Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Early Addition
Today marks the first year New York City's smoking ban has been in effect, and the Post reports that health inspectors swing by bars past midnight to make sure ban-flouting bars get nabbed. Famous smoker Fran Leibovitz scoffs, "[The ban is] riddled with hypocrisy...If you're really concerned about air quality and you're living in New York City, then you're an idiot." Yeah, Gothamist gets the idea, but then we're happy to be idiots for being concerned about litter, crime and education and other things that are notoriously tricky to improve in the city. Michael Musto takes the middle ground, saying, "It doesn't seem like the city it once was. But the bright side is that I don't come home smelling like smoke anymore."
The Post actually devotes a fair amount of ink to the ban's anniversary, with an e-mail interview with Mayor Bloomberg ("Besides cleaner air, healthier waiters and bartenders and a growing hospitality industry, New York is the same culturally and financially vibrant city it has always been.") plus talks to a bar owner who says the ban has caused a downturn in his businesses, a patron who likes the ban, and a bartender who is happy not to breathe in secondhand smoke but misses her tips. Gothamist knows of one good thing the ban has brought: A reason to leave the table and talk behind your non-smoking friends' backs.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Smokers REALLY need to get over this ban thing.
Smokers will never get used to the ban unless they stop smoking. I stand with them though when it comes to smoking in bars. Thats when the ban crossed the line. Now I can't enjoy my cigars in the company of friends while downing shots. >:-(
And ban gift #2: all the money I have saved on cover charges, overpriced drinks and super snazzy outfits. Instead, my friends and I gather at each others smoke and booze friendly apts. thorought the city. It's way more fun, I don't miss the rest at all. I go out every so often still but you know what? Its so not the same. Maybe when the weather warms up it'll be different story.
By the way: read how Bloomberg turned me into a potential hooker.
I'm actually more likely to go out more often because I know I won't come home reeking of smoke or feeling like I had indirectly inhaled ten packs of cigarettes. I think the smoking ban just needs more time. A year is not a long time at all.
I used to smoke regularly, now only when I drink. Even so, I have to say I support the ban. I have no problem stepping outside for a smoke when I want one, even in the cold. In return I am able to breathe well on the nights when I do not want to smoke, and I never go home smelling like Dennis Leary any more.
I think the smoking ban is bad idea. I am a smoker & I can understand the reasoning behind banning smoking in restaurants & do not oppose that. I understand that smoke can ruin a meal. But I think that banning smoking in all bars is just stupid. Besides my own personal preference, I know that my best tips when I worked in a bar came from smokers, who were more likely to stay longer & drink more. Why the concern for people's lungs in a place where people are ruining their livers?
I think the best solution is more exemptions, keeping some bars smoke-free while allowing smoking in others. Then whatever your preferences, you have somewhere you can have a good time.
I have said it once I will say it again- the city should sell smoking licenses, let's say $500 a month buys you an exemption from the smoking ban. Thus, you could have bars that allow smoking and bars that are smoke free and the city makes money. Whats wrong with that? The warmer weather will bring a surge of noise complaints.
On one hand it's made my nightlife much more enjoyable....no more disgusting smelling clothes, no burns, no burning eyes, plus I can actually breathe the next morning. In 20 years we will all look back and view the pre-ban days as being utterly primitive.
On the other hand, it's turned me into a spoiled wuss. I walked into a pub in London last weekend and couldn't stay more than 5 minutes because it was "too smokey" for me.
Pros: not coming stinking like an ashtray
Cons: where are all the cool kids?
Pros: not coming home stinking like an ashtray
Cons: where are all the cool kids?
pro: smoking is so cool now
cons: people incessantly talking about how much they like the ban
Pros: The spectacle of smokers huddled outside every bar, shivering in the winter wind for another fix, highlights just how pathetic their addiction truly is.
Cons: Having to hold my breath walking in or out of any restaurant in Manhattan.
ok... do non smokers also not do laundry?? Wash your clothes people, what's this carrying on about smelly clothes. It's called Tide. Meet it.
After living in NC for a few weeks and going to all the smoke filled bars, I have to say I miss the smoke free environment.
