Timber's smoking thread, Part III

[Night Stalker]

Not disagreeing with you there, mate. But just as surely as not all waitstaff and patrons are smokers, not all waitstaff and patrons are non smokers. By having a % of establishments mandated as either smoking or non, market forces are then stimulated. The remaing % will gravitate to whichever holds dominence without eliminating the other group. There by creating evironments for both the workers and the patrons that suits everyones needs. This creates an opertunity for that hypothetical single non-smoking mother to work in a smoke free environment if she chooses, and leaves the bar owner to set up Smokey's if s/he wants.

By creating a new market dynamic, market forces will then drive the needs of the people (waitstaff and patron). Creating a ban only limits, it doesn't stimulate.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by 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.

Yes, this is true from my experience. However, must you have every single frikkin space as your own? Can't I even have 1 in 5 bars that cater to my tastes? Alcohol is no good without cigarettes, IMO. You want me to stand outside? I'd be there 50% of my time at the bar.

Look, can't I have at least SOME place to enjoy life my way. I only want a 20% cut of it. If you can't agree to let me have that, I will feel free and justified to drag the Nazi and fascism references back out.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by 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.

Not talking about sectioning off certain area in the establishment. I'm talking the whole place.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Yorick: 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.

I know it isn't the same, Yorick...because this time YOU are the one telling OTHERS they can't complain about a law that doesn't directly affect them. Then again, Timber might have to visit NYC on business and decide to go have a drink, which means that he would be affected by the law - at least temporarilty. Perhaps he could apply for a "restricted discussion license" on this topic.

OK - enough sarcastic wit. The point is that there is NO difference in the position you took telling others they shouldn't discuss the issue unless they are directly affected by the law and the position Magik took when he told you the same thing. You were quite offended by his remarks, IIRC.

AFA as the scope of the two specific issues - you are correct again that they are not the same. You began a discussion on gun control and basically suggested we should repeal the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. This is the document on which EVERY SINGLE LAW in this country is founded - yet you felt you had a right to question it, even though you are not a citizen of this country.

But now you are saying that same rule of free discussion does NOT apply to anyone living outside of NYC because the law only affects the NYC area.

Well, to put it nicely, you are totally and completely wrong. The law DOES have national ramifications because other large cities might very well use it as a precedent to enact their own restrictive laws on smokers rights. So far, this decision has been left up to individual businesses - and you know what, Yorick - MANY of these businesses chose to be "Smoke Free" without a government mandate. Several restaurants here in North Carolina (you know, the HOME of Tobacco Road) are entirely smoke free....not because they HAD to, but because they CHOSE to based on their customers desires.

You say the bars in NYC wouldn't change on their own because they were afraid they would lose business...which means that most of their customers WANT to have a choice to smoke inside. That doesn't sound like "the will of the people" to me. It sounds like "the will of the minority as enacted by Bloomberg". As I said before, we will see what happens when he is up for re-election.

Also, the other precedent this law sets is for the rights of smokers to be restricted even further, until smoking is completely banned ANYWHERE other than an individual's domicile or car. You think I'm exaggerating, I assure you I am not.

Most malls are now "Smoke Free". This means that smokers must stand outside one of several entrances to have a smoke. The irony is that this has actually produced a more concentrated area of cigarette smoke that CANNOT be avoided by non-smokers who want to enter the mall. At least before, the smokers were widely dispersed within the mall and could be avoided rather easily.

So what solution is being proposed for this short-sighted policy? A total BAN on ANY smoking on the premises of the mall. Smokers will have to leave their cigarettes in the car. I realize you don't consider that to be a big inconvenience since they could always walk out to their car if they want a smoke. Of course, the fact that it might be pouring down the rain, or snowing, or below freezing outside is just T.D.B. - that's the price these inconsiderate smokers should have thought of before becoming pitiful addicts to nicotine.

Ironically enough, I would actually SUPPORT the mall's right to make that decision...since it IS their property, after all. I'm just trying to point out that the law in NYC very well COULD have ramifications across the country.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: 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.

I know it isn't the same, Yorick...because this time YOU are the one telling OTHERS they can't complain about a law that doesn't directly affect them. Then again, Timber might have to visit NYC on business and decide to go have a drink, which means that he would be affected by the law - at least temporarilty. Perhaps he could apply for a "restricted discussion license" on this topic.

OK - enough sarcastic wit. The point is that there is NO difference in the position you took telling others they shouldn't discuss the issue unless they are directly affected by the law and the position Magik took when he told you the same thing. You were quite offended by his remarks, IIRC.

Well, to put it nicely, you are totally and completely wrong. The law DOES have national ramifications because other large cities might very well use it as a precedent to enact their own restrictive laws on smokers rights. So far, this decision has been left up to individual businesses - and you know what, Yorick - MANY of these businesses chose to be "Smoke Free" without a government mandate. Several restaurants here in North Carolina (you know, the HOME of Tobacco Road) are entirely smoke free....not because they HAD to, but because they CHOSE to based on their customers desires.

