Page 13 of 35 FirstFirst ... 39101112131415161723 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 512

Thread: The Smoking Ban

  1. #181
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,781

    Default

    I would not want a NY official to do anything in NJ Agglom.

    But I would prefer the bars and restaurants in NJ to do the same. I would have liked if they did it to start with. I am not looking for anyone to follow suit.

    I think most of the arguments made by the pro-smoking coilition have been weak in the "defense" of an intrusive and invasive vice and I am just waiting for things to settle down.

    It is odd that with a thing like Asbestos, proven to increase your CHANCES of getting cancer, lawsuits are filed, settlements reached and any time it is found anywhere it is either sealed up or cleaned by a bio-hazard group, but somehow smoking is not treated anywhere the same way.

    There are differences in percentages, agreed, but it has been proven that, at the very least, second hand smoke is not HEALTHY, but yet since it is an addictive habit that has been around for such a long time and has such a strong financial hold on both the smokers and the politicians in many areas, the non-smokers are forced to put up with it.

    Now that the MAJORITY rules and is saying to ban it, Smokers are coming out and saying "no fair".

    Until they come out with a smokeless ciggie that smokers will use, it is not fair to subject other people to their vice, no matter what way you look at it.

    If you want a change, go look to enact policies to have tobacco bars where you can smoke all you want. Just not drink.

    Oh, I'm sorry, you want both. You can do that at home you know.

    And that brings us to the last arguement, if you don't like it, you don't have to go out..... Wasn't that said about people who did not like smoking before the ban?

    Bottom line is this. It is a good thing. Some bars have felt a small decrease in sales because of this, but that is because they have not gotten a new following as of yet. It takes a few years to do this, and some will not recover fully. But others have, and some have increased.

    The main focus for the ban was BS (workplace safety), but LEGALLY it was a solid arguement. Sometimes common sense needs to use BS to be enacted into law... :P

  2. #182

    Default

    Well Ninjahedge, when it comes to health officials using and abusing political power, things are not settling down; in fact, they're speeding up. Just the other day Richard Carmona said that tobacco had been linked to a million other disorders I'm not gonna mention here. I consider it a clear sign that Carmona and his supprters are leaning towards outright prohibition even at home. I predict that he will call for total bans nationwide sooner or later. That means a total tobacco ban in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, everywhere. I for one have deep respect for people who decide to quit bad habits such as tobacco, but when it comes to strict bans in night establishments that encourage a chain reaction, a line has to be drawn.

    One more thing. Mr Friedman is showing signs of declaring war on the eating of meat and snacks and such, in the name of fighting obesity, as you've read in a previous article. Some experts now say that obesity has already overtaken smoking as the biggest cause of death. I never thought that these health officials would stop with smoking bans in restaurants and bars, did I?

    I really do think it's only a matter of time before he calls for alcohol consumption to be restricted. I no longer drink alcohol, and I consider it just as bad as tobacco. Tragically, Friedman and Carmona are not unique in their political zealotry.

  3. #183
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,781

    Default

    But to get these things passed, the "radicals" need mainstream support.

    If they try to restrict things such as Red Meat and Alcohol consumption, they will meet with heavy resistance since they are now alienating the majority.

    People who agree with each other on some things do not have to agree with each other on everything.

  4. #184

    Default

    You seem to be under the impression that the smoking ban was the result of a public vote.

  5. #185
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,781

    Default

    You seem to be under the impression that if it was that it would not have passed.

  6. #186

    Default

    Perhaps Bloomberg was wise enough not to take his smoking ban to beaches, cars, and rooftops. If that were to happen he would have alienated a lot more people than he already has. (I know quite a few bar owners and bartenders who still despise him after over a year) Health officials like Friedman and Carmona have no such reservations though (physicians IMO care not about nightlife and indulgence), and that worries me a lot.

