Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the not-so-Barbaric:
Yes, Yorick, I saw your other thread and your response in it.
"If you don't live in NYC, you don't have any business debating this issue since it doesn't affect you".
I recall that you did not appreciate having that same logic applied to you by Magik when you wanted to "debate" certain Constitutional rights - even though they don't apply to you because you aren't an American citizen.
Your response then was to say something along the lines of "So, since I'm not part of the group affected - I'm not allowed to discuss it?" You then reminded him that IW was an international forum and that members should not be restricted to participating only in those threads that directly affected them.
Yet now you are advocating the same thing.
|
Cerek it's not the same situation at all.
I was living in America, arguing about American concerns that affected all America. It was a
national issue, that actually also had
international ramifications.
My point is that this is a localised issue, problem and solution. It is not affecting Alabama. Argue away, but argue around the concerns, needs and lifestyle New York faces, because the ban was made in New York.
As I stated, if you don't do cafes/bars etc. in Manhattan, you don't have a life. That's the whole point of it. The music, the food, the the drinks after the theatre. If you're a student, unskilled or new to New York, odds are you'll get a job in a bar or restraunt. Either as a host, bartender, foodserver, waiter whatever. The industry supports a huge number of people. If you refuse to work in a smokey environment, there are hundreds of others who'll grab your job. The industry up 'til now has not been required to provide a smoke-free workplace, so waitstaff have had no ability to request such.
No bar owner would take the risk of setting up a smoke free bar, when he'd lose 40% of his clients straight up who'd stay away. The business is very very competitive and fickle here. Bar owners when setting up, will take all the custom they can.
So having a citywide law, means bar owners can enforce the ban without fearing the place next to them will take all the (pissed off) smokers.
Clearly the issues of Civil liberty are different in New York. It is pointless arguing over an issue in Missouri as though it's the same as New York.
I pointed out the zero tolerance policy from Giuliani. Destruction of civil liberty? People were arrested and jailed for pissing in the street, getting on the subway without a fare. Yet the guy is the most popular mayor in New York ever. He cleaned up the City incredibly. He enacted the will of the people who were fed up with the extreme crime level of New York.
Bloomberg is doing the same thing with noise. (Ironically Timber you brought up noise) By having a lower tolerance, clamping down on smaller infractions of the law, they've been getting bigger criminals. In the concrete jungle, that is no mean feat.
Car/truck inspections at the midtown tunnel still take place. We put up with identity checks to get from one street to another. Some buildings even now you cannot get into without I.D. I routinely see machinegun-armed soldiers patroling the subways. Drivers licences are harder to get, cars are harder to own, gun-ownership is practically illegal. Some road rules are different even from Jersey or Nassau county, or Connecticut. No "right on red"
It's a different city to the rest of America.
Our air is crap. The air in D.U.M.B.O. in Brooklyn particularly crap. The city is polluted period.
Giving the New York food and entertainment industry workers THE SAME HEALTH PROTECTION GIVEN TO EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY is what this is all about.
So argue away if you must, but argue it on a localised level. Argue it against the needs and concerns of New Yorkers, who as I said are not protesting this dictatorship. We are not marching in the streets, boycotting cafes and bars. It is a REPRESENTATIVE democracy at work. The local law has changed. Live with it.
[ 05-14-2003, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]