Smoking Laws in NY and NJ

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I no driving and drinking is illegal but rest. and bars still serve drunk people that they know are going to be driving. So by passing this law you would be looking out for the good of everyone.

Granted, but you'd be limiting personal freedoms too much. Nobody would ever be able to get wasted.

Didn't you bring up this point to make a comparison to my argument that the indoor smoking ban has long-term health benefits? The reason I back the indoor smoking ban is because it protects the health of non-smokers while not asking smokers to give up too much in the way of personal freedoms.

Personal freedoms have to be protected in this country, that's first and foremost for me. But if you can make moderate changes to those freedoms and gain a lot in terms of health for non-smokers, that's a win for the country.

Trying to keep people to one beer an hour, while I agree would be a benefit to society's health, basically takes away all personal freedoms regarding getting bombed. There would be no drunken hookups, no good stories from a night out with your buddies, no bachelor parties, etc. It sounds like I'm kidding, but I'm not. That has a big impact on our lives, it would directly affect quality of life. Asking smokers to step outside to light up doesn't have anywhere close to the negative impact on our personal freedoms. It's a simple solution, and it's not asking too much at all.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Oh sure, Beem. Go ahead and tell everyone who is subjected to smoky environments that if they don't like it, find another job. If you were running for office with that stance, you'd lose in a landslide. People don't want to hear a leader say, "if you don't like it, tough sh*t, deal with it."

I know you're not a politician, but your stance is not realistic from a politics point of view. There are too many votes there to just brush off the problem.

First of all, I don't base my philosophical beliefs on what is popular, in the hopes of earning points with the rest of the sheep. I'm also not running for anything. Unfortunately though, you're correct – any politician would lose if they ran on the platform of personal responsibility.

"Don't like smoking in a restaurant?" Mr. Politician might say, "No problem! I'll just use the police powers of government and ban all smoking in private restaurants. That way, you don't have to get off your ass and take your personal health standards in your own hands, just let the government do that for you!" More and more in this country, that exact scenario is actually very appealing to voters. I don't like something, so I'm going to my representative in the government to get him to outlaw it.

Let me try a little intellectual honesty test on you, Schneed: In the interest of protecting the health of all Americans, should the government also institute legislation to prohibit the serving of all fried, fatty foods and desserts? I mean, certainly you must agree that obesity and heart disease also pose a tremendous burden on our health care situation. So if your consistent, you'd be in favor of banning Buffalo wings and brownie sundaes, right?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Granted, but you'd be limiting personal freedoms too much. Nobody would ever be able to get wasted.

Didn't you bring up this point to make a comparison to my argument that the indoor smoking ban has long-term health benefits? The reason I back the indoor smoking ban is because it protects the health of non-smokers while not asking smokers to give up too much in the way of personal freedoms.

Personal freedoms have to be protected in this country, that's first and foremost for me. But if you can make moderate changes to those freedoms and gain a lot in terms of health for non-smokers, that's a win for the country.

Trying to keep people to one beer an hour, while I agree would be a benefit to society's health, basically takes away all personal freedoms regarding getting bombed. There would be no drunken hookups, no good stories from a night out with your buddies, no bachelor parties, etc. It sounds like I'm kidding, but I'm not. That has a big impact on our lives, it would directly affect quality of life. Asking smokers to step outside to light up doesn't have anywhere close to the negative impact on our personal freedoms. It's a simple solution, and it's not asking too much at all.

I did not bring up the one drink for the health of the person but for the people that are killed by drunken drivers. I notice all the things that you don't want to give up for this so what your saying the smoking ban does not effect me so go for it but the drink limit would so its not a good law. I do smoke but when I go out to dinner it is 95% of the time to a non smoking resturant because I do not like eating with the guy next to me smoking while I eat. If I go to a bar that allows smoking but no one is I will go out side and smoke it does not bother me.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I go back to Malcolm's point: What's easier?

A) The smokers walk outside, catch a smoke, come back in.
B) Non-Smokers search far and wide for the one of the very few bars and restaurants that don't allow smoking, many driving a great distance to get there because such a business is rare.

What's easier indeed.

A.) Non-smokers in restaurant that allows smoking are repulsed, inform the manager of their plans, and promptly leave.