    So anyway, Ninjahedge, No one doubts that you want a similar ban for the state of New Jersey. Is it because of all those New Yorkers (smokers and non-smokers alike) who are jumping over the Hudson to indulge? Tell me honestly.

  7. #187
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,781

    Default

    Not really, there was a surge in the first month or two, but after that things went back to normal.

    People will not go out of their way to smoke. (well, not that FAR out of the way, you know?)

    As for the beaches, I don't know where you are coming from, but most of the beaches I jave known do not allow smoking (noone wants the life-sized ash tray that would ensue).

    That is not because of the smoke, but mostly the butts.

  8. #188

    Default

    Even though I'm a non-smoker, I have no problem with those who smoke around me.

    So then Ninja, what would you say publicly if the US Congress passed a federal law banning all tobacco products, shutting down all tobacco companies, making smoking illegal everywhere in virtually every state, including both New York and New Jersey, and cracking down on smoke-easies? You know, an extensive new Drug War begins?

    The way I see it, an increasing number of activists and health officials want that to happen sooner rather than later. This, more than anything else, is the problem I have with New York's smoking ban, it's clearly encouraged the anti-smoking movement nationwide to become more aggressive and to press towards outright prohibition.

    Ninjahedge, if you're intent on joining a campaign to try to push through a similar smoking ban in all of NJ, then be my guest. I won't stop you.

  9. #189
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    I seriously doubt tobacco products will ever be banned, but it is hard to come up with a strong argument as to why the ban on smoking in defined places should be rescinded.

    This mayor has a solid track record on public health issues. This action is right in line with it. The "right to smoke" does exist, but perhaps those who exercise that right should waive their health insurance or their right to on demand services at city hospitals. The best thing that ever happened to smokers was this ban, for their own good.

    What could possibly be an argument against the encouragement of the anti-smoking movement?

  10. #190
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agglomeration
    Even though I'm a non-smoker, I have no problem with those who smoke around me.

    So then Ninja, what would you say publicly if the US Congress passed a federal law banning all tobacco products, shutting down all tobacco companies, making smoking illegal everywhere in virtually every state, including both New York and New Jersey, and cracking down on smoke-easies? You know, an extensive new Drug War begins?

    The way I see it, an increasing number of activists and health officials want that to happen sooner rather than later. This, more than anything else, is the problem I have with New York's smoking ban, it's clearly encouraged the anti-smoking movement nationwide to become more aggressive and to press towards outright prohibition.

    Ninjahedge, if you're intent on joining a campaign to try to push through a similar smoking ban in all of NJ, then be my guest. I won't stop you.
    Why do you keep taking my dislike of smoking in places like Bars and Restaurants and translating that into an absolute prohibition of Tobacco in general?

    You are exaggerating my stance, like I said before, just because I believe in MY RIGHT not to have smoke in some of the places I go for something else (meaning food, work or alcohol) does NOT mean I am in favor of absolute illigalization of the substance in general.

    As the push goes further, the ones that ARE in support of that will get less and less support from the general public. If they are smart, they will not push the pendulum too far to one side for risk of it swinging back the whole way and destroying most of what they have worked for.

    That is where the moderates come in. I myself would not mind a nationwide ban on smoking in bars and public establishments, but I am not advocation the banning of it in general. AAMOF, there are some substances that I would probably say should also be made legal seeing the inherent futility of banning them outright from any consumption public or private.

    I also find it odd that you keep grouping health officials and activists together in the same boat. That somehow by grouping the former with the latter it makes their opinions less valid.

    If your doctor says doing something is unhealthy, you have the choice to do it or not. But if he says that something someone else does is unhealthy to you, you have a right to take it to them, or the government in charge in the interest of public health and safety.

    Well, whatever. No matter how much I say on this you will keep yelling that all the bars in manhattan are going belly up and that bar owners everywhere will be coming the streets like an angry mob causing violence to go up as they teem with smokers everywhere to fight the government and take what is theirs. that somehow restricting them in Bars will lead to an outright prohibition and that anyone that is in favor of one is in favor of the other.

