanding why you think that for people who don't want to be around smoke, we have to open our own bar. It should be the opposite - if you want to smoke, open your own bar. I am all for people who like to smoke having their own places to go, but it shouldn't be that the majority of places are suited for the non-average person (ie. the smoker).

And please, don't make it seem like I am untight for not wanting to smell like crap or inhale your second-hand poison. I work very hard to maintain a healthy lifestyle and the last thing I need is a nicotine addict telling me what's wrong with me.

Fabrizio
April 10th, 2007, 08:39 AM
Funny that the 2 smokingest countries, Italy and France, in the end, have longer longevity rates than the US.

Believe me, I'm not advocating smoking, it's not something I'd care to do, but maybe they maintain their healthy lifestyle by NOT working so hard at it.

World ranking:

Italy - 14
France - 16
US - 48

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

---

Ninjahedge
April 10th, 2007, 09:08 AM
Fab, when you have had members in your own family (about a dozen and counting) die of lung cancer and were all heavy smokers, you tend to look at things a bit differently.

Looking at the mortality rates is also a bit skewed. You know that people EAT better over there! Between the red wine and the general avoidance of McDonalds et all. you guys will naturally live longer lives!!!

I think the main problem with smoking is that it is an invasive act. Even in moderation you cannot have a separation of act and environment like you can with other vices (such as drinking).

Couple that with the fact that it is a damaging vice with harmful periphery effects and you have something that is not fair to say "you do not like it YOU change what YOU are doing".

I can appreciate you having things like ashtrays around the house. Maybe you grew up with that and it is more natural, but many of us do not like the lingering stale smoke odor that is left (even with "febreeze" and the like) for days/weeks after. That odor in and of itself is not harmful, but I would not want stinky sweat-sock odor lingering around the house either (or mildew, or burnt food).


The problem is, like I said, that there is no easy solution to this, especially legally. I think if we get this smoking ban to be more of a nation wide thing and let it sit for a while you will see more of a relaxed attitude about it.

Maybe in a few years you will have the after hours smokers having a cigar before going home, but you will still have them not lighting up during normal hours and, more importantly, they will not be getting all pissey about having to do so.

Fabrizio
April 10th, 2007, 09:35 AM
I'm not completely disagreeing with you. I'm basically for the ban... but I've got no time for those who go beserk by a little second-hand smoke now and then. I've seen American tourists get huffy at side-walk cafes if people are smoking next to them.... meanwhile cars and busses are wizzing by. The funniest of course, is when they're obese... like it's the smoke that's going to do them in.

---

Smoking at Fabs place: ash trays, caffe and grappa. And afterwards I open the windows. It's really no big deal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mJAKeNf15E


---

MidtownGuy
April 10th, 2007, 09:53 AM
fishermb:

It should be the opposite - if you want to smoke, open your own bar.

People did. Then people like you tried to control them. Simple stuff.

MidtownGuy
April 10th, 2007, 09:55 AM
fishermb:

And please, don't make it seem like I am untight for not wanting to smell like crap or inhale your second-hand poison. I work very hard to maintain a healthy lifestyle and the last thing I need is a nicotine addict telling me what's wrong with me.

There you go, assuming I am a smoker. Damn, what is it with some people around here? You can't conceive of someone having a tolerant attitude about an activity without actually engaging in it? I DON'T SMOKE. Got it?

fishermb
April 10th, 2007, 12:12 PM
fishermb:


There you go, assuming I am a smoker. Damn, what is it with some people around here? You can't conceive of someone having a tolerant attitude about an activity without actually engaging in it? I DON'T SMOKE. Got it?

There's a difference between having a 'tolerant attitude' and being 'pro-smoking'. Even if you don't smoke, you are saying that bars are better with smokers, that's quite a push forward from mere 'tolerance.' And you're about the only one I know. So good for you.

MidtownGuy
April 10th, 2007, 01:36 PM
Even if you don't smoke, you are saying that bars are better with smokers, that's quite a push forward from mere 'tolerance.'

I don't recall saying that, though it is an interesting idea. Another poster said that. I have advocated tolerance, not opined on what makes the best bar. More accurately might be to say that I opined on what makes a good city or society- a range of preferences being satisfied.

pianoman11686
April 10th, 2007, 02:31 PM
I think the differences between a bar and an airplane are fairly obvious.

Not as obvious as it may seem at first. Last time I checked, most airlines still serve alcoholic beverages. And airplanes, because of their nature, are especially capable of minimizing second-hand smoke through powerful ventilation.