B.) Non-smokers petition their representatives in the government to ban smoking in every single restaurant and bar. Nevermind the fact that they aren't forced to eat out every night in order to survive. But because on one particular Saturday night, they can't stand the cigarette smoke in the local pizza joint, so they seek to punish every restaurant or bar owner in the state, (or the nation if they could do it) and make it illegal for everyone else to light up under the penalty of law.

By the way, Schneed, no one has a "right" to go out to eat and force restaurants to cater to their particular needs, likes or dislikes. If you don't like loud music, you don't go to a rock concert, complain that it's unhealthy for your eardrums and seek out legislation to outlaw loud music.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

First of all, I don't base my philosophical beliefs on what is popular, in the hopes of earning points with the rest of the sheep. I'm also not running for anything. Unfortunately though, you're correct – any politician would lose if they ran on the platform of personal responsibility.

"Don't like smoking in a restaurant?" Mr. Politician might say, "No problem! I'll just use the police powers of government and ban all smoking in private restaurants. That way, you don't have to get off your ass and take your personal health standards in your own hands, just let the government do that for you!" More and more in this country, that exact scenario is actually very appealing to voters. I don't like something, so I'm going to my representative in the government to get him to outlaw it.

Let me try a little intellectual honesty test on you, Schneed: In the interest of protecting the health of all Americans, should the government also institute legislation to prohibit the serving of all fried, fatty foods and desserts? I mean, certainly you must agree that obesity and heart disease also pose a tremendous burden on our health care situation. So if your consistent, you'd be in favor of banning Buffalo wings and brownie sundaes, right?

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I no driving and drinking is illegal but rest. and bars still serve drunk people that they know are going to be driving. So by passing this law you would be looking out for the good of everyone.

Bars serving drunk people are breaking the law in almost all states. Lets face it folks there are limitations on your rights...it isn't as universal as you might think. I mean, you can't masturbate in public during Sunday launch at Denny's. Why? Good question, maybe you pro-smoker people can explain why...lol.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Granted, but you'd be limiting personal freedoms too much. Nobody would ever be able to get wasted.

Didn't you bring up this point to make a comparison to my argument that the indoor smoking ban has long-term health benefits? The reason I back the indoor smoking ban is because it protects the health of non-smokers while not asking smokers to give up too much in the way of personal freedoms.

Personal freedoms have to be protected in this country, that's first and foremost for me. But if you can make moderate changes to those freedoms and gain a lot in terms of health for non-smokers, that's a win for the country.

Trying to keep people to one beer an hour, while I agree would be a benefit to society's health, basically takes away all personal freedoms regarding getting bombed. There would be no drunken hookups, no good stories from a night out with your buddies, no bachelor parties, etc. It sounds like I'm kidding, but I'm not. That has a big impact on our lives, it would directly affect quality of life. Asking smokers to step outside to light up doesn't have anywhere close to the negative impact on our personal freedoms. It's a simple solution, and it's not asking too much at all.

We did read your other post and its clear that you want to ban smoking for health reasons(which does not effect you life style). The limit on drinks would so that law goes to far. Read you last paragraph on all the thing YOU could not do. You say how it would impact your life how about the non-drinker who gets kill from a drunk leaving a bar.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Bars serving drunk people are breaking the law in almost all states. Lets face it folks there are limitations on your rights...it isn't as universal as you might think. I mean, you can't masturbate in public during Sunday launch at Denny's. Why? Good question, maybe you pro-smoker people can explain why...lol.

You can't?LOL

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

What's easier indeed.

A.) Non-smokers in restaurant that allows smoking are repulsed, inform the manager of their plans, and promptly leave.

B.) Non-smokers petition their representatives in the government to ban smoking in every single restaurant and bar. Nevermind the fact that they aren't forced to eat out every night in order to survive. But because on one particular Saturday night, they can't stand the cigarette smoke in the local pizza joint, so they seek to punish every restaurant or bar owner in the state, (or the nation if they could do it) and make it illegal for everyone else to either light up under the penalty of law.

By the way, Schneed, no one has a "right" to go out to eat and force restaurants to cater to their particular needs, likes or dislikes. If you don't like loud music, you don't go to a rock concert, complain that it's unhealthy for your eardrums and seek out legislation to outlaw loud music.

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

We did read your other post and its clear that you want to ban smoking for health reasons(which does not effect you life style). The limit on drinks would so that law goes to far. Read you last paragraph on all the thing YOU could not do. You say how it would impact your life how about the non-drinker who gets kill from a drunk leaving a bar.

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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-...cts/index.html

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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-...cts/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.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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?