As a non-smoker, I hate getting constantly ditched by my friends when they want to smoke. (Though I usually get to grab their chairs, which is nice.)
I oppose the ban pretty vehemently because I don't think it's the kind of thing the government should have anything to do with legislating -- I don't see how consumers have a right to a smoke-free drinking environment. It would have made more sense to ban tobacco products altogether; that at least wouldn't have had all that collateral damage in the food and beverage service industry.
I disagree with the smoking ban.
That being said, you have to look at the issue as a worker's issue. It's not that consumers have a right to a smoke-free drinking/eating environment. The ban is so that workers have a right to a smoke-free working environment.
Smoking in bars is alive and well in easily accessible sections of Queens. Walked into one Saturday night and found it surprisingly refreshing...until I left and all the smokey goodness came home with me. Yuck.
"Fran Lebowitz" is how her name is spelled.
James said: That being said, you have to look at the issue as a worker's issue.
That being said, who has asked the workers? I don't believe there is a consensus among bar staff that the smoking ban is a good thing. Everyone I know who works in bar is grumbling about the ban, either because they are smokers themselves or because tips are down.
Again, I think the best solution would be to have some places be smoke free and some not. That gives a choice to both customers & staff. If people want to make stupid decisions, be it smoking or working in a smoking environment for more money, the government should have no role in those decisions. Mike is right, why should the government be involved in my choice to corrupt my body with cigarettes & alcohol simultaneously?
I cannot wait for the smoking ban to hit DC. I work in a very popular nightclub and I can tell you the tips may be good, but I would rather have the healthy lungs. I sometimes feel like my daily 2 hour workout is a waste after coming home from the club.
Customers are saving money on cigs and can now buy more drinks or tip higher.
Jenna... is there no where else for you to work? That seems a little silly to me - if you're so so concerned why not work in an office? A smoke free restaurant? I wonder if we'd all feel as bad for coal miners with coal allergies. No one forces you to work there. Or do they?
I do work in an office. The bar is my 2nd job. Actually, everyone at the bar holds another job. It's a good way to save money while I'm young and DC is just as expensive to live in as NYC. Did you ever think how inconsiderate smokers are? If I wasn't working I would love to be hanging out in other bars with friends but the smoke in your face sucks. It's nasty. The problem isn't just in bars. No one should be smoking in a doorway. Why would non-smokers want to walk through that? I don't understand why non-smokers should be subjected to someone else's nasty habits.
How priviledged you must be to assume none of your "nasty habits" are inflicted on others.
I don't smoke bitch.
All I'm saying is it would be nice not to have to spend 5 hours surrounded by smoke. Only a non-smoker would understand this of course.
The smoking ban (I'm against it even though I'm a non-smoker) has already led to a proposal by Mike Bloomberg to impose strict limits on music and noise coming out of all bars and other establishments after 1 AM. All because of the hordes of both smokers and non-smokers chatting loudly outside bar and lounge doors. That's right folks. Our Meddford MA-born mayor wants to turn the city into another boring 9-to-5 Boston! Believe me, I've seen this first hand in many places.
Bitch?!! Hahahaha... I see you have your end of the argument sewn up nicely. When you can debate like a grown up let me know. I guess one doesn't need to smoke to have a foul mouth.
I can understand the problem of people coming and going all night to go outside to smoke, but, putting limits on music doesn't really do anything b/c you can't hear the music outside(well, at least not at my club). If people are talking too loudly outside, there's really nothing you can do about that. I do not agree with Bloomberg's noise limits after 1am, but I don't think a smoking ban is going to hurt anyone.
at least I'm not causing health problems in other people...you obviously don't get it
I'M RICK JAMES BITCH!
I'M RICK JAMES BITCH!
I've already heard of reports about local Boston-idolizing NIMBY's criticizing the mayor for not proposing the noise limits sooner. I still oppose the smoking ban because it's already leading to slippery slope of more government regulations that will further restrict the City that Never Sleeps, just like I mentioned before.
At last count, New Jersey still had no statewide smoking ban.
Bitching aside, I'm all for not having to Febreze my clothes after visiting a bar.
Or seriously considering taking a shower while drunk to get the nasty smoke smell out of your hair.