You say the bars in NYC wouldn't change on their own because they were afraid they would lose business...which means that most of their customers WANT to have a choice to smoke inside. That doesn't sound like "the will of the people" to me. It sounds like "the will of the minority as enacted by Bloomberg". As I said before, we will see what happens when he is up for re-election.
Ironically enough, I would actually SUPPORT the mall's right to make that decision...since it IS their property, after all. I'm just trying to point out that the law in NYC very well COULD have ramifications across the country. [/QUOTE]Cerek, firstly as I said, I was in America directly affected by the policies I was contending.

Secondly, I was arguing that the ban should be argued for what it is, a ban in New York. Discuss the local issues, not the issues of Alabama. I wasn't arguing why those American policies shouldn't be enacted in Botswana.

As far as setting precedents, Sydney has already done that. Sydney enacted the ban over five years ago. So really you should be arguing the dictatorship of Australia and the supression of human rights. Imagine! Forcing it's citizens to be healthy! What will they think of next!

Do you argue against immunisation Cerek? Immunisation of infants who scream they don't want a needle?

Off topic I know, but the simple thing you're ignoring is that a counter measure is needed. Smokers are ADDICTED. In many there is no CHOICE to smoke, it is a dependent need. It is not a choice they are making of their own volition, but under the influence of a drug.

Many smokers simply cannot make the choice not to smoke, thanks to the tobacco companies. The smokers are the victims.

Now, whether the Carolinas do something or not is beside the point. This is New York. Higher risk higher gain. Property rental is through the roof. A new cafe owner/renter could not afford to cut out half their custom while they built up a nonsmoking clientelle. Getting businesses to do that in the financially cutthroat city we have would be to great a risk to take.

We also have rent control. Now, some are arguing that's actually the reason we have a real estate crisis, because it was a law passed as a result of a need that's now passed, but the precedent remains, where controlling the market was the only solution around a citywide problem.

[ 05-14-2003, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by 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.

Yes, this is true from my experience. However, must you have every single frikkin space as your own? Can't I even have 1 in 5 bars that cater to my tastes? Alcohol is no good without cigarettes, IMO. You want me to stand outside? I'd be there 50% of my time at the bar.

Look, can't I have at least SOME place to enjoy life my way. I only want a 20% cut of it. If you can't agree to let me have that, I will feel free and justified to drag the Nazi and fascism references back out. [/QUOTE]Smoke and drink at home. Have a private party, just don't employ any waitstaff and you'll be fine.

As to your "Alcohol is no good without cigarettes" OH COME ON!! Is that what this is about? You getting to have a little cig with your drink while you kill the bartender!! Timber!

I can personally attest that alcohol is a wonderful thing without tobacco. So is coffee. You don't need cigarettes to enjoy either! Especially not if it's killing the girl giving you the drink.

I might have missed soemthing Yorick...but how come people who do not like working in a smokey environment are..ummm working in a smokey envrionment...re-that bartender you just tossed at TL...? If they don't like smoke, Im pretty sure they are not indentured servants or slaves....Unless Im way off on my idea of what NYC is like....

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: [b]Off topic I know, but the simple thing you're ignoring is that a counter measure is needed. Smokers are ADDICTED. In many there is no CHOICE to smoke, it is a dependent need. It is not a choice they are making of their own volition, but under the influence of a drug.

For me, it is a choice, so your ban is not universally applicable. Besides, I've not wanted to crack open this egg, but I've seen a lot of research on addictions lately, and it is simply a choice. Addiction is a word created to explain away why some people are too weak-willed to limit their behavior today for a benefit tomorrow. Some are addicted to cigarettes, some to food, some to sitting on the couch.

It is a socially-destructive notion that came about to describe some extremely habit-forming substances. However, because it removes responsibility from the "addicted" person, it has the destructive purpose of giving them an EXCUSE to not change. In short, with the notion of addiction present in society, the "addict" is less likely to change than they would be if we all derided them for their addiction and acted like it's their fault. And, it IS their fault. It is not the inability to make a choice, but rather the presence of too much laziness and/or selfishness to make a tough choice and stick to it.

Barring this, however, your argument would only work if 100% of smokers were addicts who wanted to stop. Many, like me, go to bars to drink and smoke, and do not do it elsewhere.

Oh, and you have not yet answered my request for a measley 20%.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: As to your "Alcohol is no good without cigarettes" OH COME ON!! Is that what this is about? You getting to have a little cig with your drink while you kill the bartender!! Timber! I can personally attest that alcohol is a wonderful thing without tobacco. So is coffee. You don't need cigarettes to enjoy either! Especially not if it's killing the girl giving you the drink.

Again, how you enjoy alcohol is your OPINION, and you should not force it on me. Like assholes, everyone's opinion is different, and - as this thread has proven true - no one likes to take a real good look at the other fella's.

You know, I have tried to reach compromise here, and to understand your point of view. While I have admitted I don't want to force pollution into your lungs, you have refused to do anything other that force my behavior to fit your notion of what it should be. You need to get over your gnaw-bone on this issue and at least SEE if there is a way we can both keep our liberty intact.

Or, is your liberty the only one that matters? Seems so.

[Night Stalker]

You keep assuming that the waitstaff doesn't smoke Yorick, or cares if other people do. What if that person does smoke or doesn't care if others do? As long as there are venues for a smoke free environment, I don't see how the health concern for non-smokers is ignored. Leaving the option for smoker friendly establishments open.