New York and smoking

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: It's about POLICY all-in-all. It is about the right of people in village X to tell their neighbors what they can and can't do.

Isn't that what you're doing?

Why should neighbouring states be able to tell another state what they can and can't do, if a smaller group within that state can't tell others what to do.

Isn't that what a law is? Some telling others what they can and can't do?

I fail to see how you, as an out of state lawyer have this problem? Why have laws at all?

It is now illegal to smoke at all in an airplane in Australian airspace. Are you, an American suggesting Australia doesn't have the right to make laws governing it's country?

Let's wait for the cultural imperialism to shine forth shall we. [/QUOTE]ARRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH -- can you take it back over to the other board, at least? One circular discussion at a time is enough. A repetitive circular discussion is simply too much to ask.

Your post tried to direct the argument toward the fact that it is a NY law -- and I'm pointing out that has no business here. Otherwise, IWF's members, from many diverse places, each governed by different sovereigns, have no business discussing issues. It's a simple point really. I discuss the NOTION of a smoking ban with someone from England because the POLICY ISSUE is very similar, whether or not I have a right to affect their laws. My point was about the NATURE OF THE TOPIC, yours delved back into the SUBSTANCE of that topic. We've already got one mammoth location for that substantial debate.

But I won't post here again. I'll gladly argue with you over on the other thread.

[ 05-13-2003, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: It's about POLICY all-in-all. It is about the right of people in village X to tell their neighbors what they can and can't do.

Isn't that what you're doing?

Why should neighbouring states be able to tell another state what they can and can't do, if a smaller group within that state can't tell others what to do.

Isn't that what a law is? Some telling others what they can and can't do?

I fail to see how you, as an out of state lawyer have this problem? Why have laws at all?

It is now illegal to smoke at all in an airplane in Australian airspace. Are you, an American suggesting Australia doesn't have the right to make laws governing it's country?

Let's wait for the cultural imperialism to shine forth shall we. [/QUOTE]ARRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH -- can you take it back over to the other board, at least? One circular discussion at a time is enough. A repetitive circular discussion is simply too much to ask.

Your post tried to direct the argument toward the fact that it is a NY law -- and I'm pointing out that has no business here. Otherwise, IWF's members, from many diverse places, each governed by different sovereigns, have no business discussing issues. It's a simple point really. I discuss the NOTION of a smoking ban with someone from England because the POLICY ISSUE is very similar, whether or not I have a right to affect their laws. My point was about the NATURE OF THE TOPIC, yours delved back into the SUBSTANCE of that topic. We've already got one mammoth location for that substantial debate.

But I won't post here again. I'll gladly argue with you over on the other thread. [/QUOTE]But this thread is about this very issue. People from another area applying their values and concerns to a different area. The concerns of New York City are very different from those of Las Vegas.

One boneheaded reply was "move to where the jobs are". New York is a gravitational centre. For some students, moving is simply not an option.

In any case the comeback could be "move to a place that has legal barsmoking". It doesn't get us anywhere.

Manhattan in particular is unlike anywhere else in America. A policy that works in New Orleans is not going to necessarily work here.

When Giulinani introduced a zero tolerance policy for crime, I'm sure you guys would have been crying over the loss of civil liberties, afraid that your town was next. Yet New York had a far worse crime rate. Giulianis policy cleaned up New York incredibly. Heavy crims were caught doing misdemeanors.

A similar thing has happened with Bloombergs recent crackdown on noise in the city. Drug crims and other felons have been caught when the cops have gone in for noise violations. Where are the libertarians? Noise issue are of far greater concern in a city of apartments than a city of houses.

You're correct about New Yorks quality of life. There are so many health issues for Mr/Ms Average. Why get so high strung about an attempted solution to providing people with a better quality of life.

There is also the argument that making smoking inconvenient encourages people to quit that which they are addicted to.

On and on the rant is about CHOICE, yet the reality that those addicted to tobacco do not have a choice. I have a number of friends who simply cannot get off cigarettes. It brings them great distress. Breaking the habit is extremely difficult in our city, given the lifestyle and prevalence of smoke.

If you don't do cafes and bars in Manhattan you don't have a life. For someone trying to quit it's exeptionally difficult, because to be smoke free involves a total life rearrangement, switch of careers and zero entertainment/social life.

Clearly this would not be an issue in Atlanta for example, where the lifestyle is so different.

That is my point in this thread.

Let's not be applying universal values globally. New York has it's localised issues. This is an attempted solution to one of them. It doesn't mean the Nazis are here.

[ 05-13-2003, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Reeka]

You should have had a "non-smoker not living in New York" [img]smile.gif[/img]