Smoking Laws in NY and NJ

In regards to the bolded part, why don't non-smokers have the right to lobby for an indoor ban? Where in the constitution does it say that people can't do this?

You act like it's this law that's in place that the government can't tell you what to do with your place of business. That's simply not true. From a legal standpoint the government is well within it's rights to pass laws governing your behavior within your own establishment.

I think it's simply your personal belief that the government should't be telling businesses what to do in this situation, because you can't possibly have any legal ground to stand on. And when there's no legal reason why this ban can't affect private establishments, the rule of the majority comes into play. If there are enough non-smokers who want these places smoke free, and they have the representation in NJ state congress to get that law passed, then they are well within their legal rights to enforce the ban on these places.

Maybe you are arguing your point based on your utopian view of the way the world works: this notion that the government can't tell me what to do with my own damn bar. But dude, I live in the real world, and it doesn't work that way.Yes and when everyone thinks like that we can be mine numb and just do as we are told. I would bet that it was not a majority in NJ that got the law passed it was the people who yelled the most and a liberal state. If the demand was so high why are there not any smoke free places.

Firstdown, you're not hearing me. YES DRINKING AND DRIVING HAS A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON SOCIETY'S HEALTH.

Sorry, I know the caps are annoying, but I've acknowledged your point before and you haven't seemed to understand me. The negative impact I'm talking about is the deaths of drunk drivers themselves AND those they kill. I get your point, it's a similar argument because second hand smoke harms OTHER people, and drinking and driving harms OTHER people.

The difference is an indoor smoking ban allows the smoker to continue smoking without harming the health of others, by simply smoking outside. A ban on alcohol (or limiting to one beer an hour) would keep EVERYONE from getting drunk, even those who are responsible enough to take a cab home.

A ban on smoking indoors allows you to smoke responsibly, keeping others out of harm's way. A ban on drunk driving allows you to drink responsibly by getting drunk and finding another ride home. But a ban on drinking altogether would be going too far, it would punish everyone, even those responsible enough to handle themselves in an intelligent manner.Like you said the goverment passes laws every day on business that effect some, few, or all people. You could stay at home and drink all you wanted so it would not stop you from drinking. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on the role of our big goverment which just got a little bigger.

Yes and when everyone thinks like that we can be mine numb and just do as we are told. I would bet that it was not a majority in NJ that got the law passed it was the people who yelled the most and a liberal state.

There's nothing saying you can't lobby for your point, if you think the goverment shouldn't be able to tell business owners what to do with their private businesses, then by all means lobby for that law to be put in place.

I was just pointing out that such a law is not in place currently. Meaning there's nothing preventing people from launching a campaign to ban smoking.

And some stats for you:
- 20-25% of the nation's population smokes
- 30-35% of people aged 25-35 are smokers, the highest percentage of any age group, and these are the people who attend bars most frequently.

If you owned a bar and 35% of your business was smoking, would you want it banned? No, no owner would. But 65% of that age group are still non-smokers, and would still love to see it banned. And yes Virginia, that is a majority, and that's how the law got put into place.

Stats as seen here:
http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-health/health-promotion/tobacco/facts/index.html

There's nothing saying you can't lobby for your point, if you think the goverment shouldn't be able to tell business owners what to do with their private businesses, then by all means lobby for that law to be put in place.

I was just pointing out that such a law is not in place currently. Meaning there's nothing preventing people from launching a campaign to ban smoking.

And some stats for you:
- 20-25% of the nation's population smokes
- 30-35% of people aged 25-35 are smokers, the highest percentage of any age group, and these are the people who attend bars most frequently.

If you owned a bar and 35% of your business was smoking, would you want it banned? No, no owner would. But 65% of that age group are still non-smokers, and would still love to see it banned. And yes Virginia, that is a majority, and that's how the law got put into place.

Stats as seen here:
http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-health/health-promotion/tobacco/facts/index.html If I knew I was loosing the 65% of the non smokers to a non smoking bar do to the smokers I would become a non smoking bar. Then word would get around and the 65% going to anothr smoking bar may come to my bar.

No I wouldn't be in favor of a ban on fatty foods like that. First off, it's not a fair comparison. I'm not advocating a total ban on all smoking. I'm advocating a ban in indoor, public places. You're suggesting that the government ban fatty foods, which is going MUCH further than the indoor smoking ban law does. Smokers can still smoke by stepping outside. What you're suggesting is that the goverment limit fatty foods completely. That's not a fair comparison.

Banning fatty foods would be the same as banning alcohol or banning smoking altogether, in my mind. It's going too far and taking away too much personal freedom.

I agree that banning fatty foods would be a health benefit to society. But if you read my previous posts, you'll see I don't agree with having to give up too much in the way of personal freedoms. An indoor ban on smoking doesn't ask too much of smokers: simply step outside to smoke. It's not saying "you can't smoke at all, harumph harumph harumph." You can smoke, just go outside, and come back when you're done. Quite easy.

