[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Yorick: You completely and conveniently ignored the big issue of the single Mom who can't get a job anywhere else. Or the student who can't work anywhere else while studying I am being considerate. This is people being forced to destroy their health so they can pay rent, eat or provide for a child. That is the biggest reason this has been done. To provide a safe WORKPLACE.

Forgive me, Yorick, but the highlighted part of your argument is absolute rubbish. You said yourself that NYC is nothing but bars and restaurants....so the hypothetical working mom is NOT restricted to only being able to work in a smoke-filled establishment. Quite obviously, there are numerous other businesses where she could apply for work - and at least of few of them will have No Smoking areas or be completely Smoke Free already.

You also overlook that the fact that many waitresses and musicians are also smokers themselves - so they aren't bothered in the least by the smoke from the patrons. Now, however, they have to go outside of their workplace when they want to take a quick "smoke break".

The "forced servitude" you keep implying simply is not a valid argument. It greatly exaggerates one hypothetical factor while completely ignoring several other factors.

Originally posted by Yorick: Could ONE SMOKER please tell me what is so hard about going outside for two minutes?? ANYONE? or is everyone so blinded by the LOSS OF RIGHT TO HARM OTHERS issue here?

What's so hard about a smoker being forced to go outside in NYC??
1) Rain.
2) Strong winds (messing up the hair of women smokers).
3) Below freezing temperatures.
4) Snow.
5) Harassment from passers-by.
6) Muggers.
7) Random shooting (very slight possibility, admittedly, but odds are increased for those standing on the street instead of sitting at the bar).

Of course, none of these situations really matter because it's the smokers fault for being an addict, right?

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: The will of the people here seems to be in sharp contrast to the will of the people where you are. I wonder did the people get to vote on the issue where you are at or was it an unelected health board with their facist seeming tendency to tell people how to live and where to live like it.

Bloomberg was elected. He made the call.[/QUOTE]Actually, you just made Chewbacca's case for him.

Bloomberg was elected.{will of the people}
He made the call.{will of Bloomberg, not the people}.

So the answer is that the NYC voting public did NOT get a "fair and equitable" voice on this issue. "The call was made" by an elected official. There is a big difference between the two, my friend.

I voted for President Bush. I even supported the War on Iraq. But I do NOT support the Patriot Act. Just because I voted for an elected official does not mean I unilaterally agree with his decisions.

As for the 3% increase being seen in bars and restaurants, that's great. Let's see if these numbers still hold true 6 months from now. People who did NOT go to bars before ARE going now because of the new smoking ban. Trust me...once the "novelty" wears off of this situation, they will go right back to sitting at home or doing whatever else they were doing before the ban. Why?? Because if they really wanted to go to bars all along, they would have gone - despite the "smoky atmosphere". Those who chose not to go aren't going to make a permanent lifestyle change because of this new law.

Congregations in churches swelled by 25%-30% immediately after 9/11. But once the people felt "safe" again, they went back to thier normal routine. The same will happen here.

And Bloomberg might very well be voted out of office once the smokers DO get a chance to let their voice be heard at the voting booth.

[ 05-13-2003, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]