It's heartwarming too see that now that we no longer smoke in bars, the non smokers have abandonded laundry, soap and showers. Yeah... really makes me feel like I'm missing out. You might want an errant cig or two around to mask the b.o. at this point.
So don't whine about your low tips - seems you'd have little use for them anyway.
Ari, who are talking about who has the b.o.? Do you smoke to cover up your b.o.? Is that the point you are trying to make? I'm really interested to find out why smoking is so wonderful. Really. Is it the coughing? The yellow teeth? The really cool oxygen tank you get to carry around 20 years from now?
I'd be happy to lose some tips in exchange for healthier lungs. That is the fault of the smoker not leaving more tips, not Bloombergs.
Jenna... are you 7 years old? It boils down to this:
if something is legal, I have the right to enjoy and take part in it. If you don't like it, we can mutually agree to stay away from each other {done and done}. After all, last I checked I wasn't exhaling into your mouth.
It's legal, it's allowed. Tough.
uh, ari, if the criterion is legality, then...well...it's not legal. sorry, kid, but it's banned, you see. that means it's against the law, so your argument doesn't make much sense. smoking is only legal in situations, just like you're not supposed to be chugging on the maker's mark while you're behind the wheel of a big-rig.
so why not go back to whining about being single, ok? at least then you're amusing. wait! but first let's get back to the Great B.O. Debate...
I almost forgot to tell everyone that we now have little kids inhaling the secondhand stuff right on the sidewalks, just outside establishments that kept out anyone 18 or under to begin with. And sooner or later these anti-smoking zealots will go after sidewalk smoking, even in people's homes, and son on and on. It's like a slippery slope that may soon lead to another 18th Amendment banning all tobacco, forcing multitudes of people out of work. We know what happened last time.
I know there are still spots you can smoke in around the city. I come in about once every two months. Who's got some good ones for me? PLEASE!!!
Catfight Lover: Uhm... tobacco? Legal. Smoking? Legal. We're talking overall, not where.
Jason: that's what I understand least. Bar employees who despite their bitching and moaning CHOSE to work at a bar {were they too greedy to quit and give up their undeclared tips? Hmmm}. But the family who has to pass my cloud doesn't have the luxury of escaping it. And no, I don't feel guilty, Bloomberg put me in their path, I'd have been happily inside tucked away into a room.
So Jenna, you interminable brat; you choose to work in bar. No one forces you - quit your job or quit your whining. You make as much sense as a flight attendant that would sue for a lower altitude b/c she has a fear of heights. You lose this argument until tobacco is unilaterally banned.
Ari, I can't quit my job because I need the money. My office job doesn't pay enough. If I could find a job where I didn't have to work at the bar, I would quit. But then I would still be going out every weekend to a smoky bar. So what's the point in quitting when I can make money. All I'm saying is it would be nice for that smoking ban to hit DC. I guess I'm a brat because I would like to have a healthy body. I'm so sorry Ari. And I'm not suing anyone here, just making a legitimate complaint. Why do people in bars HAVE to smoke? It's not attractive.
I'm still waiting for someone to post why smoking is so wonderful. I'm very curious to know. Maybe I'll understand the smokers situation better.
Smoking is not necessarily wonderful. Neither is jelly. But smoking while drinking? Just sublime. Like PB&J. Some things just go together. I can't exactly tell you why. I'm not a physiologist. Let's just talk it up to biology, mmmkay? (I am still ok with the idea of stepping outside to get my fix though. Nothing wrong with legislatively forced courtesy now and then.)
Was speaking with a bartender just this past weekend, as a handful of people surrepitiously smoked. She was v. pleased with the ban: didn't have to wash sweaters (which were necessary since the bar was phyiscally proximate to the door of the establishment), felt better after work, and even quit smoking as a result. I have asked all my regular bartenders, and they preferred the smoke free enviroment, and some did note a drop off in tips. But, anecdotally, and statisically, less revenue at bars might be as much an affect of an anemic economy (and the worst affect on tips at my favorite bar was the rent increase that caused a 20% increase in drink costs). I'm an occassional social smoker who resented the ban in principle initially, but now love the acutal affect (you know, air). And I talk to more people since the dynamic of having to move around, see people outstide, to smoke, creates a sense of solidarity.
