Fellows, you are right that people can change their surroundings but that isn't really the issue. If you are sitting at a bar having a beer with some of your buddies, and somenone sits at the table next to you, and proceeds to puff away, it is not fair to say that the non-smokers should move. Nor is it fair to say that people can always choose where they work. Just having a job, any job is a blessing for some people. Also, It is hardly a matter of imminent life or death like is the case under brutal dictatorships/corrupt governments. They are, I agree, forced to leave despite the injustice of the situation.
Where I live, it is mandatory for any "smoking bar" to have a completely self-contained, ventilated area for smokers to use. Waiters/Waitresses are required to not work in that room for longer than a specified amount of time and at any time, can refuse to work in there entirely. I feel this is a decent compromise.
Eugene I have seen every reply to me directly or indirectly lately from yourself and I have noticed your direct measures to take cheap shots at me be it over my iBook or any other thread.with respect
I react to people how they react to others. Your iBook thread just put everything into perspective. There are a few people I don't take seriously *at all* on this board. SPJ, for example...
hmmm couldn't come up with anything better.. I think it is time for bed... but I will leave with this note: you have a right to have a job without being forced to deal with hazardous things without proper compensation... do you think that waitress got compensation? hell no.... sure she could have gotten another job... maybe... she worked there for 20 years... at that point if you leave you will take an unacceptable drop in pay to switch jobs... you will argue she could have gotten a better job 20 years ago, but who knows how things were then for her... maybe this was the closest place to a daycare center... you know there are a lot of reasons you choose a job, smoking could have factored into those reasons... but regardless... there is no reason why the diner or whatever could have been made a healthyer environment....
will you argue next that proper lighting shouldn't be mandatory in the workplace? what if the owner decides to save some $ on electricity... should they be allowed to make their employees work in unfit conditions?... these actions are illegal and I am sure many employers have been sued because of violations of this type....
I have to say, I am of two minds--I am a big proponent of personal rights, but I *do* prefer having a hell of a lot less smoke in my face in enclosed spaces. So I'm torn between an abstract ideal and a personal reality.
Why single out smoking then? Personal rights are restricted in so many ways by city, state, and federal laws. You gotta stick it to the man, you know?
Fellows, you are right that people can change their surroundings but that isn't really the issue. If you are sitting at a bar having a beer with some of your buddies, and somenone sits at the table next to you, and proceeds to puff away, it is not fair to say that the non-smokers should move. Nor is it fair to say that people can always choose where they work. Just having a job, any job is a blessing for some people. Also, It is hardly a matter of imminent life or death like is the case under brutal dictatorships/corrupt governments. They are, I agree, forced to leave despite the injustice of the situation.
Where I live, it is mandatory for any "smoking bar" to have a completely self-contained, ventilated area for smokers to use. Waiters/Waitresses are required to not work in that room for longer than a specified amount of time and at any time, can refuse to work in there entirely. I feel this is a decent compromise.
hmmm couldn't come up with anything better.. I think it is time for bed... but I will leave with this note: you have a right to have a job without being forced to deal with hazardous things without proper compensation... do you think that waitress got compensation? hell no.... sure she could have gotten another job... maybe... she worked there for 20 years... at that point if you leave you will take an unacceptable drop in pay to switch jobs... you will argue she could have gotten a better job 20 years ago, but who knows how things were then for her... maybe this was the closest place to a daycare center... you know there are a lot of reasons you choose a job, smoking could have factored into those reasons... but regardless... there is no reason why the diner or whatever could have been made a healthyer environment....
will you argue next that proper lighting shouldn't be mandatory in the workplace? what if the owner decides to save some $ on electricity... should they be allowed to make their employees work in unfit conditions?... these actions are illegal and I am sure many employers have been sued because of violations of this type....
Why single out smoking then? Personal rights are restricted in so many ways by city, state, and federal laws. You gotta stick it to the man, you know?
Well, in addition to the normal harm caused by second hand smoke, some people are allergic to it. Which makes it a real pain to go any place where people might be smoking. Trust me on this one \
I react to people how they react to others. Your iBook thread just put everything into perspective. There are a few people I don't take seriously *at all* on this board. SPJ, for example...
Come on, Eugene! You'll turn around one of these days Can't stay mad forever.
Well, in addition to the normal harm caused by second hand smoke, some people are allergic to it. Which makes it a real pain to go any place where people might be smoking. Trust me on this one \
But it's a personal right to smoke where one pleases according to some people on this board! I'm amused that smoking is now a platform for personal rights.
