i hate the smoking ban it completely bans me from smoking outside I HATE IT i hate it i hate it i HATE it

The point I want to make is this. a major reason why the the smoking ban in NYC's bars and restaurants is inappopriate: it's now encouraging the prohibitionists to come out of the closet. By this I mean those anti-smoking activists and health officials who want to impose and 18th Amendment like law on virtually all tobacco products in all 50 states (including New York AND New Jersey), making its very possession a crime punishable by jail. I personally doubt that they will stop with smoking bans in bars and restaurants. It's only a matter of time before they try to impose bans on all private places, cars, backyards, and yes, private homes, in the name of preventing secondhand smoke. I've already heard of proposals in California to ticket drivers caught smoking, especially with children in their back seats. This Orwellian trend has to stop before it leads to another Drug War.

Man, I hope they also allow people to drink and then go driving soon!

I mean, it's my private car, and it's my body... so what if some people get drunk and then crash their cars into a bunch of people? I don't! Talk about heavy handed moralizing!

I mean, with the whole drinking-while-driving-ban, New York has become total dullsville!

Puhhleeeeze Mr. Mayor! You are managing (single- handedly) to turn NY into dullsville. The energy is quickly disappearing, that creative edge, that attitude, that electricity... The smoking ban is a big part of it--doesn't everyone have at least one friend or relative who smokes--a lot of people smoke--it's still legal--people have been enjoying tobacco for hundreds of years, all over the world--America was built on tobacco--some of the most creative endeavors ever achieved were helped along with a cigarette or a good cigar. Most smokers are oh so considerate---it's not fair that they have no where to go to relax. Though I don't smoke, my best friend does and we stopped going out. It's a drag, but we do have fun in private apartments (ironic...being a non-smoker, I wind up having more smoke around me after the ban) Why can't there be a few places that smokers can frequent--why is the ban so extreme? Hello compromise. Rock on Fran Liebowitz, Joe Jackson, Steve Dunlevy, and all those other smokers (and non-smokers) who are not taking this dopey ruling without a fight. Alex

I have thought. I can choose to be sick for 2 days or I can choose to not have a fun night out with my friends. What a grand choice. How lucky I am that I developed asthma! I have these wonderful set of choices because of the addiction of others! GO ME!

Thanks for allowing your addiction rule your compassion yet again. Thank you for making life for myself and others miserable by standing in doorways because your addiction is so bad that it blinds you to the fact that others need to walk through those doorways. Smoking is nothing more then an addiction. Breathing is a necessity. Yet I'm the bad guy.

Whatever. *rolls eyes*

Silly girl. Your "rights" that are taken away are not due to smokers, but to your asthma. Establishing a LAW to ban people who have asthma from bars, that would be taking away your right. Clearly you CAN go to the bar, but you choose not to due to your asthma. I hope you can see a difference.

Think.

I wish that they'd ban smoking in bars where I am so that I can finally go out. See, I have asthma that is triggered by cigarette smoke. I take a daily medication and use an inhaler when the pollen is high and then I have a rescue inhaler. If I go out I end up feeling ill for two days later and require the 2nd medication to get over the effect of the smoke. There are no clubs that are smoke free, so people like myself have resigned ourselves to going out to dinner and movies, and never get to go dancing. Basically, every damn smoker out there has infringed on my right to go dancing. Sure, I can dance at home, but I enjoy the lighting of clubs and the fact that the clubs have great sound systems and usually play a mix of music. But I don't count see, my rights mean jack shit because I don't line the pockets of big tobacco. Never mind that I didn't choose to have this affliction. Never mind that sometimes I can't go see some of my favorite bands because it may literally mean the death of me. Never mind that your right to spew toxic fumes into the air infringes on my right to breathe. To all of you who smoke, and especially you assholes who hover around doors, a mighty big FUCK YOU.

I think was unclear when I said "general benefit." I didn’t mean of society, I meant of the specific class of workers. I meant that an individual worker’s (or industry patron's) not caring about the smoke shouldn’t affect implementation of a law that provides all workers in an industry with safer/healthier working conditions.