    The key to my discussion is not to convince you anymore, but to make sure both sides are heard whenever you post yours...

  11. #191
    Forum Veteran krulltime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Manhattan - UWS
    Posts
    4,208

    Default

    SMOKE BAN HITS 'HOODS

    By DAVID RABIN
    June 3, 2004

    The City Council has granted development rights to 16 sites in Soho and Noho, provided that no liquor licenses of any kind — not even restaurants — be granted in those new buildings.

    Meanwhile, Manhattan Community Board 3 has declared a moratorium on the consideration of all liquor licenses within its borders. That's only advisory — but it sends quite a message to local politicians and to the State Liquor Authority. Similarly, residents of St. Mark's Place (that quiet, suburban oasis) have threatened to sue the SLA to halt the granting of any further licenses on their block.

    Every single article on these developments mentions one thing — the increase in street noise since the passage of the smoking ban.

    The exact same conversation goes on at Community Boards 2, 5 and others. New applicants in residential areas are grilled mercilessly: What time do you plan to close? What are you going to do with your smokers?
    And the answer is . . . "Nothing." It has to be — because there is nothing we bar owners can do under the current law, except put our smokers out in the street and hope not to stir up justifiable community resentment and even noise tickets, or let them smoke inside and risk summonses that could put us out of business.

    All our residential neighbors want is a good night's sleep. It's hard to fault them for not seeing the future and the multiplier effect on the city economy if restaurants and bars are phased out of many neighborhoods.

    The only real answer is to get the smokers back inside the bars, where they belong. The Meier/Destito bill pending in the state Legislature does so in a way that should answer all factions in a satisfactory manner.

    In a nutshell, if food revenues are less than 40 percent of a bar, tavern or club's business, and it's willing to install the same kind state-of-the-art air filtration equipment that's used in hospital infectious-disease wards (which can make the air in the bar far cleaner than that in the street), it would be allowed to permit smoking once again.

    If that bill carries in Albany, we'd still have to work to change the New York City Smoke Free Air Act. But it would be a start.

    We're not talking about family restaurants or fine dining establishments.
    Even though the city Health Department and smoking-ban supporters desperately try to treat restaurants and bars as one, we're only talking about bars, taverns and clubs. That's where the economic damage of the ban has been done. Those are the places that stay open late enough to be forced to keep their neighbors awake by obeying the law and putting their smokers outside.

    If, as government officials allege, business has improved so much since the ban, why would any operators even bother to install the technology? The supposedly improved market should lead them to stay "smoke free."

    No organization supporting changes to the smoking ban is pro-tobacco. None of us doubts the dangers of being a smoker. But the real issue is the cloudy one of second-hand smoke — and the answer is filtration.

    Summer is upon us; the social scene will once again shift outside to the sidewalks in front of our bars. The Legislatlure should pass this bill, which takes the employee health issue out of the equation and gives operators and customers a choice once again.

    David Rabin, co-owner of Union Bar and Lotus, is president of the New York Nightlife Association.

    NYPOST

  12. #192
    Forum Veteran krulltime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Manhattan - UWS
    Posts
    4,208

    Default

    In a nutshell, if food revenues are less than 40 percent of a bar, tavern or club's business, and it's willing to install the same kind state-of-the-art air filtration equipment that's used in hospital infectious-disease wards (which can make the air in the bar far cleaner than that in the street), it would be allowed to permit smoking once again.
    No organization supporting changes to the smoking ban is pro-tobacco. None of us doubts the dangers of being a smoker. But the real issue is the cloudy one of second-hand smoke — and the answer is filtration.
    Well that is a start.

    Now wouldn't air filtration equipment make noise outside establishments when in place or are they more advance that they are noise-free? If they make some noise then those residents would still complain. :roll:

  13. #193

    Default

    They're quiet. Circa Tabac has one.

