No more smoking in public places in NYC

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by crazy_will
Let them choose what room to work in. A smoking bartender can be in the smoking bar, a non-smoking one in the non-smoking one.

The problem is that if smoking were allowed in restaurants only if there were no protest, restaurant owners would be inclined to discriminate against protesting nonsmokers by not hiring them, surreptitiously firing them, or just generally treating them badly because they don't like them.

Employee: "I'm a nonsmoker and I wish to work in this room only."
Employer: "Oh, you're a nonsmoker, eh? Very well, you have your wish."
(2 weeks later)
Employer: "I haven't been very impressed with your... uh... job performance. You're fired."

 

[funkywhat2]

Originally posted by alex_ant

The problem is that if smoking were allowed in restaurants only if there were no protest, restaurant owners would be inclined to discriminate against protesting nonsmokers by not hiring them, surreptitiously firing them, or just generally treating them badly because they don't like them.

Employee: "I'm a nonsmoker and I wish to work in this room only."
Employer: "Oh, you're a nonsmoker, eh? Very well, you have your wish."
(2 weeks later)
Employer: "I haven't been very impressed with your... uh... job performance. You're fired."

Please, then tell me where you won't get fired is you don't kiss your bosses ass. That's how life is. It isn't fair, but discrimination happens all the time. People can deal.

And I didn't say no protest. I said that as if there were a room for smokers to be in, and a room for non-smkoers to be in. Both rooms could be bars, retsausrants, whatever. Have workers choose what room they work in. When one room gets filled, let the workers either choose the other room or get fired. Thats how every company works. If a restructuring happens, and there are too many workers, the excess get to either choose a new job, or get canned.

 

[jelloshotsrule]

i am another person to attest that second hand smoke affects people's health.... along with the 3rd leading cause of cancer study that was brought up, there's the allergies... everytime i visit my grandparents' house, filled with smokers, i get sick.... same with my brother(s).

that said, i'm not sold that smoking should be banned 100%... though being in "public" places should rule out the law applying to private clubs and such. alex makes a good point about workers at places where the owner wants to allow smoking... the fact is, they may not have any other job chance, yet they shouldn't have to suck in cancer/emphysema causing toxens, just because that's the only job they can get.

and i also agree that cars are a huge problem (bigger even) but that they are a separate issue entirely...

not to mention that cow farms emit more methane than some cities.....

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by crazy_will
Please, then tell me where you won't get fired is you don't kiss your bosses ass. That's how life is. It isn't fair, but discrimination happens all the time. People can deal.

It's not about kissing ass. The protesting employee could be the best and nicest employee in the world, but still get fired because it is not financially prudent for the employer to keep that employee on board (due to e.g. having to hire another employee to do what that employee won't do).

And I didn't say no protest. I said that as if there were a room for smokers to be in, and a room for non-smkoers to be in. Both rooms could be bars, retsausrants, whatever. Have workers choose what room they work in. When one room gets filled, let the workers either choose the other room or get fired. Thats how every company works.

Actually it's not how every company works, as any OSHA administrator will be happy to inform you. Imagine a lead paint removal service saying, "If you don't want to work without respiratory protection, you don't have to. We respect your preference. But if we run out of masks and you refuse to work without one, you're fired." It's no different.

If a restructuring happens, and there are too many workers, the excess get to either choose a new job, or get canned.

Usually "the excess" = "the ones with the poorest job performance" or "the ones with the least experience" etc., which is fine and perfectly legal. The problem in this case is that "the excess" = "the nonsmokers who protest." It's discrimination based upon smoking preference, plain and simple.

 

[funkywhat2]

Originally posted by alex_ant

It's not about kissing ass. The protesting employee could be the best and nicest employee in the world, but still get fired because it is not financially prudent for the employer to keep that employee on board (due to e.g. having to hire another employee to do what that employee won't do).
[/b]
Actually it's not how every company works, as any OSHA administrator will be happy to inform you. Imagine a lead paint removal service saying, "If you don't want to work without respiratory protection, you don't have to. We respect your preference. But if we run out of masks and you refuse to work without one, you're fired." It's no different.