I don’t think my support of, for instance, a law that protects factory workers from toxic chemicals also means I’m in support of laws that regulate what you can eat, listen to, what you watch on TV. The implication is absurd. And I don’t think that the fact that a factory is a "private" place and a bar is a "public" place changes that.

On the other hand, I admit I don’t know any of the studies that show or don’t show that secondhand smoke is unhealthy. "Ample studies" are referred to, but I don’t think anyone is surprised that being infected with rabies from a "rabid pig" is unhealthier than secondhand smoke.

If it really is shown that secondhand smoke is benign, I would change my mind about the law. I admit it! Where are the studies?

But at the moment for me, it defies common sense to state that working 40 hours a week in a smoke-saturated environment is not unhealthy. How many people, including all smokers, really believe that? Even anti-ban blather ("I don’t go to gyms to get drunk, I don’t go to bars to be healthy") contradicts that.

I also think that even other anti-ban reasoning actually supports the ban. If the bar/nightlife industry is such an important part of New York, all the more reason for a ban. The more prominent an industry is, the less choice workers have of other jobs. OF COURSE, New Yorkers have much more of a choice in employment than the small-town Tennessean who could either work in the coal mine or starve. But I think the basic reasoning still holds: the bigger the industry is, the less choice workers have, and all the more important that health regulations are enforced.

VV: you should look into the history of the fire department in New York, back when it more strictly adhered to libertarian principles as an interesting real life example of state vs. market-based regulation. I understand you are claiming all 'general benefit' laws are strictly quality of life, but that is still to vague to be legislatively useful. What about lead levels in water and paint? Or banning DDT? Or regulating dietary supplements (ephedra, e.g.)? Thalidomide?

I think we should simply frame the argument properly. Mostly educated, mostly affluent people are complaining about a minor compromise to their lifestyle, and are willing to undo decades of committed reseach and lobbying to provide nominal protection ever-increasingly chemcially modified foodstuffs, medicines, or even household objects (I posit this since everyone has resorted to the slippery slope argument: "What's next??? Snickers Bars???"). That's the debate here. Not freedom, but privilege.

The statistics quoted so far have focused on deaths due to secondhand smoke, but realistically there are many respiratory conditions caused by secondhand smoke that may not actually result in death right away. This issue is not about taking away rights for no reason, this is about protecting rights of others from secondhand smoke.

I enjoy a smoke every now and then, but I really can't stand secondhand smoke. There really is a difference between sucking on a cigarette directly and breathing secondhand smoke in an enclosed room. I personally have no problem going outside to smoke when I need to. But for those that hate going outside, more clubs and bars should create enclosed cigar rooms for the smokers that can't stand going outside.

Does anyone remeber prohibition?

Discussions of whether or not the smoking ban (both the city & state laws) is not irrelevant. If people had not continued to debate the wisdom of prohibition, then we would not be having this discussion now since there would be no bars.

If we "just get over it" as suggested above, what will we have to just get over next? No more junk food in the office cafeteria since that could make workers obese? No more late night establishments because they are making the workers miss out on a good night's sleep? No more sitting at a desk in front of a computer since that could make the worker fat & blind & give them carpel tunnel? No more office X-mas parties because workers will be socially pressured to drink & damage their livers? Is this really the type of regulation we want our government to promulgate?

You are correct--FICA, wages, worker's comp, and other similar things are real things that workers do have protection rights.

I admit I wasn't clear with the sentence "Workers aren't being protected from much of anything." I meant that protecting workers from the "dangers" of secondhand smoke is akin to protecting workers from ball lightning. Both dangers are nearly statistically nonexistant. The smoking ban doesn't protect workers from any real threat. The smoking ban is a waste of ink and has caused more problems than it solved (outdoor noise, trash, fights, beggars hustling patrons, et cetera).

The "general benefit" what I spoke of was regarding legislation of behavior *for our own good or well-being.* The fire department is a legitimate government service that doesn't fall into that "quality of life" category, and you know that.