  14. #194
    Forum Veteran krulltime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Manhattan - UWS
    Posts
    4,208

    Default

    Bill allows waivers to ban on smoking
    Proposal would permit it if air filtration system is in place; anti-tobacco advocates worry


    By JOEL STASHENKO, Associated Press
    First published: Thursday, June 3, 2004

    ALBANY -- Majority-party sponsorship of a bill in the state Legislature providing new exemptions to New York's 2003 ban on workplace smoking has anti-tobacco advocates worried that the law will be gutted.

    State Sen. Raymond Meier said he supports a bill being circulated for sponsorship by state Assemblywoman Roann Destito to exempt bars from the indoor smoking ban, provided the taverns are equipped with approved air filtration systems. Destito's bill is similar to one Meier introduced this year in the Senate, but it goes further by adding bowling alleys and billiard parlors to workplaces where smoking is allowed, as long as there is a separate room fitted with a filtration system.

    Both Meier, a Republican, and Destito, a Democrat, are from Oneida County.

    Meier noted that the 2003 law allowed waivers to the smoking ban for bars, restaurants and other businesses which could show a decline in business of at least 15 percent from pre-ban revenues. The waivers are being granted by departments of health in 41 counties and by the state Health Department in 21 mostly rural counties which do not have their own health departments.

    "This is really preferable to the waiver provision, which has been granted unevenly and without a uniform standard," Meier said.

    In addition, he said, most New Yorkers are willing to tolerate some cigarette smoke in bars and taverns.

    Russell Sciandra, head of the Center for a Tobacco Free New York, said that while customers have a choice whether or not to patronize a bar where smoking is allowed, employees of the bar don't.

    The American Cancer Society's Michael Bopp said smoking ban opponents are stressing air "filtration" systems, as opposed to "ventilation" systems, because they think it sounds safer. But he said the systems do not flush all toxins out of the air in rooms where smoking is taking place. Scott Wexler, executive director of the Restaurant & Tavern Association, said most of his restaurant-owner members have been holding their own under the smoking ban, but bar business is suffering.

    Copyright 2004 Associated Press.

  15. #195
    Forum Veteran krulltime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Manhattan - UWS
    Posts
    4,208

    Default

    SMOKE BAN COST 2,000 JOBS: BAR OWNERS

    June 9, 2004

    Groups representing New York state bar owners contend the statewide smoking ban has cost their industry about 2,000 jobs.

    A study released yesterday by the New York Nightlife Association and the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association said the ban, which went into effect in July, has also led to $28.5 million in lost wages. Affiliated businesses lost another 650 jobs and $56 million in wages and production, the study by Ridgewood Economic Associates said.

    Study author Brian O'Connor said the numbers were derived from projections, as 2004 data is not yet available.

    But state Labor Department numbers show bar and tavern jobs were already on the decline in the two years before the ban went into effect.

    The groups are pushing for passage of a bill sponsored by majority members in both houses of the Legislature that would provide new exemptions from the ban.

    The bill, from GOP state Sen. Raymond Meier and Democratic Assemblywoman RoAnn Destito, would exempt bars, provided the taverns are equipped with approved air-filtration systems.

    Copyright 2004 NYP Holdings

Similar Threads

  1. JFK - Smoking area?
    By netty boo in forum Questions and Answers about New York City
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: June 9th, 2015, 09:16 AM
  2. What's the deal with smoking (and women?)
    By English Si 49 in forum Questions and Answers about New York City
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: July 26th, 2007, 02:21 PM
  3. How is New York minus smoking?
    By Jonny in forum Questions and Answers about New York City
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: April 11th, 2007, 11:57 PM
  4. Smoking fine on Subway
    By EOC in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: October 8th, 2005, 04:18 AM
  5. Staying in a Motorhome in NYC & Smoking Ban
    By IrishLad101 in forum Questions and Answers about New York City
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 5th, 2005, 01:53 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software