Restaurants...depends on the size of the establishment and the type of room divisions/separations and filtering technology available. Pianoman, you often cite the values of the free market..why not here? Why not let business owners handle this within certain rules, as existed before the total ban?

Why not? Because this isn't about letting a "free market" work things out. This is about government stepping in and limiting harms to our bodies, after having established a unanimous consensus that it is unhealthy to breathe in second-hand smoke. It's not taking away the freedom to smoke, just as people still have the freedom to own guns. It's not the use per se that's being restricted; it's the how/when/where.


"Any other public space" depends on what you're talking about. That's impossibly vague.... what, like an elevator? no way! a park or plaza? yes. I think reason should prevail here, not abstractions, or hysterics like describing nose-blackening smells that torment and make life unbearable.

Obviously, I'm not talking about public places outside. But while Ninja might have thrown out a lot, there was one statement that particularly struck me:


Smoking is a freedom, so long as it does not infringe on the freedoms of others.

I cannot agree more. In fact, this kind of reasoning is exactly what lies behind a large chunk of freedom-limiting regulation in our society, covering everything from product liability, to pollution, and even - yes - zoning.


Bars and nightclubs have always been places where people can relax their hangups and let loose a little, be a little less "nannied" to death. Be a little more tolerant, ya know? One can posture that there is no cultural difference between a nightclub/bar and other places like an airplane, but it's really disingenuous to do so.

I think we need to look at recent society-wide trends to understand why this is necessary. Even where law doesn't forbid it, private enterprise is stepping into new frontiers to limit not only people's exposure to second-hand smoke, but also the possibility of staying in a place where someone has smoked in the past, and where the smell (but not smoke) still lingers. Case in point: Westin's new campaign for totally non-smoking hotel rooms. This, in my mind, is enough to prove that the distate for cigarettes is strong and widespread. No one should have to be exposed to it just because a minority still enjoys the habit.

Moreover, a telling sign that this is good regulation is the very fact that opposition is usually small, and where it's still significant is where tobacco companies still have pull in the polity. I go to school in North Carolina, where the taxes on cigarettes are among the lowest in the country, while alcohol taxes are comparably high. Every bar still allows smoking. I hate it, as do many other people, because after a night out, we come back smelling like smoke, having unnecessarily inhaled second-hand smoke. There is no alternative, because no social outlet nearby offers a non-smoking environment. I wish it would change, but it seems unlikely to happen soon.

Because of its serious implications in the fields of health, business, and individual freedoms, this is not an issue that can be treated lightly, like garlic. This is something that substantially affects quality of life. That should sound familiar, shouldn't it Midtown?

Ninjahedge
April 10th, 2007, 02:39 PM
There's a difference between having a 'tolerant attitude' and being 'pro-smoking'. Even if you don't smoke, you are saying that bars are better with smokers, that's quite a push forward from mere 'tolerance.' And you're about the only one I know. So good for you.

Fisher, he is obstinant, as most people who do not like losing (however they may define it) are.

When people complained about it, his answer was always "go somewhere else", "Deal with it", "Let Freedom Reign!!!!". Some others were like that as well. When the law was being contemplated, even with proof that SHS was responsible for a good deal of deaths per year, they still yelled "Choice!!!!! You go somewhere else!!!"

Now they are forced to do something they disagreed with because the majority said enough. They ridicule the ones that called for it, calling them greenies and anti-smoking terrorists. They belittle the ones that got what they wanted and scream for their way to be brought back. They do not, ironically, like being told to go somewhere else to smoke.

Most of teh argument is not even about the smoking. They have never refuted that it leaves an odor, or that it stains walls and ceilings, or is bad for your health and those around you. They have just turned the discussion back to "well you go somewhere else then!" They have tried suggesting things like opening up smoke-free bars when they knew that would never work (and not for the reasons they said). They have lamented the hoards of bars that would go out of buisness because of the ban...and didn't.

They just do not like the fact that they did not get what they wanted.



They do not like being told to "go someplace else".


So don't worry about it. MTG will keep ranting and railing at all the Yuppie Green Nazis that castrated all the poor smokers in NY and NJ, and you and I can go out and grab a brew without coming home smelling like crap. ;)

Ninjahedge
April 10th, 2007, 02:51 PM
Case in point: Westin's new campaign for totally non-smoking hotel rooms. This, in my mind, is enough to prove that the distate for cigarettes is strong and widespread. No one should have to be exposed to it just because a minority still enjoys the habit.