Usually "the excess" = "the ones with the poorest job performance" or "the ones with the least experience" etc., which is fine and perfectly legal. The problem in this case is that "the excess" = "the nonsmokers who protest." It's discrimination based upon smoking preference, plain and simple. [/B]

Fine then, have them wear masks.

 

[alex_ant]

Yes, waiters and waitresses in gasmasks. What a fantastic idea. You're a genius.

 

[skunk]

Originally posted by crazy_will

Fine then, have them wear masks.

Now this sounds like a Brave New World I want to be a part of!

 

[diorio]

Originally posted by crazy_will


Fine then, have them wear masks.

Have people wear masks so others who are addicted to a deadly poison may puff away in peace. Great plan, brilliant even. Almost as smart as George W Bush's vocabulary. (Coming from a fan of George W. He is a good pres in my opinion, but should have paid more attention in English class)

Bottom line: why should I have to put up with smoke from cigarettes in a public establisment? I shouldn't.

 

[funkywhat2]

Originally posted by diorio


Have people wear masks so others who are addicted to a deadly poison may puff away in peace. Great plan, brilliant even. Almost as smart as George W Bush's vocabulary. (Coming from a fan of George W. He is a good pres in my opinion, but should have paid more attention in English class)

Bottom line: why should I have to put up with smoke from cigarettes in a public establisment? I shouldn't.

Lighten up.

Like I said, I can't stand smokers. But then again, I can't stand a government that takes away my rights because a few people bitch and the ruler of it all agrees with them.

NOTE: Anything bold was edited.

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by crazy_will
Like I said, I can't stand smokers. But then again, I can stand a government that takes away my rights because a few people bitch and the ruler of it all agrees with them.

You can? Why didn't you say so in the first place?

 

[Juventuz]

Originally posted by skunk

What about the rights of employees to work in a safe environment? Or would the bartender's job only be open to smokers?

Nobody forced these people to work there, they applied for the position knowing full well what it entailed.

I'm not a smoker, well maybe the occassional cigar, but I don't feel that it should be banned in restaurants or bars. In MANY of the restaurants I frequent I can never smell the cigarette smoke when I sit in non-smoking. Hell the majority of smoking is usually filled with non-smokers.

 

[funkywhat2]

Originally posted by alex_ant

You can? Why didn't you say so in the first place?

Ha ha ha. I'm gonna edit it to say "can't." I was tired. Still am, but Windoze won't install and configure itself.

 

[alset]

Originally posted by diorio


Oh poor smokers. They have too pay so much for a pack of cigarettes. I mean all that they are doing is a: killing themselves b: polluting the air and c: killing others with their second hand smoke. I think thats the best idea that NY has ever had.

Well, how about when I pay $5 for a pack of smokes so that my taxes can pay additional funds for roads that you drive on? How fair is this? I can handle not smoking in public places. What I can't stand is state and government officials placing the burden of making up taxes and replacing funds by burdening those of us with vices (tobacco, alcohol).

Dan

 

[skunk]

Originally posted by alset


Well, how about when I pay $5 for a pack of smokes so that my taxes can pay additional funds for roads that you drive on? How fair is this? I can handle not smoking in public places. What I can't stand is state and government officials placing the burden of making up taxes and replacing funds by burdening those of us with vices (tobacco, alcohol).

Dan

How do you know what your tax is spent on? Your tax is probably going towards building weapons of mass destruction, whereas ours is probably going towards keeping you going. Give it up.

 

[Sun Baked]

Sin taxes are there to make it more difficult for people to enjoy their vice, realize it's too expensive, and if all else fails to begin recovering money spent caring for the damn idiots and the havoc they tend to sow with their vices (both alchohol and cigarettes - car crash victims and cancer)

And if cigarettes are sooo darn pleasurable you'll enjoy them just as much at $1, $5, or even $10 a pack.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Quite surprised to see this thread get so involved - but I definitely agree with Sun Baked on this one here at the end - taxes are in place to make it harder for people to obtain the cigarettes. I can only imagine a time when smoking is banned completely.

Its not just about the government telling us what to do - ask someone who's lost a relative or friend to lung cancer. If you don't think that cigarettes are harmful to your health, well, then go right ahead and maybe you'll end up removing yourself from the gene pool early.