I just returned to NYC after a nice stay in Amsterdam. Let me say that there was something very relieving about a government that doesn't constantly tell people NO YOU CAN'T DO THIS, NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT. This is why the smoking ban is wrong.
Remember, the word "ban" isn't synonymous with the word "freedom." Cutting freedom is a huge price to pay just to make clothes smell better after a night out.
Newsflash, people: musicians and artists smoke. I can tell you firsthand that the smoking ban has been negatively affecting NY's unique culture, beyond simple tips and bar revenue.
What's the point of having an artist's haven when the artists aren't even allowed to be natural inside? Smoking is cultural. Think about when you're at a show and the colored lights are on the lead singer--there used to be a nice, foggy trail of light due to the ambient cigarette smoke. Now it has been reduced to a stark, dry, lifeless scene. Well, at least your clothes don't smell like smoke. Happy now?
No, not happy yet.
when you ask: "Well, at least your clothes don't smell like smoke. Happy now?", you should add at least one of the following:
(1) Well, at least you'll live longer now...
(2) Well, at least the alveoli in your lungs won't turn a sick black color and prematurely decompose...
(3) Well, at least you won't be a burden to your state's health care system in a few years.
And to answer your question, yeah, frankly i'm really happy about that.
as for artists especially feeling the ban, most of my friends are writers and musicians and they seem to be doing just peachy. if the musicians you mentioned seem especially victimized, i can gladly teach them to play another instrument, the world's smallest violin. seems like they're already good at it, so it'd be a short lesson.
Jenna, you are a moron. You talk about how you are all healthy and want a healthy environmet- and your job entails pouring poison for people. Get a grip. Your arguements are facile and lame. People like to do bad/self destructive things and you cant stop that. So take your self rightous self back in your bar and get back to destroying peoples livers. Be-ach. PS- spend some time in NYC before making comparisons between our bar scenes.
Max,
1) Ever heard of 2nd-hand smoke? Just b/c I'm a bartender doesn't mean that I have to enjoy the smoke around me. A bar can be a healthy environment. You speak as though pouring drinks is like working for the devil. I do cut people off by the way. I have always hated being around smokers. Are bartenders and bouncers not allowed to have an opinion about this?
2) I've spent plenty of time in NYC and enjoy it very much. I'm not sure where I made any comparisons b/t the two cities on their bar scenes.
3) It doesn't matter that I work in a bar, I hate it when I go out to other bars on my nights off and I have to breathe in the smoke.
I guess now I'm a brat AND a bitch for hating smoke.
btw, Vega, been to Amsterdamn. What a waste of a plane ticket and hotel room. That city was so disgusting. Their government should tell them to do something about cleaning up.
Jenna... maybe if you actually WORKED at your job instead of commenting all day they'd pay you more. Time for you to be quiet and keep your opinions in DC. With you. Thank goodness. Max's point was dead on, you make your money off dispensing liquor, not healthy last I hear. You're such a pathetic hypocrite, if I met you I'd purposely blow smoke in your infantile bratty face.
This dispute is not over. Bloomberg's smoking ban I believe is only a first step towards his efforts to Bostonize the Big Apple and further destroy its famous nightlife. He recently tried to impose a strict noise ban from all night establishments after 1 AM, due partly to the smokers chatting outside in the streets. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before he calls for strict occupancy laws limiting the number of patrons in any establishment.
I've been up to Boston and I can tell you that it has nothing even resembling a nightlife. That's probably what Mike Bloomberg and his supporters want.
Also did I forget to mention that there are now anti-smoking zealots calling for a unilateral ban on all tobacco products nationwide?
I don't know what kind of fantasy world some of you may be living in, thinking that artists and musicians don't smoke. I found these in a few minutes on Google:
The Beatles
Vincent Van Gogh
David Bowie and Lou Reed
John Lydon
Jim Foetus
Bob Dylan
Richard Hell
And some of you keep forgetting: the issue is not whether or not a smoking ban is good thing, it's about whether it ought to be a LAW. A ban is a censorship of behavior.