I have you right where I expected you to fall.....
Did you really think before you typed that?
You want full right to destroy your liver in a public place while you can do that at home in front of the tv.
BUT! you want smokes to smoke at home so you can go to the bars. I am not saying one is better or worse than the other but do you not see the hipocracy in that statement? You are more than free to drink at home in no smoke whatsoever.
That is the trap I expected some to fall in.
Fellowship
Except that I have never heard of the phrase second-hand drinking.
He can destroy his liver and it doesn't do anything to your liver. If you choose to destroy your lungs with smoking and I happen to be sitting next to you, it will destory my lungs as well.
NYC has chosen to ban smoking. I think it is wrong to ban smoking in a pirvate business. Many who drink smoke. Not all but there is a large %. What authority does the city gov't. have to mandate no smoking in a private business? If the customers do not like smoking they can spend their dollars at a non-smoking private place of business. If there are few non-smoking places of business then by all means the non-smokers are welcome to start a non-smoking business directed to customers who do not wish for smoke. I am sorry but the city has no business in this. We live in a free marketplace and that means customers can create all kinds of businesses to serve the needs of the diverse population. If some do not want smoke then they are free to go to smoke-free places of business. If there is a shortage of smoke-free outlets then that is sign of a void in the marketplace that a business person can solve by opening a new smoke-free business. We do not need mommy and daddy in the gov't to "take care of poor little us" We vote with our $$$ when we go out.
Many of the towns where I live have done the same thing. Personally, I dont smoke, but I dont think it should be banned.. but then again, i think most drugs should be legalized and then taxed. OR ban then all(but they wont do that, tried it back during prohibition) oh well.
I do not think any student in a public school should have to recite a manditory prayer to a Christian God.
That's another issue, but I felt like commenting. At my primary school, we had to recite Christian prayers. I had memorised the Lord's prayer by age 5. At this time I wasn't a Christian (I am now; I became one at age fourteen). The school was a state school (what you Americans call a public school) and was the only school with a catchment area where I lived. (In other words, I had to go there or find a private school.) None of the kids or parents ever saw it as a problem that it was a Church of England school - my parents weren't religous at all (and definitely not Christian) and didn't mind. Basically, I don't see why many Americans (generalisation I know) make such a big deal about things like that.
Okay, I started reading the thread and then decided not to read completely through it before making my comment because Fellowship is still not in his right frame of mind since his withdraw from iBook.
First off, Fellowship needs to understand why the NYC smoking ban went into effect. City passed the law because employees who work in cafes and bars where smoking is allowed, the employees are subjected to second hand smoke by default. Ofcourse everyone would say "hey if you can't tolerate smoke then don't work in bars!" The problem is that under the city law, employees would then have legitimate right to sue employers (and perhaps the city). A private bar is NOT A PRIVATE BAR, because it is a publically accessible place, therefore City also has a responsibility to employees in such places. It is for this reason why the law was drafted and voted and passed. It was NOT because non-smoking customers complained that caused the law to be drafted.
By the way, I live in Manhattan and I can smell cigs being lit half a block away. The City living is very confined that you can't compare it to any other cities. As for how I feel, I'm indifferent. I don't smoke and hate the stench of smoke but if the law goes effectively (which I doubt because the City only hired 12 more health inspectors to help out the ban) then NYC is another step closer to Disneyland. I have not visited any adult emporiums or peep shows that used to define Times Squre. It really made NYC like what you see in films of what urban city would look like. Now, you have Disney owning majority of the real estate.
Why did I respond to this thread, because the argument that Fellowship started with wrong facts to begin the discussion. Now let's see where it goes...
Okay, I started reading the thread and then decided not to read completely through it before making my comment because Fellowship is still not in his right frame of mind since his withdraw from iBook.
First off, Fellowship needs to understand why the NYC smoking ban went into effect. City passed the law because employees who work in cafes and bars where smoking is allowed, the employees are subjected to second hand smoke by default. Ofcourse everyone would say "hey if you can't tolerate smoke then don't work in bars!" The problem is that under the city law, employees would then have legitimate right to sue employers (and perhaps the city). A private bar is NOT A PRIVATE BAR, because it is a publically accessible place, therefore City also has a responsibility to employees in such places. It is for this reason why the law was drafted and voted and passed. It was NOT because non-smoking customers complained that caused the law to be drafted.