D

 

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by alset
Well, how about when I pay $5 for a pack of smokes so that my taxes can pay additional funds for roads that you drive on? How fair is this? I can handle not smoking in public places. What I can't stand is state and government officials placing the burden of making up taxes and replacing funds by burdening those of us with vices (tobacco, alcohol).

how about you pay taxes to cover the ridiculous health insurance costs that come about largely as a result of all the money these companies lose from folks with tar filled lungs.... that'd be fine by me. that way us folks who don't poison our body excessively don't have to pay the price.

 

[Sun Baked]

Fun when smokers consider nicotine a craved substance, and farmers consider nicotine a hazardous insecticide.

Nicotine Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet.pdf

 

[OutThere]

Banning smoking cannot and should not be connected to the pollution from cars in any way, at the present time 2nd hand smoke is a big issue, and a large protion of the reason why it is a big issue it that it is relatively easy to combat with today's technology. Fighting pollution from cars is very complicated, requires untested new technology and is incredibly vital to the health of the world, but the only way that it will ever happen is if people realise what SUVs are doing to the environment, or we get cut off from our supply of oil and the price of gas rises to $2 a gallon. Owners of massive SUvs will be crying and people who bought hybrids will be laughing their ***es off. Smoking is much easier to control for the goveremnts, the only thing that they have to do is pass laws. If the government passed a law requiring all cars to get 60 mpg and have it be illegal to drive cars that got less than 30 mpg car manufacturers would drop like flies. Big tobacco companies on the other hand have developed somewhat of a reputation with the american people (in my opinion) and the government appears to have fewer woes about cutting down smokers than gas guzzlers. The effort involved in cutting car emissions is much greater than that of cutting down death from secondhand smoke, by cutting down on secondhand smoke the government will have tackled a real issue, but not spent billions of $$$, not have had to implement untested new technologies on the highways and not have gotton on the bad sides of the car companies. Cutting down on public smoking is going to be incredibly beneficial to the non-smoking public of NYC. Did anyone here take a transatlantic flight before smoking was eliminated on airplanes? It was like taking a ride in a cigarrette for 8 hours. Not pleasant. Second hand smoke is sick, its like a trail that indoor smokers leave behind, it lingers in the air hanging there for anyone to walk through it and snag its toxic contents, some of the nastiest feeligns I have had were expierienced when I stepped into a room and saw (and smelled) a blanket of smoke hanging over the entire gorup of ppl in the room, it s a common sight.

No offense intended to anyone based on the contents of this post, these are my personal opinions and are not meant to reflect any feelings that I may or may not have towards any other posts that I have read in this thread.



Edit: WOW! that was really wild and rambling...

 

[Judo]

I havn't read all the posts so I could be repeating sorry but..

Some smokers idea's that just don't stack up.
-Complaining about high taxes.
Think about how much taxes have been lost from people retiring early because of health problems. The amount of days off from sickness (smoking lowers your ammune system). How many fires has it caused. I'm guessing you guys are still in debt. It's probably caused a few car crashes aswell.

-It's my right to smoke
Yes well it's my right to be able to go to a public place and be able to breath properly. I have yet to meet a smoker who smokes consideratly. I don't think you guys realise how bad it is for nonsmokers.

I think that bars should have to have a licence to be able to allow people to smoke in them, and make the licence hard to get (got to have excelent air circulation and fire escape routes).

As much as I dispise smoking I guess people should have their rights intact so they can support these sleazy tobacco companies who have broken the law, support their disgusting habit, and basically live they way they want to.

If you are a smoker please stop and think about what you are doing. Think about talking to your Grandchildren with one of those vibrating talk thingys,
about family members visiting you in hospital when you have cancer/heart disease/or one of the many other diseases you are more suseptable too from smoking,
about the unlucky ones who live life disfigured from fires caused by smokers.
about burn holes in yours and your friends favorite shirt/pants/skirt!!

 

[barkmonster]

To be honest with you, I think if cigarettes and tobacco were only introduced in the past few decades, they'd be as illegal as smack.