Oh I love that rule now!!!

I have been in the smokers rooms and it smells like crap! No matter how much they clean and "Febreeze" the place, you can't get rid of it!

And if you try to over-clean, you get a room that makes you ill because of all the cleaning agents used in the room (that weird artificial freshness smell?).




Back to OT though. I think the one thing we have to start looking at is a way to get smoking treated more like a responsibility. You smoke, you find a place. You put your butt in an ashtray when you are finished, and so not leave empty packs or plastic wraps on the ground.

Japan smokes a hell of a lot more than the US, but I did not see a SINGLE BUTT on the ground while we were there! In the parks there were smoking areas where people sat, under a trellace, with an ashtray in the center. They smoked, talked, and then put their cigs out and left! It was incredible!

Now you can't really expect that on every street, but some of these people should at least try to go 5 feet out of their way to use the trashcan ashtrays or the like that are provided all over the city!


I think that one of the reasons any mitigation of the smoking ban would not work in the US is just for that reason. The feeling of entitlement so many Americans have that if the rule is not absolute, they will not follow it.

Fuzzy lines never worked in our society for long, and this one should not be treated as a fuzzy one.

Hazy maybe....;)

Schadenfrau
April 10th, 2007, 03:06 PM
Japan smokes a hell of a lot more than the US, but I did not see a SINGLE BUTT on the ground while we were there! In the parks there were smoking areas where people sat, under a trellace, with an ashtray in the center. They smoked, talked, and then put their cigs out and left! It was incredible!

Now you can't really expect that on every street, but some of these people should at least try to go 5 feet out of their way to use the trashcan ashtrays or the like that are provided all over the city!


Are you really claiming that there are "trashcan ashtrays" all over NYC? Where might these be?

Ninjahedge, you didn't happen to go to a bar in Japan, did you? Or take the subway?

ryan
April 10th, 2007, 03:07 PM
Quite the cranky thread here.

Ninjahedge
April 10th, 2007, 03:13 PM
Are you really claiming that there are "trashcan ashtrays" all over NYC? Where might these be?

There are several right outside my place of work at midtown east. The ones that were not damaged by the trash collectors, that is.

Also, almost every larger building I have seen has put out ashtrays for the smokers that need to go have a break at work.

I am not saying they are all there, but how difficult is it to extinguish your butt and throw it away instead of flicking it to the curb?

Doing that in the cobblestone paved areas is the worst!!!


Ninjahedge, you didn't happen to go to a bar in Japan, did you? Or take the subway?

No shade. We stayed in Tokyo and Kyoto for a week and just stayed inside out hotel room.

YES we used the subway (and they were cleaner by FAR than ours) and went to bars.

Did I like the smoking? No, but that was not the point I was bringing up to illustrate. The point was that how can the rules in a country like Japan, that smokes so much more than we do, still work relatively well as compared to our similar attempts 10-15 years ago?

The attitude is different. And that same attitude, as evidenced in this thread even, is why the US would never be able to set apart areas and expect smokers to follow all the rules.

We simply would not follow them!

lofter1
April 10th, 2007, 03:22 PM
Quite the cranky thread here.
Makes me want to have a smoke ...

ryan
April 10th, 2007, 03:31 PM
[rimshot] I was going to suggest the same thing.

Schadenfrau
April 10th, 2007, 03:42 PM
I also work in midtown east, but I've yet to see one of these famous trashcan ashtrays adorning the streets. I realize that it's a moot point, but please at least try to stay on topic, Ninjahedge. First you're ranting about how people shouldn't smoke inside, then you're praising a country that allows people to smoke everywhere for providing public ashtrays. I'm sure that Tokyo's Sanrio store is far superior to ours, as well.

MidtownGuy
April 10th, 2007, 03:43 PM
Ninjahedge, all I can say is you have some nerve calling anyone obstinate. You are the most obstinate person I have ever come across. Ever. And that's saying quite a lot. I pity your wife, I really do. That is a personal insult. Now we are even. Do you want to keep this (somewhat) civil or not?

pianoman writes about airplanes:

Not as obvious as it may seem at first. Last time I checked, most airlines still serve alcoholic beverages. And airplanes, because of their nature, are especially capable of minimizing second-hand smoke through powerful ventilation.

Yes, Obvious. In a closed, pressurized cabin, lit objects entail different dangers than a drink. So yes, the difference IS obvious. Unless you just want to be contrary.