"General benefit" laws of the "quality of life" sort are the opposite of freedom. The words "ban" and "freedom" don't usually belong in the same sentence. Go ahead and call me libertarian, but don't forget--from what you wrote, you are *for* laws that dictate healthy behavior. If you call that freedom, then I think you may be beyond help.

VV: look, someone upthread was yammering about the ban being distinct from 'a law'. I was pointing out, argumentatively, that the distinction was pointeless, since both are in place. Fight the ban, but not the law, and nothing changes. Going further off-topic, workers are actually protected from a number of things. I won't enumerate them, beyond what one would hope are patently obvious to you, such as: anti-discrimation legistlation, workers' comp, minimum wage, employer contributions to FICA. What that means is they are protected from coercive labor practices. But since laws for the 'general benefit,' which seem to be the essence of democracy, are the worst kind to you, you must be a libertarian. Go ahead, smoke all you want. Just don't fall asleep, since I'm sure you are one of those ideologically pure libertarians who would refuse the services of the fire department, that most fascist of all big government interventions into private property rights.

This isn't about the ban, or whether it's good or healthy. The ban is obviously "good" and encourages healthy lifestyles. But the law is obviously wrong.

Laws for "general benefit" are the problem, period.

Workers aren't being protected from much of anything. Secondhand smoke statistics are nearly equal to rare freak-accident rates. Also, workers are intelligent, decision-making adults: they can choose to work at a non-smoking bar (and pre-ban, those were happenin' places, right?).

These smoking bans are designed to make firsthand smokers quit, plain and simple. AKA: the government imposing a healthy lifestyle.

Laws for "general benefit" are not American ideals and are definitely not the ideals of a free society.

If we used the same "general benefit" argument in all parts of our society, we'd have:

limits on how much fat we could eat

limits on tv and computer use

nighttime curfews (because we really should get 8 hours of sleep)

children should only be raised by a 2-parent family

all music must be played below a certain decibel level

madatory daily excercise

no spitting

no saccharine

Sure, smokers should "get over it" but the people supporting these types of "quality of life" laws need to get over supporting the first steps toward an Orwellian future.

I'd rather take my chances with secondhand smoke (and lighning strikes). The New York we've always known is forever gone. Thank you.

Smokers really do need to get over it, because it is not going to change.

While there has been some moaning about the downturn in nightlife (please), most of the smoker complaints are self-centered: "I want to smoke and this makes it harder to do so."

But each of those smokers should offer a reason why office workers, factory employees, coal miners, etc. etc. etc. should all benefit from government-enforced (if not as much lately) health protections, but bar workers should not. It's not up to the individual bar worker, just as it isn't up to the individual secretary in an office who wants to smoke. The law is of general benefit, period. Individual addictions and personal definitions of cool nightlife are meaningless in the face of worker protections.

Of course workplace-secondhand-smoke is banned. Of course it's the law of the state as well as the city.

Just because something is law doesn't mean that its principles are correct. There is a law against dancing in New York City. Are you going to tell me that we should bend over and take it just because it's the law of the land? Laws can be changed, and dissent is one of the first steps in getting laws reversed. Speaking up against bad laws not irrelevant (this goes for this ban, and of course for much more serious things in Washington).

The workplace-secondhand-smoke ban goes against the *principle* of private property owner's rights. A bar is not a public place, and as a private property can make up its own rules that aren't the same as public places. For example: dress code. drink minimum. Cover charge. Having only workers who have dyed-green hair.

I can smoke in my apartment. If I wanted to have a party in my apartment, we can all smoke. If I hired someone to serve drinks, all of a sudden the smoking is not allowed.

Secondhand cigarette smoke is something that has always been legal in private properties, however it has been banned in workplaces due to a supposed danger to employees. There is ample statistical evidence showing that secondhand smoke is less risky than simply serving food. The candles in a bar cause more of a risk of people dying in a fire. (Read the above researched statistics, and you can look them up yourself.)