I've tried to quit a few times over the 8 years or so of me smoking, I felt the best when I was 18 and hadn't smoked for over 7 months. I ended up starting again when I was nearly 19 and apart from odd days where I just plain can't stand it, I smoke every day. The fact I have days like that makes me want to try and quit again. I just hope I can this time. I don't really enjoy the taste of any brand, I don't crave them all the time apart from waking up and after meals. I've got such a high metabalism that I could easily put on over a stone and still be a healthy weight. I just need to think of something to do everytime the craving hits, those overpriced quit smoking aids cost over double what I spend on smoking in a week so I've just gone cold turkey. Nothing since waking up on new years day. I keep feeling light headed but it's not like that won't pass.

 

[skunk]

Best of luck! Been there, done that, got hot rocks on the T shirt!

 

[alset]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Sin taxes are there to make it more difficult for people to enjoy their vice, realize it's too expensive, and if all else fails to begin recovering money spent caring for the damn idiots and the havoc they tend to sow with their vices (both alchohol and cigarettes - car crash victims and cancer)

And if cigarettes are sooo darn pleasurable you'll enjoy them just as much at $1, $5, or even $10 a pack.

I don't support paying out funds to repair a cancer patient who has welcomed disease via smoking. Therefore, I should not be taxed for their mistakes in life. I deserve the freedom to exploit my health without sacrificing my hard earned dollars for the misdoings of others.

BTW - I for one will not be looking for government handouts when I am ill from my own negligent smoking.

Dan

 

[skunk]

Originally posted by alset
I don't support paying out funds to repair a cancer patient who has welcomed disease via smoking. Therefore, I should not be taxed for their mistakes in life. I deserve the freedom to exploit my health without sacrificing my hard earned dollars for the misdoings of others.

BTW - I for one will not be looking for government handouts when I am ill from my own negligent smoking.

Dan

How far are you willing to take this line of argument? Are you happy for tax dollars to bail out corporations for their mistakes (Chapter 11), or individuals who go bankrupt, or pedestrians who are drunk and get hit by cars (driven by drunks or not), or people who get lung cancer other than from smoking, or people who have heart attacks because they eat too much, or from overwork? Where do you draw the line? Are you going to leave a paraplegic to fend for themselves? I hope you are willing to live by such harsh judgments yourself.

 

[amalling]

I'm a smoker. Not of the obnoxious kind. For instance do I only smoke in one room at home, since my girlfriend is a non-smoker. I always, always, make sure to ask before I light up and soforth, but what gets to me is the rhetoric nonsmokers use (not necessarily people in this forum).
If i light up a cigarette in a restaurant , not seldomly does some obnoxious nonsmoker yell out "YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SMOKE HERE" even though I am. It just the sign on THEIR table, which says No Smoking", whereas mine of course says Smoking allowed. A lot of non-smokers ARE bashing smokers for no reason other than to have something to bitch about.
My girlfriend threw a party one night, and had invited 5 friends, of which four were smokers.
She is okay with people smoking in the living room if there is a "reason" for it (parties, birthdays etc.). So people lit up of course. Within 60 seconds, the nonsmoking friend demanded that everyone should leave the premises and smoke outside (in -12 degrees centrigrade(30 fahrenheit, I think)). Unfortunately I wasn't home at the time: I would have dragged her bare ass in the snow from here to afghanistan. She knew that there would be smokers, she knew that it's allowed in OUR home, still she comes in to other peoples homes and think she can orchestrate how we do things.
A lot of smokers have that tendency: "I have seen the light, and you have to obey". To my that's a load of BS. I know smoking kills (second-hand, too), but is it too much to ask of nonsmokers to respect the smokers?
Not to mention non-smokers way of addressing someone who smokes: Start off demanding that you put out your cigarette, instead of asking politely (because it bothers you blah, blah). That would be nice for a change.
Whenever people start TELLING me what to do,because they WANT it, as if it is their God-given right, I'm equally inclined to do the exactly opposite, just to spite(spelling) them.
It's okay they don't want to deal with the smoke, but it's NOT okay to disrespect (in a non-rapper-manner) other people, be they smokers or nonsmokers. Sometimes it feels like we're second-rate citizens.
Sorry about the rant. Now I need a cigarette. Pheeew!