[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: 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".
[/QUOTE]Cerek, the hypothetical I pressented is "what if she has no other place to work". It's futile to argue whether the hypothetical COULD occur, because I presented it as a hypothetical which still stands. WHAT IF that's the only job she can get? She is then FORCED to choose between health and food.

The argument that many waitstaff and musicians are also smokers is also irrelevent. Of course there are, but there are just as many if not more, who are NOT smokers. Of all the singers I've known, taught and worked with, very few actually smoke. Not suprising because to be a good singer, you are actually a GOOD BREATHER. More and more we see health conscious professional musicians who keep trim, work out, don't smoke and remain drug free. The old stereotype is just that. An OLD stereotype.

Before the ban in Sydney there was a top 40 singer, Jenny Morris, who banned smoking at her live shows. You couldn't light up at her concerts.

Thankfully performers don't have to make that call if they want to be able to sing at their peak.

If a waiter or musician is a smoker, then they like pretty much every other workforce that doesn't allow smoking in the workplace, will have to take it outside.

Small price to pay.

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?

Compared to lung cancer is that such a bad deal? What about smoking before you going in and after you leave? How do you think people that take a flight to Sydney deal with not smoking for the eight hours they're in Aussie airspace? How do workers who have to go outside for the cigarette break deal with all that? Two minutes in the cold to save a life?

It's the old "convenience vs health" issue again. People will not spend a little bit more to buy a cage free/free range egg, so why would we expect them to put themselves out to keep others healthy?

I know smokers that smoke outside of their own home Cerek. They won't smoke inside at all. What's the big deal?

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.

Cerek, that is how a representative democracy works. the emphasis on "representative". It is still "the will of the people" who are ALSO voting with their dollars. Where are the mass protests in NYC at this dictatorship? Where are the strikes by the hotel and entertainment unions at this move that will put us all out of work?

It's not going to happen, just like it didn't happen in Sydney when we banned smoking in bars/restraunts. It's a big hoohar over nothing.

[qb] 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.

As I mentioned that is not what happened in Sydney. There are precedents. It works and leads to a healthier environment. I've been in NYC resteraunts where I've watched my waitstaff friends ask a smoker to take it outside. No big deal. They're back in two minutes later. Again - factual precedents, not hypotheticals based on fear of the unknown.

[ 05-13-2003, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]