The ban shows no regard for the rights of the owner of the establishment, or the basic intelligence of the employees who know that people tend to smoke tobacco cigarettes whenever they work at a place called Marz Bar or Filthy McNasty's. Or even the statistics that show that being bitten by a rabid pig is more likely to kill you than hanging out in smoky bars.

Why is the ban a *law* if secondhand smoke is such a low risk? It's obviously designed to make people quit FIRSThand smoking. Because it's for our own good. Because the government cares for us, and wants to dictate a healthy lifestyle for us all.

If you don't see the inherent political dangers of a government dictating our habits, then you have your head in the sand. 1984 anyone? This is only the beginning. Some people on this board even suggested cell phone bans in some public places. I heard that Bloomberg supported some sort of cell phone ban during theater shows.

Why should lawmakers wasting ink on those types of laws? We as a society should not be legislating away annoying habits, regardless of whether we agree that the habit is annoying. No smoking is "good." No cell phones are "good." Laws against them, in some cases, can be bad.

How can anyone not see the fascism in this? We've been duped into believing that the only way to fix our bad habits is to make them illegal. This acceptance of legislated behavior is the true evil. Why doesn't anyone see this?

It should also be noted that even if Bloomberg revoked the ban, nothing would change, since it was obivated by an even more restrictive (state) law the week it took effect. So that important distinction upthread about, what was it, fascism, private property and law, is irrelevant. It is also interesting to note that Ireland just instituted a nationwide ban on smoking in bars. It's painful and all, but in ten years, anyone who argues that a smoking ban is akin to slavery will get the same quizzical looks as those who would tell you that the 65mph speed limit is the death of democracy.

it's very valid to consider the health of employees, regardless of what they have to say in their own defense. in nyc, students and day-jobbers who need extra income would be hard-pressed to find a more lucrative night job than tending bar. and pre-ban, reliance on that nice extra income forced bartenders and waitresses to steep themselves in a lot of secondhand smoke on a regular basis.

if it was left up to bars whether or not to make their establishments non-smoker friendly, i really think that most (if not all) would be smoke-filled in no time.

and of course non-smokers wash their clothes, ari. but things like hats, scarves, coats, canvas bags, and dry-clean only sweaters really shouldn't be washed after each wearing. cigarrette smoke permeates every kind of fabric, and clings to skin and hair. it's gross.

the ban is a heavy-handed law, and i'm not sure how "fair" it is overall, but i'm very in favor of it as a drinker, a music lover, an artist, and an asthmatic. in the past, smoky clubs with a "no re-entry policy" (ahem, mercury lounge) have pretty much forced me to leave before my favorite band came on because i couldn't just pop out and get fresh air when i needed it. now i can stay inside, see my music, enjoy my beer, and not feel like my lungs are shrivelling. i'm clearly biased, but i love the ban because it finally sent the smokers outside instead of me.

So I am a little late in getting back into this discussion, but I think there are a few points that should be reinforced...

The major drawback of the smoking ban by far is that it pushes us as a society down a slippery slope. Bars are not, by nature, healthy places. If our government is truly concerned with health all bars should be closed & the government should be directing their efforts to dictating people's eating & exercising habits. But of course, that kind of governmental intrusion would be considered intolerable under our constitution. Hmmm.

Again, let the bars make the choice & everybody will have somewhere to go & have a good night.

And, to Jenna. When I lived in DC I had a day job & also worked nights at various bars. I did it for the extra money & for kicks. If I hated the smoke, I would have gotten a better day job & quit the night job. If getting a better day job requires more education, that is something you should look into. If you can't do that, why don't you get a bar job in Bethesda or Rosslyn where smoking is already restricted?

Also, no one said you could not have an opinion. You are entitled to have your own opinion & voice it freely, but keep in mind that others are under no obligation to agree with you. That is, in fact, the spirit of a free debate.

"nice perk[s]" for some account for all unconstitutional laws. Though, the problem here is that you understand the "argument" and still adamantly defend the law out of "selfish" behavior. You are why this country is turning to shit and I commend you for your good work.

Go beat rocks together, caveman!