Why not? Because this isn't about letting a "free market" work things out. This is about government stepping in and limiting harms to our bodies, after having established a unanimous consensus that it is unhealthy to breathe in second-hand smoke.
Do you believe in banning every social behavior that has at least as much harm as the second-hand cigarettte smoke in a bar? Because otherwise you are being selective, hypocritical, and singling out one behavior that you personally do not approve of.




It's not taking away the freedom to smoke,
Right, it's taking away the freedom to smoke in places where it should be up to the management and overall will of the patrons to decide. When you say "It's not the use per se that's being restricted; it's the how/when/where. " that is very sly. You can keep restricting the places you allow an activity until it basically becomes inconvenient or impossible to do. The freedom is
infringed upon. Something like smoking cigarettes doesn't need to be banished completely, just rationally regulated. A total ban is not rational in my opinion.




Yes, each example must be evaluated separately, on an individual basis.
Of course, we regulate things. Cigarettes were regulated before the total ban. Pullution hasn't been banned. It's been reduced. Again, the middle ground. You and Ninja don't see one for cigarettes. I disagree. It doesn't make me inconsistent, it means I believe in a case by case analysis.

[QUOTE]in a place where someone has smoked in the past, and where the smell (but not smoke) still lingers.

See, that's the kind of extreme thinking and intolerance that Fabrizio was referring to. I consider this crazy. Delicate orchid syndrome. Ninjahedge is ballistic on this issue. I suspect he has an olfactory abnormality, some type of hypersensitive condition. I've heard of it, and there mey be help available(other than banning smelly things).


Because of its serious implications in the fields of health, business, and individual freedoms, this is not an issue that can be treated lightly, like garlic. This is something that substantially affects quality of life. That should sound familiar, shouldn't it Midtown?

No one is saying to treat it lightly. I am saying that a total ban is not the way with this. Quality of Life, why yes you're right.:) We have discussed that before, me and you. Your tone denigrated the very concept.
Now you use it for your own cause. We're all hypocrites it would seem.


Ninjahedge, I'm taking a break, then I'll respond to the rest of your ranting and raving. Obstinate. That's you to a tee. You'd keep this going until the cow's come home. This time I'll be happy to go as long as you'd like. I'm going to do my best to be as obstinate as you.

MidtownGuy
April 10th, 2007, 03:56 PM
one thing though,


Fisher, he is obstinant, as most people who do not like losing (however they may define it) are

Who lost? You're like Bush on the aircraft carrier. Declaring your own victory and actually looking nuts.

Ninjahedge
April 10th, 2007, 04:07 PM
I also work in midtown east, but I've yet to see one of these famous trashcan ashtrays adorning the streets. I realize that it's a moot point, but please at least try to stay on topic, Ninjahedge. First you're ranting about how people shouldn't smoke inside, then you're praising a country that allows people to smoke everywhere for providing public ashtrays. I'm sure that Tokyo's Sanrio store is far superior to ours, as well.

Are you trying to belittle my argument by extending the relation to ludicrous extents and then reassigning it back to mine as if comparing Japans ATTITUDE to ours is akin to the Sanario store?

Retorical question.

The point was, one of the difficult things about making a law that would allow smokers more freedom of access (while smoking) is that we as a culture do not respect rules as much as they do.

I do not like th esmoking rooms they have, but I was rather impressed that they kept in the smoking areas in parks and other places, and I did not see a SINGLE BUTT on the ground while I was there!

The fact that someone will give you a dirty look here, or compare your suggestion of using the provided ashtrays instead of flicking your still-lit butt in the road or on the sidewalk, makes the possibility of a middle ground almost impossible.

This ties back into my previous questions about how would this be solved in a way that would work for ALL parties concerned, not just the non-smoking majority.

If you want shade, next time I could draw you a flowchart so you get the point a little quicker! ;)


(J/K!!!!!!) :D

pianoman11686
April 10th, 2007, 08:37 PM
pianoman writes about airplanes:

Yes, Obvious. In a closed, pressurized cabin, lit objects entail different dangers than a drink. So yes, the difference IS obvious. Unless you just want to be contrary.

Don't even try to turn that example around. The federal ban on smoking was first and foremost a HEALTH issue, not a safety one.


Do you believe in banning every social behavior that has at least as much harm as the second-hand cigarettte smoke in a bar? Because otherwise you are being selective, hypocritical, and singling out one behavior that you personally do not approve of.

