Because it's all we are asking for. Why are you complaining? It's great for non-smokers. Thef get non smoking everywhere but in just a FEW bars. You win. You get 99% of everything else. It's because a lot of people like to have a smoke when they drink. The two go together. For me, have some drinks it the only time when I really would like a cigarette. I have been doing the two together for over 20 years. I'm not asking to be able to do this legal activity anywhere I want. I don't care for beer and cigarettes at Kroger, day cares, schools, churches, etc. I just would like a few dingy bars where people who are super sensitive about looks and smells and heatlh really don't care about anyway. I just want to sit at one bar, listen to Rolling Stones and have a beer and a cigarette. I don't care to socialize. I don't care to meet women. I don't care to smell good. I just want a little bit of freedom.
Not complaining. I think the NYC laws are great. As a former smoker, I had to go through the experience and smoking outside. Now I don't have to deal with it and the last thing I want to do is breath in other people's smoke because it defeats the whole purpose of quiting and also increases the urge for a smoke. The question is which bars would get "smoker" status. How do you decide? And what do you tell the other bars that don't get it. Isn't that unfair business practices? I'm not trying to deny you 1%, it's simply not feasible to do it. And then you also have to address the employees who work at a smoke bar - which is one of the reasons the ban is put into place. It's to protect the workers as much as the other patrons. Does a smoker bar only employ smokers and can't hire non-smokers? These things are just best to ban. It's a minor inconvenience to smokers who will adopt and won't impact much.
You've been avoiding the point that OSHA already allows patrons and employees to be exposed to toxins including smoke in bars and restaurants. As I've mentioned a few times already that bars and restaurants are allowed to have open fires in kitchens and fire places provided there is good circulation. Should those then be banned too?
Of course that is very feasible. Just have bars that want to be smoking to apply for a smoking license like they would a liquor license. Just as not all restaurants choose to have liquor licenses its unlikely that all bars would choos to have smoking licences.
I can't wait for this ban. Live music is a passion of mine, but often I skip going because I leave feeling with my eyes burning and my throat sore. On Saturday night I went to the Proletariat to see some bands and I was awake all night coughing my lungs up. All I could smell is smoke all night. It was horrible. It'll be great to have no reservations about going out and supporting the music scene.
Except that many bar owners weren't aware that they could still make money being non-smoking. Now that they are why not let the market sort things out? You seem determined to maintain an absolutists stance on this when all indicators, market and social forces, indicate there is no reason that such a stance need to be maintained. You like to say you are open minded but your position is anything but.
Because at times you have to put people's health above market forces. This is why we have environmental laws, OSHA, and such, because market forces are aimed at the short-term gains and will sacrafice the health of people and workers. If you allow bars a choice, most if not all will choose to allow smoking. To think otherwise is simply not being in reality. As for being absolutist or ignoring indicators, I hate to tell you this, but the absolutist stance is what's being implemented all over the country. You act like making the drinking age 21 is an absolutist stance. Sure it is. And I fully support it, and I am against drunk driving as well. I guess that makes me absolutist and not open-minded???? No - when it comes to endangering other people needlessly, you're right, I won't tolerate it. You can support the violation of other people's right - you can support drunk driving and say it should be legal in certain cases because you're open-minded, but I find that disturbing. When it comes to infringing upon individual rights without a very good cause, then yeah, I'm absolutely against that.
I have a hard time believing YOU are making these arguments! Not trying to get personal, but you never seemed like a libertarian to me before in other discussions. Again..it's a public health issue. Either second-hand smoke is or is not unhealthy for people to breathe in. If it's not...then the government has no business fooling around with something like this. If it is...then there's a long history of government involving itself to promote public health. I think it's pretty analagous to pollution controls at that point...and I can't imagine you arguing in favor of "market forces" in that discussion.
as for the laws governing health...good in principle, not always effecient nor do they always truly promote the greater good, when all factors are taken into account. in fact, often they are counter productive at times.
there are few laws that are "always efficient." enforcing the law is rarely efficient. i have a hard time seeing how laws curbing pollution, however, are counter productive to the concerns they seek to address.
one example...the use of DDT in 3rd world countries. DDT is much cheaper and very effective when compared to other pesticides. yet it was banned because of its polluting. However, many 3rd world countries cannot afford the more expensive and less effective pesticides and thus more people die and more economic damage is done than ever would be by the polluting power of DDT. thus, a broad ban doesnt make much sense, there should always be alternatives and options in certain and limited areas
I don't fully support the 21 drinking age. If you can get married, go to war, get in debt etc. you should be able to have a beer. Bars are not public places if you have to be 21 to get in. Most bar owners want real bars and that's why they would allow smoking. But we have said let their be licences for smoking bars. Let their be a smoking lottery. Just let there be a small amount of freedom left. Please, for the last stupid time quit saying people are being endangered. We have claimed that we just want a few bars where everyone goes and works there is doing willfully and knowingly. Why cant you understand that? What is your problem? Cigar bars are exempt. Why not have some cigarette bars? (not enough control, that's why) The non-smoker claim it;s to protect the workers when that is total bull****. The workers want to work there. Check out this link about the cigar bar exception in Quebec. http://www.cigaradvisor.com/news.cfm?id=69 "I like working here more than other places I've worked," she said. "It's more elegant and there's a higher class of people." - cocktail waitress "I see no justification why somebody in a normal bar is suddenly protected from second-hand smoke while somebody with the misfortune of working in one of these exempted outfits has to be subjected to cigar smoke," - Francis Thompson of the Non-Smokers' Rights Association Francis is out of her mind. The people WANT to work there. Her protection argument is a lie. The workers don't want protection. It's just way to get what the non-smokers want. Non-smoking everywhere just for them. They really don't care about other people. It's all bulll****. Soon smoking will be banned outdoors and in private homes. But this is what yall want, authoritarian control.
the next step... New York City council is introducing a law that would make it illegal to light up a cigarette in your car if there is someone under the age of 16 in the car with you. It’s crazy
Nope, just want to be able to go out and enjoy smoke-free air. You can smoke in your house all you want. It's not about what someone wants or not. Laws to protect worker's health can't be skipped even if someone is willing to take greater risks. If someone says - I don't care if I am exposed to radioactive waste, that doesn't mean the authority can let him work with radioactive waste. That's not how it works. It's meant to protect all workers. And there are workers who don't smoke and their health is endangered.
