Smoking Laws in NY and NJ

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

[MTK]

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.

[SkinEmAll]

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SkinEmAll

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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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

If he is it's very minimal. He's been closing early weeknights and not opening on sundays because it's just not worth it.

The smoking bans hurt the small guys more than anyone.

[RiggoRules]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

Why would I go to the non-smoking bar? The chicks who put out the easiest are going to be at the smoking bar.

Seriously, if non-smoking bars and restuarants were good for business, there wouldn't need to be a law.

On top of that, while it goes against the conventional wisdom, the arguement that second hand smoke causes anything more serious than stinky clothes is simply junk science. There causal link between second hand smoke and cancer or any lung disease has not been established nor is it likely to exist. There simply isn't enough concentration of any hazardous substance in even the most smoke filled dive to do any damage.

By way of antedotal evidence....

How many non-smokers spend significant time in heavy smoking environments yet never smoke themselves? Quite a few, right?

Well, far more powerful than the cancer causing agents smoking are the addictive properties of nicotine. If second hand smoke was a problem, just walking into a bar would get people addicted.

[PWNED]

Nicotine causes addiction, not cancer like the tar from the smoke that is in the air.

But yup, if she smokes, she pokes.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by RiggoRules

On top of that, while it goes against the conventional wisdom, the arguement that second hand smoke causes anything more serious than stinky clothes is simply junk science. There causal link between second hand smoke and cancer or any lung disease has not been established nor is it likely to exist. There simply isn't enough concentration of any hazardous substance in even the most smoke filled dive to do any damage.

Not even anywhere REMOTELY close to the truth.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/co...Indoor_Air.asp

Secondhand smoke can be harmful in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:

• An estimated 35,000 to 40,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are not current smokers
• About 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmoking adults
• Other respiratory problems in nonsmokers, including coughing, phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
• 150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations
• Increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million asthmatic children.

Canada agrees:
http://www.bchealthguide.org/healthfiles/hfile30a.stm

People who do not smoke, and who are exposed to the toxic chemicals in second-hand smoke on a regular basis, can suffer serious and life-threatening health problems.

In the long term, people exposed to second-hand smoke have a greater risk of suffering from lung cancer, nasal sinus cancer, heart disease, stroke, and breathing problems, including increased coughing, wheezing, pneumonia, bronchitis, and asthma.

People who live with someone who smokes and are exposed to tobacco smoke on a regular basis have a 30 per cent increased risk of developing lung cancer and heart disease.

People who do not smoke will suffer from the effects of breathing second-hand smoke right away. Even as little as 8 to 20 minutes can cause physical reactions linked to heart disease and stroke, such as increased heart rate, less oxygen to the heart, and constricted blood vessels that increases blood pressure and makes the heart work harder.

Pregnant women exposed to second-hand smoke can have a greater risk of miscarriages and babies with low birth weight.

I've got LOTS more where that came from.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by RiggoRules

On top of that, while it goes against the conventional wisdom, the arguement that second hand smoke causes anything more serious than stinky clothes is simply junk science. There causal link between second hand smoke and cancer or any lung disease has not been established nor is it likely to exist. There simply isn't enough concentration of any hazardous substance in even the most smoke filled dive to do any damage.

Riggo, do you have any science to back up this absurd statement? If you're going to pull things out of your a$$, I hope you have someone backing you up.

[Schneed10]

WebMD:

Is Second-Hand Smoke Harmful to a Person with Asthma?

Second-hand smoke is the combination of smoke from a burning cigar or cigarette and smoke exhaled by a smoker.

Inhaling second-hand smoke, also called "passive smoke" or "environmental tobacco smoke," may be even more harmful than actually smoking. That's because the smoke that burns off the end of a cigar or cigarette contains more harmful substances (tar, carbon monoxide, nicotine, and others) than the smoke inhaled by the smoker.

Second-hand smoke is especially harmful to people who already have asthma. When a person with asthma is exposed to second-hand smoke, he or she is more likely to experience the wheezing, coughing and shortness of breath associated with asthma.

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/45/1660_51090.htm

[BrudLee]

As a retired smoker, I had mixed feelings when Delaware banned smoking in public buildings - including all businesses. I'm not one of those "holier than thou" types (Actually, I probably am holier than thou, but it has nothing to do with smoking. I'm just very holy. Nothing personal.), so I didn't think the decision on smoking should be made by anyone but the business themselves. If a restaurant chose to cater to a smoking clientelle, then so be it.

In Delaware, it's a cash fine to the business if someone is smoking in their establishment - the smoker faces no penalty. That's garbage to begin with - but it gets worse. In addition to the fine, a business faces suspension of their liquor license. Since only restaurants and bars can face that portion of the punishment, it's a horrible application of the law.

I have to tell you though, when I go out to a bar, it's very nice not to smell like smoke when I get home.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

I'm not talking about an all-out ban, Schneed. I never said anything about a ban on all fried, fatty, unhealthy foods EVERYWHERE. I'm talking restaurants only. In this scenario, I'm assuming that you can eat whatever you want if you go elsewhere, or decide to eat at home -- just like you can with smoking -- if you don't like it, you can stay home and eat or find another restaurant.

If the government can ban smoking in restaurants to protect the health of the patrons, why can't they do the same with the food that restaurant serves?

[SmootSmack]

speaking of smoking....

Today, of course, is April 20 so Happy 420 Day!

:cool-smil

puff...puff...pass

[MTK]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

speaking of smoking....

Today, of course, is April 20 so Happy 420 Day!

:cool-smil

puff...puff...pass

I was just about to post a 4/20 day thread.

I think it's worthy of it's own thread, :cool-smil:cool-smil:cool-smil:cool-smil:cool-smil

Just wish I was going to be celebrating it in true 4/20 fashion, unfortunately I'm all dried up.