I personally wish people would stop drinking alcohol, since it leads to hundreds of thousands of more deaths and injury to innocent people (drunk driving, rage, aggravated rapes, et cetera), but I'll be damned if I'd support a law banning alcohol, because it goes against the basic principle of liberty and personal responsibility.
Since people here keep arguing opinions, I say it's high time for some hard, verifyable facts:
Annual intentional tobacco use-related deaths (firsthand):
344,000
(source: American Lung Association www.lungusa.org)
Annual obesity-related and sedentary lifestyle-related deaths:
300,000
(source: Journal of the American Medical Association jama.ama-assn.org)
Annual alcohol-related deaths:
110,000
(source: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism www.niaaa.nih.gov)
Annual falling deaths:
16,600
(source: National Safety Council www.nsc.org)
Annual food-poisoning deaths:
5,000
(source: www.cdc.gov)
Annual drowning deaths:
4,100
(source: National Safety Council www.nsc.org)
Annual fire/burn deaths:
3,700
(source: National Safety Council www.nsc.org)
Annual secondhand smoke deaths:
3,000
(source: American Lung Association www.lungusa.org)
Read the numbers carefully. Firsthand smoke obviously kills. However, take a good look at the stats for secondhand smoke (and yes, the stats are from the American Lung Association). The secondhand smoke deaths are actually less than freak-accident deaths such as food poisoning, drowning and fire. Simply walking down the stairs of your tenement building will give you a 500% more chance of dying than spending time in a smoky bar. Considering the facts, eating a late-night meal at the local diner seems downright risky; if at first you survive the risk of food poisoning, you have a ten-THOUSAND percent more chance of dying from its nutritional content.
I spared you all the statistical possibilities of dying by shark bite, struck by lightning or obliterated by a meteor, despite the fact that secondhand smoking is nearly in the same category.
I'm glad I have such a good-natured government to protect me from the scourge of secondhand smoke. God bless the smoking ban, and God bless America.
oh, ok, I'm not allowed an opinion b/c I work in a bar. Got it. I'll let all the other non-smoking bartenders know that they can't complain anymore.
I think I'll start lying and say I love it when people smoke in front of me. After all, my opinion is wrong. There's no point in arguing this anymore.
Jenna--don't worry, your opinion is allowed. You're allowed to hate smoking and smokers.
The reason why you've been getting a lot of flak on this board is because you think a hardened law is okay to curb something you personally find annoying. You have no regard to actual scientific statistics, property ownership rights or the fundamental concept of freedom. Can you spell fascism?
I personally found your posts annoying, since they were based on insults and had absolutely no good arguments on why there should be laws against SECONDhand smoke when other legal activies are far more statistically dangerous. And other people on this board have supported the lie that secondhand smoke is super-dangerous, despite the fact that the American Lung Association has clear numbers proving that the risk is statistically nonexistant.
Speaking of banning things just because we don't like 'em: Should I support a ban on annoying posts simply because I find you annoying? No way; you have the freedom to speak. Speak your mind, but the fact is you have no real argument.
Let's hope there's more people like you in office to really clean up New York: All rock bars must now lower their volumes of their jukeboxes. Only salads allowed in restaurants. No jaywalking. All establishments must close at midnight. No more do-rags allowed. No more punk rock or ganster rap; only Celine Dion and Kenny G allowed. All coffeeshops must be Starbucks.
God bless America.
From personal experience, the smoke does bother me. Not just my lungs but my eyes as well. I do understand your argument of not wanting the 'no smoking in bars' a law, but it would be a nice perk for me. I know, it's selfish. Just for your info, I love loud music, especially hip-hop and I hope whomever produced Celine Dion and Kenny G's music burns in hell. I never mentioned only allowing salads in resturaunts, or lowering the music volume, just no smoking. So please do not acuse me of saying those things or thinking I would. Though banning cell phone in some places use would be nice.
I also do not feel that muscians and artists need to smoke in order to be sucessful. I doubt this ban is having a huge affect on them.
Ari, my job isn't based on how much work you do. It's how long you've been here or your level of education. If I get more work, it does not mean I'll make more money, I'll just have less time to piss you off.
"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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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*
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
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!
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.
i hate the smoking ban it completely bans me from smoking outside I HATE IT i hate it i hate it i HATE it