I'm not singling it out. This happens to be a thread about smoking, so I'm saying I'm in favor of its regulation. The principles that support this regulation are extendable to many other areas, some examples of which I've already given...


Right, it's taking away the freedom to smoke in places where it should be up to the management and overall will of the patrons to decide. When you say "It's not the use per se that's being restricted; it's the how/when/where. " that is very sly. You can keep restricting the places you allow an activity until it basically becomes inconvenient or impossible to do.

In this case, part of the very motivation lies in trying to make it inconvenient enough so that people actually quit. Like I said before, the wide-ranging health implications of smoking, and all of the related social costs, make this a unique issue.


The freedom is
infringed upon. Something like smoking cigarettes doesn't need to be banished completely, just rationally regulated. A total ban is not rational in my opinion.

No, a total ban would be making it illegal for companies to produce and sell cigarettes. Big difference.


Yes, each example must be evaluated separately, on an individual basis.
Of course, we regulate things. Cigarettes were regulated before the total ban. Pullution hasn't been banned. It's been reduced. Again, the middle ground. You and Ninja don't see one for cigarettes. I disagree. It doesn't make me inconsistent, it means I believe in a case by case analysis.

I don't know what you're implying. While each of the examples shares a common thread, they were all evaluated separately. No one's using one regulation to justify another totally unrelated one.


See, that's the kind of extreme thinking and intolerance that Fabrizio was referring to. I consider this crazy. Delicate orchid syndrome. Ninjahedge is ballistic on this issue. I suspect he has an olfactory abnormality, some type of hypersensitive condition. I've heard of it, and there mey be help available(other than banning smelly things).

If it's so extreme, then how come it's so popular?


No one is saying to treat it lightly. I am saying that a total ban is not the way with this. Quality of Life, why yes you're right.:) We have discussed that before, me and you. Your tone denigrated the very concept.
Now you use it for your own cause. We're all hypocrites it would seem.

Be careful when you generalize my statements. That discussion concerned chain stores and bank branch regulation, which you supported by using a "quality of life" argument. Call me hypocritical, but I see a BIG difference in how smoking affects mine, or anyone else's, quality of life.

MidtownGuy
April 10th, 2007, 09:22 PM
Don't even try to turn that example around. The federal ban on smoking was first and foremost a HEALTH issue, not a safety one.

That doesn't matter. The differences are still obvious. Lumping them together was objectionable.


I'm not singling it out. This happens to be a thread about smoking, so I'm saying I'm in favor of its regulation. The principles that support this regulation are extendable to many other areas, some examples of which I've already given

You are singling it out of a range of behaviors because it is one that you personally do not want allowed. The thread IS about smoking, and analyzing it's regulation (or lack thereof) in light of other regulated behaviors is perfectly reasonable.


In this case, part of the very motivation lies in trying to make it inconvenient enough so that people actually quit. Like I said before, the wide-ranging health implications of smoking, and all of the related social costs, make this a unique issue.

No, it certainly is not a unique issue. Like I have said, there are plenty of activities that are harmful or annoying to people , yet society refrains from banning them completely for various reasons, sometimes in the interest of tolerance or business.
Part of the motivation may lie in encouraging people to quit. I don't think it's a very effective way. You really have to get to the root of the behavior, not just make it inconvenient.


No, a total ban would be making it illegal for companies to produce and sell cigarettes. Big difference.

Oh very well, I should have added total ban -in bars and nightclubs-.


I don't know what you're implying. While each of the examples shares a common thread, they were all evaluated separately. No one's using one regulation to justify another totally unrelated one.

It's pretty clear what I meant. Please don't make me repeat myself. Just go back and try to follow it again.


If it's so extreme, then how come it's so popular?

What's so popular? The ban? I was talking about the overblown, horrific smell argument being extreme. Smells lingering for what some of you make sound like eternity. Hooey. So, you twisted my meaning, but I'll indulge you and say that yes, the ban is extreme also. It's popularity would depend on who you're asking, right? Anyway, lots of popular things are extreme. If you think hard you may come up with an example.


Be careful when you generalize my statements. That discussion concerned chain stores and bank branch regulation, which you supported by using a "quality of life" argument. Call me hypocritical, but I see a BIG difference in how smoking affects mine, or anyone else's, quality of life.

