Timber's smoking thread, Part III

[Memnoch]

Here's the new thread. The old thread is here, last page of the last thread is here.

[Timber Loftis]

Thanks, Memnoch.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Yorick: All I'll say on this are two things. Choice seems to be a selective word used by critics of the smoking ban. It's not a government, but smokers that force nonsmokers into either breathing their tobacco, or changing their lifestyle because of smokers. Suddenly the shoe is on the other foot and it's not fair? Smokers have been trampling all over the civil liberties of nonsmokers for decades. How is the democraticaly elected government suddenly elevated into the bad guy? Life, liberty and happiness? Smokers have been taking these things from nonsmokers all along! Secondly, if you're championing choice and freedoms and rights, champion states and cities rights. As I stated in the other thread, this is a localised response to a localised problem within a localised lifestyle. New York is not Savannah, Georgia. It has different issues, problems and solutions. Civil liberties in New York have been curtailed before because of the extreme problems our city has faced. With the blessing of the populace. If you are advocating choice, then allow the majority of New Yorkers to excercise their demcratic right, and create laws which will benefit the majority of New Yorkers, given the unique situations our city faces each day.

But, Yorick, you are turning right around - using the flip side of the coin, to gang up on smokers and remove their choice. Most of the people advocating smokers freedoms here are not smokers themselves. They just don't want laws stating what kinds of recreation one group can have over another.

Yes I advocate a locality's right to govern itself. NYC has different problems from even say - Bayonne. But, my question: was there really an uprising cry from 9-8 million New Yorkers to ban smoking in all restuants and bars? Or was it imposed on them by a vocal minority? By exapmles you cite (nigh impossible to find a smoke free cafe) it sounds more like it was imposed. But - like I said, that is an issue for New Yorkers to decide.

I think this whole debate has spun into should they need to make that decision? Timber posted an execellent compromise that doesn't impose one groups will over another - thereby liberty of choice preserved.


[SIDE NOTE]
[img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] Over 19 pages on this topic?!?! [img]graemlins/crazyeyes.gif[/img] I'm getting dizzy!

[ 05-14-2003, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[Yorick]

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 ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: But, Yorick, you are turning right around - using the flip side of the coin, to gang up on smokers and remove their choice.

Because the smokers choice directly affects the health, life and longevity of the nonsmoker. If one's choice is inflicted on another, the least detrimental must prevail.

This way we are all equal. We all breathe the same clean(er) air in a bar. The other way, you could have 19 people, and becaue of one persons choice, the other 18 will be breathing in his tobacco.

[Yorick]

The post on localisation I was referring to is here

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Night Stalker: But, Yorick, you are turning right around - using the flip side of the coin, to gang up on smokers and remove their choice.

Because the smokers choice directly affects the health, life and longevity of the nonsmoker. If one's choice is inflicted on another, the least detrimental must prevail.

This way we are all equal. We all breathe the same clean(er) air in a bar. The other way, you could have 19 people, and becaue of one persons choice, the other 18 will be breathing in his tobacco. [/QUOTE]No, this makes some more equal than others. A compormise like Timber's - 20% zoned smoking, 20% zoned non-smoking, and the rest up to the owners - makes everyone equal.

I will not however argue against the right of a locality to govern itself. But the situation in NYC does affect more than just NYC. Chicago is in a very similar situation, and whatever NYC does directly affects NJ as NJ is a real life Tale of Two Cities.

You are advocating peoples health. So am I. There should be non-smoking entertainment areas. But I don't think all should be made non-smoking. People should be given a true choice, rather than given the option of being subclass citizens (whether smoker or non-smoker).

I strangely feel like quoting Neil Pert at the moment ....

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Night Stalker: But, Yorick, you are turning right around - using the flip side of the coin, to gang up on smokers and remove their choice.

Because the smokers choice directly affects the health, life and longevity of the nonsmoker. If one's choice is inflicted on another, the least detrimental must prevail.

This way we are all equal. We all breathe the same clean(er) air in a bar. The other way, you could have 19 people, and becaue of one persons choice, the other 18 will be breathing in his tobacco. [/QUOTE]No, this makes some more equal than others. A compormise like Timber's - 20% zoned smoking, 20% zoned non-smoking, and the rest up to the owners - makes everyone equal.

I will not however argue against the right of a locality to govern itself. But the situation in NYC does affect more than just NYC. Chicago is in a very similar situation, and whatever NYC does directly affects NJ as NJ is a real life Tale of Two Cities.

You are advocating peoples health. So am I. There should be non-smoking entertainment areas. But I don't think all should be made non-smoking. People should be given a true choice, rather than given the option of being subclass citizens (whether smoker or non-smoker).

I strangely feel like quoting Neil Pert at the moment .... [/QUOTE]The issue is the WORKERS mate. Someone still has to go into the smokers area. Waiters who refused would be less employable (and earn less money) than ones that would. Which is inequality.

This is about protecting the workforce.

[Yorick]

Also, many bars and cafes in New York are so small, having two, let alone three areas is untenable. Making it law that you had to have two areas would put many bars out of business. Again, a local issue and problem. Space is harder to come by here.

[Timber Loftis]

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.

Yeah, and ironically you forgot how I obviated your comparrison, Yorick. Noise pollution is measured at the property line. So long as a bar owner can prevent the noise from bothering his neighbors (via soundproof walls or what have you) he can crank up 130db Concert Speakers -- which hurt the ears A LOT, according to the EPA and according to my personal experience. So, as with smoke (in most places), he can allow patrons and others (musicians) to set up a harmful environment inside his establishment -- whereby you make a choice to enter that environment or not.

Oh, and you keep bringing up Giuliani. Please don't. I don't want to derail this thread by attacking his methods of clamp-down, which were heavily racially biased and ended up in more than a few cases of unarmed minority folks being laid to rest with 20 or more police service bullet holes in their bodies. I got NYC local news during 1998-2000, so I saw it daily. As I said, let's just let this possible contentious aside debate drop. I'm not saying you don't have a point that NYC has concerns other places don't (but some do, like Chicago or London). Anyway, please just let it slide.