By the way, I live in Manhattan and I can smell cigs being lit half a block away. The City living is very confined that you can't compare it to any other cities. As for how I feel, I'm indifferent. I don't smoke and hate the stench of smoke but if the law goes effectively (which I doubt because the City only hired 12 more health inspectors to help out the ban) then NYC is another step closer to Disneyland. I have not visited any adult emporiums or peep shows that used to define Times Squre. It really made NYC like what you see in films of what urban city would look like. Now, you have Disney owning majority of the real estate.
Why did I respond to this thread, because the argument that Fellowship started with wrong facts to begin the discussion. Now let's see where it goes...
I think it will have quite a large effect. In California the effect was substancial and I am not aware that they hired a single person more to enforce it.
The key was that you were ticketed each time the offenses occurred and the fines were very steep. Not many small businesses can eat $300-500 a day. Also a fair number do comply and that leaves the same people to target the remaining folks who don't.
Lastly it isn't like smoking is easy to hide. You have employees who don't smoke and don't want to work in it. They don't have to have an inspector "discover" the business allowing smoking, the employee just calls and reports it. If they get fired then it is grounds for a lawsuit.
Ban alcohol. A drunk driver killed my nephew. It killed relatives. Even messed up my life for a while. I consider drunk driving deaths "second hand death" to their victims.
Here's an eye-opening list of statistics on drunk driving for 2000. After reading this list, please visit our home page to find out what you can do to help stem the tide of drunk driving deaths in your neighborhood...and make money at the same time.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines a fatal traffic crash as being alcohol-related if either a driver or a nonoccupant (e.g., pedestrian) had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater in a police-reported traffic crash.(1)
Persons with a BAC of 0.10 g/dl or greater involved in fatal crashes are considered to be intoxicated. This is the legal limit of intoxication in most states.(1)
Statistics continue to show that alcohol involvement (drunk driving) remains the leading factor in motor vehicle deaths.(1)
Traffic fatalities in alcohol-related crashes rose by 4% from 1999 to 2000. The 16,653 alcohol-related fatalities in 2000 (40% of total traffic deaths for the year) represent a 25% reduction from 22,084 alcohol-related deaths reported in 1990 (50% of the total).(1)
NHTSA estimates that alcohol was involved in 40% of fatal crashes and in 8% of all crashes in 2000.(1)
16,653 fatalities in alcohol-related crashes during 2000 represent an average of one alcohol-related fatality every 32 minutes.(1)
An estimated 310,000 persons were injured in crashes where police reported that alcohol was present ? an average of one person injured approximately every 2 minutes.
Drunk driving statistics show that about 3 in every 10 Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related crash at some time in their lives.(1)
Approximately 43 of our fellow citizens are lost each day, 305 each week, and 1309 each month because of alcohol-related accidents. That's one life lost every 33 minutes.(1)
Only 7% of all crashes involve alcohol use, but nearly 39% of fatal crashes do.(1)
Traffic crashes are this country's greatest single cause of death for every age from 6 through 33. Almost half of these fatalities are related to drunk driving.(1)
Male drivers, drivers in the 21-34 age group, and drivers who are of the "white" race constitute the largest percentage of drunk (or impaired) drivers in fatal crashes.(1)
In 2000, 31% of all traffic fatalities occurred in crashes in which at least one driver or nonoccupant had a BAC of 0.10 g/dl or greater (legally drunk). 69% of the 12,892 people killed in such crashes were themselves drunk. The remaining 31% were passengers, nonintoxicated drivers, or nonintoxicated nonoccupants.(1)
In 2000, 30% of all fatal crashes during the week were alcohol related, compared to 53 percent on weekends. For all crashes, the alcohol involvement rate was 6% during the week and 14% on weekends.(1)
Drunk driving rates for fatal crashes in 2000 were highest for motorcycle operators (27%) and lowest for drivers of large trucks (1%). The intoxication rate for drivers of light trucks was higher than that for passenger car drivers (20% and 19%, respectively).(1)
Alcohol involvement in fatal crashes is more than 3 times as high at night as during the day (61% vs. 18%). For all crashes, the alcohol involvement rate is more than 4 times as high at night (17% vs. 4%).(1)
The highest rates of drunk driving in fatal crashes in 2000 were recorded for drivers 21-24 years old (27%), followed by ages 25-34 (24%) and 35-44 (22%).(1)