I won't generalize if you won't distort. I was calling you hypocritical because in the context of that other discussion, you questioned the value of concepts like quality of life. Then you turned around and used the term here for the benefit of your position... There is a difference in activities, but the concept of quality of life remains the same. I said we were all hypocrites. It's true on some level. In this case, your hypocrisy was blatant and you got called out on it.

pianoman11686
April 10th, 2007, 11:21 PM
That doesn't matter. The differences are still obvious. Lumping them together was objectionable.

Objectionable, why? Because no two things can be directly compared? If we're going to debate about regulating smoking indoors, it must encompass other examples besides bars. Otherwise, that's what I call being hypocritical.


You are singling it out of a range of behaviors because it is one that you personally do not want allowed. The thread IS about smoking, and analyzing it's regulation (or lack thereof) in light of other regulated behaviors is perfectly reasonable.

So we can't compare smoking in different contexts, but we can compare different regulations? Give me a break.


No, it certainly is not a unique issue. Like I have said, there are plenty of activities that are harmful or annoying to people , yet society refrains from banning them completely for various reasons, sometimes in the interest of tolerance or business.

So, why don't you give me a few examples of these other "harmful or annoying" activities? Then we'll see how much they relate to smoking.


Part of the motivation may lie in encouraging people to quit. I don't think it's a very effective way. You really have to get to the root of the behavior, not just make it inconvenient.

Again, with smoking, it's a difficult issue, because getting to the "root" of the behavior means undoing the addictive effects of the product. You can't just flip an "off" switch and be done with it. Other motivations for getting people to quit shed light on just why smoking is a unique issue: it damages the health of non-smokers, who must breathe second-hand smoke; it raises the financial burdens of other people (non-smokers) in the realm of healthcare & insurance; it indirectly produces more costs, including but not limited to: indoor areas needing to be cleaned more often because of ash, stains, & smell; businesses (like bars) having to spend more money on costly filtration/ventilation, if they think the smoke is too heavy; any other costs related to tobacco companies continuing to lobby politicians.


It's pretty clear what I meant. Please don't make me repeat myself. Just go back and try to follow it again.

Okay, I'll try. Here's what you said:


Cigarettes were regulated before the total ban. Pullution hasn't been banned. It's been reduced.

But the point I was trying to illustrate is that regulation of private behavior - either by individuals or companies - is often justified when it's clear that someone else is being directly harmed by it. And you're right: pollution hasn't been banned outright. And neither have cigarettes. It's the extent and location that's being limited, for good reasons.


What's so popular? The ban? I was talking about the overblown, horrific smell argument being extreme. Smells lingering for what some of you make sound like eternity. Hooey. So, you twisted my meaning, but I'll indulge you and say that yes, the ban is extreme also. It's popularity would depend on who you're asking, right? Anyway, lots of popular things are extreme. If you think hard you may come up with an example.

When I said "popular," I was referring to the hotel example. You can either take that or leave it. I hope, however, that in saying "lots of popular things are extreme," you're not suggesting something akin to fascism. I REALLY hope you're not.


I won't generalize if you won't distort. I was calling you hypocritical because in the context of that other discussion, you questioned the value of concepts like quality of life. Then you turned around and used the term here for the benefit of your position... There is a difference in activities, but the concept of quality of life remains the same. I said we were all hypocrites. It's true on some level. In this case, your hypocrisy was blatant and you got called out on it.

You only think it's blatant because you've apparently forgotten the issues. I haven't gotten called out on anything, with good justification. You, however, have. If you don't believe me, I've taken the time to dig up some of these older posts:


1. It's a quality of life issue that we will just have to disagree on.

2. Quality of life deteriotates in a way that isn't as immediately obvious as dog crap or drunken loiterers, but is cumulative and disagreeable nonetheless.

3. Quality of life is a pretty powerful "umbrella" term. Lots of regulation is based on it, of all kinds. I'm not sure other arguments are necessary, other than in this specific case to convince you personally.

Now, here's what I said:


1. And I think many times, the arguments are unconvincing. Quality of life is a term that's, in my view, thrown around too often, too generally, and too haphazardly, to suit the specific situation. Other examples are "serving the public good" and "improving societal welfare." Just letting you know that when you claim "quality of life" as a justification for regulating banks or Starbucks or Duane Reade, it's unsubstantiated, and therefore unconvincing.

2. First off, I'll go ahead and agree with you that "quality of life" issues do exist, and that they're not cut-and-dry. By accusing me of trying to "throw all such issues into one pot," you're missing my point entirely, which is: Why is this a quality of life issue? You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it brings down your quality of life, and more importantly, those of countless others around you.

