Smoking Ban part 2, original by Timber Loftis

[Thorfinn]

Timber, I would be more comfortable with instead of "outside" you said "on public property". That at least leaves the owner capable of doing things outside his building, but on his property, where I don't believe others have any right to boss him around anyway. This also leaves the way clear for me to try to force others to do things my way on public property. I can try to force an initiative for not allowing sobriety on public property. Or forcing everyone to carry around a jar of Vlasic pickles everytime they are on public property, and fling little pickles up into the air. Or something equally inane...

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by 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!

Thorfinn, your posts are starting to border on baiting- by which I mean dragging up outrageous options to toss at your debating opponents for effect. Whether or not you intend to fuel flames it may incite them. Particularly at this late point in the whole discussion, when many people have voiced their opinions and may be frustrated at the opposite side of the debate.

So far this discussion has been pretty good, so let's not derail it now- if you've all had your say and feel you've started going in circles or rehashing things so much you need to get personal or throw out incendiary comments, let the thread fall.

[ 05-13-2003, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

[Animal]

Originally posted by 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!

The difference lies in the obvious health issues attatched to smoking.

[Thorfinn]

Fine. Bye.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Yorick: 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.

OK, I'll give this a shot...even though you seem to change the rules slightly as we go along. First, it was "what if waitstaff is the only job she can get". This still leaves several businesses that would need her services. Now we are limiting that to one particular establishment in NYC. Not exactly realistic, but what the heck - I'll run with it.

IF this is the ONLY waitress job available in NYC AND the restaurant allows patrons to smoke inside - then YES, she WILL have to choose between exposure to second-hand smoke and feeding her children. Any parent will tell you this is NOT a hard choice. The health risks presented by second-hand smoke are minor compared to the risk of your children going hungry. Actually the health risks from second hand smoke are minor in comparison to the fallen arches, swollen knees, shin splints, twisted ankles, and arthritis she is likely to suffer from her waitress duties - not to mention the burns from spilled coffee or hot pasta dishes.

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: 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. 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?[/QUOTE]No it isn't, Yorick. So show me a case study of a non-smoker that died of lung cancer because they liked to frequent bars and restaurants that allowed smoking. Even the example presented by Bardan can not meet that standard. The reporter's job exposed him to significant amounts of second hand smoke for long periods of time - and it still took many years for the cancer to form.

Willow basically said the same thing...that it can take a tumor over 30 years to form. I don't know many women who wait tables for 30 years. Even if she did, her children will now be grown and able to feed themselves, allowing her the freedom to seek other jobs.

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

The "big deal" my friend is that it is their CHOICE to do so. They are not FORCED to do it by the government. The individual is allowed to decide for themselves!!!!

Rokenn was correct when he said that the case of the NY Mall vs the T-shirt was an issue concerning the First Amendent rights of the patron in question. He was incorrect when he said the ban on smoking was entirely different.

The Preamble of the Constitution garuantees EVERY American the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The smoking ban restricts two of these three rights.....the right to liberty {freedom from excessive gov't restrictions} and the pursuit of happiness {enjoying a cigarette after a meal or with their drink}. The smoker themselves are restricting their right to life...but it is their choice to do so.

Privately owned businesses should have the freedom to choose whether a legal activity is allowed to occur inside their establishment or if it will be banned within the confines of their walls. If they choose to allow smoking inside, then the individual (smoker and non-smoker alike) should be allowed to chose whether he indulges his pleasure and "lights up", or waits until he leaves the bar before having a cigarette.

In either case, the choice of policy is left to the business owner and the choice of compliance is left (primarily) with the individual patron. THAT is truly "equality for everyone".

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: The "big deal" my friend is that it is their CHOICE to do so. They are not FORCED to do it by the government. The individual is allowed to decide for themselves!!!! Rokenn was correct when he said that the case of the NY Mall vs the T-shirt was an issue concerning the First Amendent rights of the patron in question. He was incorrect when he said the ban on smoking was entirely different. The Preamble of the Constitution garuantees EVERY American the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The smoking ban restricts two of these three rights.....the right to liberty {freedom from excessive gov't restrictions} and the pursuit of happiness {enjoying a cigarette after a meal or with their drink}. The smoker themselves are restricting their right to life...but it is their choice to do so. Privately owned businesses should have the freedom to choose whether a legal activity is allowed to occur inside their establishment or if it will be banned within the confines of their walls. If they choose to allow smoking inside, then the individual (smoker and non-smoker alike) should be allowed to chose whether he indulges his pleasure and "lights up", or waits until he leaves the bar before having a cigarette. In either case, the choice of policy is left to the business owner and the choice of compliance is left (primarily) with the individual patron. THAT is truly "equality for everyone".

Cerek, I made a post in the "Smokers and New York" poll I made that applies to this argument.

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.

Only tonight I spoke to yet another waiter who is relieved the law was passed. Waiters were one of the only workers not protected by a smoke free environment, and now that's changed thank goodness.

The liberties of nonsmokers in New York have now been guaranteed by New Yorkers.

If and when your town and state debate the issue, take it up with the policy makers then.

[ 05-14-2003, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Cerek the 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.

I'm not argueing the smoking issues here..I had my final say a while ago...but I did want to point out an inconsistancy...Yorick claims bars have gained 3% in revenue since the smoking ban...Yesterday on the radio news, the economic figures for NYC stated that there has been a marked down turn in the revenues generated by those same bars and establishments that used to be for smokers. I don't know wether Yorick's figures are corret or the news stations are correct..I ahve sources for the data from neither party. So Im asking, Yorick can you tell me where you got your +3% number? Im attempting right now to track down where ABC news got theirs...I will post the stats when I find them.

Originally posted by Cerek the 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.

Yo! Cerek Dude!!! You have a seriously long memory [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: Timber, I would be more comfortable with instead of "outside" you said "on public property". That at least leaves the owner capable of doing things outside his building, but on his property, where I don't believe others have any right to boss him around anyway. This also leaves the way clear for me to try to force others to do things my way on public property. I can try to force an initiative for not allowing sobriety on public property. Or forcing everyone to carry around a jar of Vlasic pickles everytime they are on public property, and fling little pickles up into the air. Or something equally inane...

I guess I really meant "on public property," Thorfinn (if you're still around to read this). This would allow non-smokers to avoid the annoying smokers on the street, and we could provide that the city must have at least 20% smoking and 20% non-smoking bars under the building code (thus providing for at least 1 in 5 bars for either camp at any point in time, and giving the middle 60% as a big leeway to let the market work out the balance).

As for the Vlasics, yes, you could try to force that initiative. As with all public property issues, it would depend on what you could convince your fellow citizens and city council members to support. I think Vlasics would be a quick loser, but sure go ahead and try.

[edit]
And, Yorick, I ONLY buy free range eggs.

[ 05-14-2003, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]