Smoking Ban part 2, original by Timber Loftis

[WillowIX]

How about this? Compel cigarette manufacturers to produce serious filters that would filter out the toxic substances. A little research and a lot of money, which they already have, could perhaps make the situation better. Sounds like the most ideal thing to me. Voila, smokeless cigarettes. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Ummm.... doesn't that defeat the purpose, Willow, which is to deliver a drug into your system. Plus, the particular recipe is enjoyed by many. While Marlboro additives give me a headache which went away when I switched to Winstons, many folks obviously enjoy that brand more than others. To some, apparently, formaldehyde and cyanide taste good.

[ 05-13-2003, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: cheers to ya Yorick

Cheers to you to G'kar. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Ummm.... doesn't that defeat the purpose, Willow, which is to deliver a drug into your system. Plus, the particular recipe is enjoyed by many. While Marlboro additives give me a headache which went away when I switched to Winstons, many folks obviously enjoy that brand more than others. To some, apparently, formaldehyde and cyanide taste good.

Think about it for a moment. Remove some of the more useless substances which are in there for the sole purpose of making cigarettes more addictive. Of course cigarettes may end up looking like water pipes but you have to make some sacrifises. The point is, it would probably be possible to create a filter that allows nicotine to pass through.

[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 ]

[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 ]

[Animal]

Now if this isn't a candidate for the Weekly Circular Discussion award, I don't know what is. [img]smile.gif[/img]

It appears that the majority of non smokers aren't in favour of legislation to prohibit smoking, myself included. Personally, I think anti smoking laws would only serve to create a scenario very similiar to Prohibition, it just plain wouldn't work.

Now, I think we're all aware of the damage and ill effects caused by smoking and second hand tobacco smoke alike, so I'd like to pose a hypothetical question to all you smokers. Suppose we are sitting in a bar having a drink or two. It doesn't matter whether the bar is smoke free or not. Knowing that I am a non-smoker, would you have enough respect for me as such, to not light up in my presence?

[johnny]

If it bothers you THAT much, yes, i would.

[Animal]

Originally posted by johnny: If it bothers you THAT much, yes, i would.

Thanks Johnny! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Now having said that, if I'm fully aware that we are going to a bar, and that people smoke in said bar, then it's my decision to go and my decision to subject myself to second hand smoke. I have that choice.

The real problem is where people don't have a choice in the matter, such as the workplace or so-called public places. I think basically it boils down to the individual smoker recognizing the harmful effects caused by tobacco smoke and second hand smoke to be responsible about the choices they make, and how those choices effect others.

I have a couple of friends who smoke, but when we go out they don't smoke around the rest of us who don't, they step outside even though there may be others who are smoking in the same bar. I know it's far fetched and will never happen but it's the only real solution to the problem.

[Thorfinn]

Well, Yorick certainly you are not the only one who can pose hypotheticals. What if the waitress you are championing wants to work in the nude? Or wants all the customers she serves to be nude? Or gay? Or bald? How are you going to draw the line to allow some hypotheticals, but no others? Why do we have to respect her "right" to force an employer to change his estabishment to accomodate one hypothetical, yet not another?

Secondly since you seem to think you have an airtight case making smokers leave their own property for two minutes to smoke, how about if I make the case that you have to spend 2 minutes cleaning your bathroom every 20 minutes? That is not to big an inconvenience, is it? Well, is it? Don't change the topic, answer the question! How hard is it for you to spend just two minutes cleaning your bathroom? Don't make a straw man! Answer the question!