That discussion was about chain retail, and specifically, banks. Now I ask you again: why is that a quality of life issue? And, to stay on-topic: if you think regulation is needed to address quality of life issues, how can smoking not be an example? It affects quality of life on a much more concrete and significant level, which is why I think it deserves regulation.

lofter1
April 10th, 2007, 11:32 PM
You're all so caught up in your rhetorical points that you're missing the bigger picture:

Bloomberg's smoking ban is directly related to the costs which are incurred by the state / business due to cigarette smoking (work days lost, health care costs, etc.). Those costs are far higher for smokers than non-smokers. I've yet to see a proposal that describes how those costs will be covered in the future (hence more and more companies actually refusing to hire those who smoke cigarettes). The logical act -- from a societal point of view -- is to create those conditions whereby fewer and fewer people smoke.

When looked at with the cold eye of an actuary a smoking ban is hard to argue with.

pianoman11686
April 10th, 2007, 11:40 PM
^Thank you. I tried to cover some of that in my last post. http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif

MidtownGuy
April 11th, 2007, 12:15 AM
Objectionable, why
Lumping bars in with airplanes. I told you. This has become such a bore because you aren't advancing any new points, just refusing to see why one of your examples could ever be inappropriate. Still, because you are so adamant about it, it's at least a bit amusing to watch you feel compelled to answer every single sentence I write. I shall do the same to you.



So we can't compare smoking in different contexts, but we can compare different regulations? Give me a break
Different contexts that MAKE SENSE. Yours didn't in this case.


So, why don't you give me a few examples of these other "harmful or annoying" activities

Do I have to do all your thinking for you. Come now, try real hard....of course it would force you to open your mind a little.


But the point I was trying to illustrate is that regulation of private behavior - either by individuals or companies - is often justified when it's clear that someone else is being directly harmed by it. And you're right: pollution hasn't been banned outright. And neither have cigarettes. It's the extent and location that's being limited, for good reasons.

You're right, it is justified when someone else is being harmed by it. My position is that if you don't want to expose yourself to the small risk that limited second-hand smoke presents, you don't have to put yourself into an establishment whose proprieter and patrons prefer a smoking tolerant attitude. My position is that the extent that it has been limited goes too far in the realm of social establishments such as nightclubs and bars. That at least some nightclubs should be allowed to have smoking and drinking.
It's quite a moderate opinion, no matter how much you malign it or how much Ninjahedge calls me obstinate.


I hope, however, that in saying "lots of popular things are extreme," you're not suggesting something akin to fascism. I REALLY hope you're not.
Oh please:rolleyes:


I haven't gotten called out on anything, with good justification. You, however, have. If you don't believe me, I've taken the time to dig up some of these older posts:


And I think many times, the arguments are unconvincing. Quality of life is a term that's, in my view, thrown around too often, too generally, and too haphazardly, to suit the specific situation.

Great, you've found it. You say quality of life is thrown around so often, but don't hesitate to use it when YOU feel it is warranted. When I feel it is warranted, I will use it too. Because you and I don't agree doesn't make me wrong, it just means that we don't agree. And I still believe it can be a quality of life issue when retail diversity is diminished.


if you think regulation is needed to address quality of life issues, how can smoking not be an example?

It IS an example. I believe it should be regulated! Listen. Carefully. I think a total ban in some places like nightclubs and bars is over regulation. See, this is what is so frustrating that you do- expanding my position beyond what it actually is. You can not find a single place where I said it should not be regulated at all. I have always said merely that some places should allow it. Please, save me and yourself some writing by reading what I actually say. I spend extra time trying to word these thoughts as precisely as possible only for you to misconstrue them anyway. The internet is not the easiest way to discuss such issues. We're going back and forth forever because of the physical time that is required to type(for me at least- I peck the keys one by one). I just want to you to see a middle ground. Permitting smoking in some social establishments such as nightclubs and bars. I can't keep saying this over and over and you still not get it. Good lord man!!

pianoman11686
April 11th, 2007, 08:45 PM
Lumping bars in with airplanes. I told you. This has become such a bore because you aren't advancing any new points, just refusing to see why one of your examples could ever be inappropriate. Still, because you are so adamant about it, it's at least a bit amusing to watch you feel compelled to answer every single sentence I write. I shall do the same to you.

Aren't advancing any new points? What about the one big paragraph in my previous post that you conveniently forgot to address even one sentence of in this latest reply?