Fatally injured drunk drivers (BAC levels of 0.10 g/dl or greater) were 6 times as likely to have a prior conviction for driving while intoxicated compared to fatally injured sober drivers (12% and 2%, respectively).(1)
Almost one-third (33%) of all pedestrians 16 years of age or older killed in traffic crashes in 2000 were intoxicated. By age group, statistics show a range of 9% for pedestrians 65 and over to a high of 49% for those 25 to 34 years old.(1)
All states and the District of Columbia now have 21-year-old minimum drinking age laws. NHTSA estimates that these laws have reduced traffic fatalities involving drivers 18 to 20 years old by 13% and have saved an estimated 20,043 lives since 1975. In 2000, an estimated 922 lives were saved by minimum drinking age laws.(1)
More than 2,300 anti-drunk driving laws have been passed since 1980.(1)
More drunk driving statistics: Alcohol-related traffic fatalities by state in 2000:
_\t_
Alabama 399
Alaska 53
Arizona 456
Arkansas 200
California 1,401
Colorado 256
Connecticut 158
Delaware 60
District of Columbia 19
Florida 1,191
Georgia 570
Hawaii 54
Idaho 114
Illinois 614
Indiana 270
Iowa 124
Kansas 154
Kentucky 256
Louisiana 447
Maine 51
Maryland 225
Massachusetts 218
Michigan 506
Minnesota 255
Mississippi 379
Missouri 511
Montana 110
Nebraska 103
Nevada 145
New Hampshire 49
New Jersey 319
New Mexico 205
New York 419
North Carolina 523
North Dakota 41
Ohio 516
Oklahoma 221
Oregon 188
Pennsylvania 618
Rhode Island 41
South Carolina 422
South Dakota 81
Tennessee 511
Texas 1,898 Gee W!
Utah 89
Vermont 31
Virginia 341
Washington 275
West Virginia 175
Wisconsin 345
Wyoming 45
U.S. Total
16,653
(1) NHTSA
Though these hardly compare with stats of cancer deaths from smoking they don't count into the crimes, murders, domestic violence, illnesses and deaths caused by alcoholism.
If the totals of deaths or illness caused by second hand smoke in one year were higher than drunk driving deaths in this country I would be all for stronger laws for second hand smoke. But you won't find them. Prove me wrong!
There are countless alternatives for non smokers to go to. If they also like to drink thay can take the smokers too. Smoking and second hand smoke do damage...so does drinking. Bars and restaurants can equip their places with air purification systems or as have some already, create non-smoking areas.
Did you know that Cigar bars are exempt from this law? I think it's because they're classified under another property law or clause...or something.
Goodbye New York City. I will visit your museums, shops and theatres...but I will sadly will have to ignore your bars and clubs from now on if you are going to treat me like a "second class citizen".
Cute post, Artman, and your point is painfully clear but since banning alcohol was already tried in this country I suspect somehow that no one will be all that keen to try it.
All those statistics do not point to the problems with drinking: they show a problem with drinking and DRIVING, and the laws against that have gotten progressively tougher every year in every state of the Union, along with numerous public awareness programs and whathaveyou. It is already highly illegal--it is deeply unlikely that removing bars will remove the drinking and driving problem, as the majority of folks still drinking and driving (and killing) have drinking problems. Lack of bars isn't going to lower the death toll.
Cigar bars are exempt because they got an exemption when the legislation was being discussed. Tobacconists are also exempt, and a few other places.
If folks are angry about the issue, they should work with groups to change the laws back. There *are* an awful lot of smokers.
I do not think any student in a public school should have to recite a manditory prayer to a Christian God. What if in a given community 85% of the population voted to make it the law of the land to force young students to recite a prayer to a Christian God in school? Would you still stand behind your argument? I am simply saying that while sure people disagree on things it is wrong to ban smoking in a private business. Public place just fine with me but a private business is different and what you say about the city granting the right for a business to run its business is a point but it alone while it may be the rule of law does not also mean it is the right thing to do. Again many disagree over many things.
Fellowship
Aha! Fighting against tyranny of the masses I see. Just agree to restore our motto to E Pluribus Unum and remove Under God from the pledge and I'll back you 100% on this. Just checking to see if you are consistent.
Hmm nice thread... Its been a while since I saw an argument that didnt entirly decay into an immature slagging match. FellowshipChurch iBook, I like the way you think about arguments... I would deffo like to be part of the next one
And a few points on this one from my mind...
1.) Banning smoking is not the correct choice. What NYC should have done was make it illegal to have ##% of smoke particles (or other toxins) in the air of an indoors building. That way the company can decide to install air extraction / purification equipment or to ban smoking in their premisies.