Not a fair comparison? What would be the difference between the government acting on behalf of the health of non-smoking patrons of a restaurant by banning smoking, and doing the same by prohibiting that same restaurant from serving unhealthy foods? In both instances, as I've argued, the patron is not forced to be there. He or she can leave. In your world, the government must protect the health of everyone who goes to that restaurant and breathes the air that fills it, but is coincidentally not obliged to do the same for the food that is served there. What gives?

Your idea of personal freedom is an interesting one. Instead of acknowledging my right to start a business, say, a cigar bar that caters to cigar smokers, you're more interested in the right of a non-smoking patron to walk in that cigar bar, be upset with the smoke, and get the government to close down my business. That's kind of absurd, don't you think?

Not a fair comparison? What would be the difference between the government acting on behalf of the health of non-smoking patrons of a restaurant by banning smoking, and doing the same by prohibiting that same restaurant from serving unhealthy foods?

They're very different. One rule denies people the opportunity to eat food anywhere. The other denies people the opportunity to smoke IN CERTAIN PLACES. I don't see what's so hard to understand here. One is an all out ban, the other simply designates areas as off-limits.

If we were banning smoking altogether, I'd be against it. But we're not.

Your idea of personal freedom is an interesting one. Instead of acknowledging my right to start a business, say, a cigar bar that caters to cigar smokers, you're more interested in the right of a non-smoking patron to walk in that cigar bar, be upset with the smoke, and get the government to close down my business. That's kind of absurd, don't you think?

Cigar bars are an interesting case. That's a place specifically geared towards smokers. There's generally no reason that someone would go there unless they want to smoke, or be in the company of other smokers. So in that case I'd say cigar bars should be exempt from smoking bans. Their business is based around smoking, so they should be left alone.

Regular bars however, exist primarily to give people a place to socialize and have drinks. Smoking is not a necessary part of the business, it's just something that comes along with those who drink. You can eliminate smoking in the bar without putting the bar out of business.

If you disagree with that point, why don't we revisit this issue in 6 months or so. Let's see how many bars in NJ have gone out of business by then. I'm guessing the rate at which bars fail in NJ will not change from pre-ban times. Bars make a killing, they'll get along fine. Smokers will still show up, they'll adapt and smoke outside.

My grandfather runs a small, local tavern in NY.

The smoking ban has definitely eaten up a huge chunk of his business.

There are other local bars that allow smoking and are basically giving the state the finger... that's where all his business has gone unfortunately.

heres a nice front page story for ya, so the nice respectfull Smoker accepts the loss of his and all bar and rest. owners right to smoke inside. he goes to his favorite drinking spot after stopping off at his favorite sushi bar for a very healthy dinner (no fat/grease). after drinking a couple heiney lights,and stepping Outside for a couple of smokes hes ready to go. so as hes crossing the street to get to his compact hybrid car, hes plowed down by a Non smoker driving a huge polluting suv who left the same bar celebrating the new non smoking law by drinking 6 mick lights,3 shots of yager and 1 shot of goldschlager. in between drinks hes eating 12 hot wings and a plate nachos supreme (xtra sour cream). i guess if the bar was a Smoking bar the non smoker wouldnt have stayed as long and got as hammered and we'd have 1 happy smoker still w/ us.

My grandfather runs a small, local tavern in NY.

The smoking ban has definitely eaten up a huge chunk of his business.

There are other local bars that allow smoking and are basically giving the state the finger... that's where all his business has gone unfortunately.

No doubt it hurts him. But I'd bet my life that if you showed me his books, he's still turning a profit.

heres a nice front page story for ya, so the nice respectfull Smoker accepts the loss of his and all bar and rest. owners right to smoke inside. he goes to his favorite drinking spot after stopping off at his favorite sushi bar for a very healthy dinner (no fat/grease). after drinking a couple heiney lights,and stepping Outside for a couple of smokes hes ready to go. so as hes crossing the street to get to his compact hybrid car, hes plowed down by a Non smoker driving a huge polluting suv who left the same bar celebrating the new non smoking law by drinking 6 mick lights,3 shots of yager and 1 shot of goldschlager. in between drinks hes eating 12 hot wings and a plate nachos supreme (xtra sour cream). i guess if the bar was a Smoking bar the non smoker wouldnt have stayed as long and got as hammered and we'd have 1 happy smoker still w/ us.

LOL

Why didn't the non-smoker get a cab? In that absolutely ludicrous hypothetical example, it was the drunk driver's choice to get behind the wheel that killed the guy, not the many beers he drank "in celebration" of a smoking ban.

The alcohol is not an excuse. You still have to be responsible for your actions when wasted. It's not the bar's fault that he chose to drive home, it's not the state's fault, it's not Anheuser-Busch's fault, it's HIS fault.