And even without that, why should I be advancing new points? I've already given several justifications for the ban. I shouldn't even need to be constantly coming up with "new" points for you, because you're the one who's going against the status quo. The burden of proof is on you to show why we shouldn't be banning smoking in public places. In response, all you've said is "let's be a little more tolerant." Talk about a bore.


Different contexts that MAKE SENSE. Yours didn't in this case.

I'll repeat: any time smoking is banned in favor of protecting other people's health is another example of why such regulation is justified. Ninja said it best: exercise your rights without infringing mine, or causing me harm. It doesn't matter if your context is a restaurant, an airplane, a movie theater, anything. The underlying premise is the same.


You're right, it is justified when someone else is being harmed by it. My position is that if you don't want to expose yourself to the small risk that limited second-hand smoke presents, you don't have to put yourself into an establishment whose proprieter and patrons prefer a smoking tolerant attitude. My position is that the extent that it has been limited goes too far in the realm of social establishments such as nightclubs and bars. That at least some nightclubs should be allowed to have smoking and drinking.
It's quite a moderate opinion, no matter how much you malign it or how much Ninjahedge calls me obstinate.

The problem is, as soon as you allow smoking in a bar/club, it doesn't take more than 50% of the people in there smoking to make it unpleasant for the nonsmokers. I know, because I go to a lot of these places, which are mainly student-frequented. The majority of students don't smoke, yet the clubs are still smoky and unhealthy places to be in.

It's the easiest thing to say "you don't have to go to those places," until you realize that ALL of them allow smoking, since the government here hasn't stepped in yet and issued a ban.


Great, you've found it. You say quality of life is thrown around so often, but don't hesitate to use it when YOU feel it is warranted. When I feel it is warranted, I will use it too. Because you and I don't agree doesn't make me wrong, it just means that we don't agree. And I still believe it can be a quality of life issue when retail diversity is diminished.

Here's the crucial difference between regulating smoking and regulating retail. One is regulating the behavior of individuals, in order to protect the well-being of other individuals who, through no fault of their own, must endure second-hand smoke and all the harms that are associated with it. The other is regulating the behavior of the free market, in order to protect the financial well-being of businesses that have become uncompetitive.

One regulation clearly addresses quality of life. The other addresses economic competition.


It IS an example. I believe it should be regulated! Listen. Carefully. I think a total ban in some places like nightclubs and bars is over regulation. See, this is what is so frustrating that you do- expanding my position beyond what it actually is. You can not find a single place where I said it should not be regulated at all. I have always said merely that some places should allow it. Please, save me and yourself some writing by reading what I actually say. I spend extra time trying to word these thoughts as precisely as possible only for you to misconstrue them anyway. The internet is not the easiest way to discuss such issues. We're going back and forth forever because of the physical time that is required to type(for me at least- I peck the keys one by one). I just want to you to see a middle ground. Permitting smoking in some social establishments such as nightclubs and bars. I can't keep saying this over and over and you still not get it. Good lord man!!

To this I can only respond by quoting you from an earlier post:


Restaurants...depends on the size of the establishment and the type of room divisions/separations and filtering technology available. Pianoman, you often cite the values of the free market..why not here?

Funny. You just spent so much time talking about how it should be regulated, yet you suggested to me earlier that it should be left up to the bar/club owners to decide (i.e., the free market). Sounds pretty inconsistent to me, which might explain a good deal of the confusing back-and-forth that's going on here.

So now that we've got that out of the way, and it's clear you do want some regulation, what do you propose? And before you give me a quick response, something akin to "I already said, put some rules in place and leave the rest up to the owners," let me clarify: what rules? And how do you ensure that certain establishments remain smoke-free, for those we need it, while others remain for smokers and those who don't mind it?

And finally: is it just the bars/clubs that are going to receive these new rules, or will other public areas (restaurants, movie theaters, yes, even airplanes) get them too?

MidtownGuy
April 11th, 2007, 09:29 PM
It really is a bore, and you really aren't saying anything new, so instead of reading your post (which I'm sure has all the same points) this is for you Pianoman. One of my old favorites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfI9e4BX0lU

pianoman11686
April 11th, 2007, 09:38 PM
Thanks for making me waste 3 minutes to watch that. So am I the one on the left or the right?

ZippyTheChimp
April 11th, 2007, 10:21 PM
How is New York minus smoking?
Contentious.

ryan
April 11th, 2007, 11:57 PM
You and Stern with the zingers. Always worth the click.