2.) This argument should not have been linked to pot. Since pot can be taken without being smoked (with or without tobbaco).
3.) Drinking should not have come onto this argument. A person decides to drink or not and it only effects them. Drink Driving IS illegal. That is not an argument to ban drink altogether.
4.) UV radiation from the sun. I am sure if you dig deep enough into health and safety laws you will prolly find that in most cases companies will prolly have to have blinds or something. I expect that in some small print somewhere (prolly with the acceptible working temparature figures, there are acceptible working light condidtions.)
1.) Banning smoking is not the correct choice. What NYC should have done was make it illegal to have ##% of smoke particles (or other toxins) in the air of an indoors building. That way the company can decide to install air extraction / purification equipment or to ban smoking in their premisies.
This is a very good solution... all forms of air pollution should be handled this way... but for some reason it is not (I want to say cost, but i dont think that is right...)
Quote:
2.) This argument should not have been linked to pot. Since pot can be taken without being smoked (with or without tobbaco).
I know but the majority of people (who use) DO smoke it....
Quote:
3.) Drinking should not have come onto this argument. A person decides to drink or not and it only effects them. Drink Driving IS illegal. That is not an argument to ban drink altogether.
Comments
Where I live, it is mandatory for any "smoking bar" to have a completely self-contained, ventilated area for smokers to use. Waiters/Waitresses are required to not work in that room for longer than a specified amount of time and at any time, can refuse to work in there entirely. I feel this is a decent compromise.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Eugene I have seen every reply to me directly or indirectly lately from yourself and I have noticed your direct measures to take cheap shots at me be it over my iBook or any other thread.with respect
I react to people how they react to others. Your iBook thread just put everything into perspective. There are a few people I don't take seriously *at all* on this board. SPJ, for example...
will you argue next that proper lighting shouldn't be mandatory in the workplace? what if the owner decides to save some $ on electricity... should they be allowed to make their employees work in unfit conditions?... these actions are illegal and I am sure many employers have been sued because of violations of this type....
goodnight all...
Originally posted by mrmister
I have to say, I am of two minds--I am a big proponent of personal rights, but I *do* prefer having a hell of a lot less smoke in my face in enclosed spaces. So I'm torn between an abstract ideal and a personal reality.
Why single out smoking then? Personal rights are restricted in so many ways by city, state, and federal laws. You gotta stick it to the man, you know?
Originally posted by Dual867
Fellows, you are right that people can change their surroundings but that isn't really the issue. If you are sitting at a bar having a beer with some of your buddies, and somenone sits at the table next to you, and proceeds to puff away, it is not fair to say that the non-smokers should move. Nor is it fair to say that people can always choose where they work. Just having a job, any job is a blessing for some people. Also, It is hardly a matter of imminent life or death like is the case under brutal dictatorships/corrupt governments. They are, I agree, forced to leave despite the injustice of the situation.
Where I live, it is mandatory for any "smoking bar" to have a completely self-contained, ventilated area for smokers to use. Waiters/Waitresses are required to not work in that room for longer than a specified amount of time and at any time, can refuse to work in there entirely. I feel this is a decent compromise.
I agree with you on all points
Fellows
Originally posted by Paul
hmmm couldn't come up with anything better.. I think it is time for bed... but I will leave with this note: you have a right to have a job without being forced to deal with hazardous things without proper compensation... do you think that waitress got compensation? hell no.... sure she could have gotten another job... maybe... she worked there for 20 years... at that point if you leave you will take an unacceptable drop in pay to switch jobs... you will argue she could have gotten a better job 20 years ago, but who knows how things were then for her... maybe this was the closest place to a daycare center... you know there are a lot of reasons you choose a job, smoking could have factored into those reasons... but regardless... there is no reason why the diner or whatever could have been made a healthyer environment....
will you argue next that proper lighting shouldn't be mandatory in the workplace? what if the owner decides to save some $ on electricity... should they be allowed to make their employees work in unfit conditions?... these actions are illegal and I am sure many employers have been sued because of violations of this type....
goodnight all...
It was nice chatting I also will head to bed.
God Bless
Fellows
Originally posted by Eugene
Why single out smoking then? Personal rights are restricted in so many ways by city, state, and federal laws. You gotta stick it to the man, you know?
Well, in addition to the normal harm caused by second hand smoke, some people are allergic to it. Which makes it a real pain to go any place where people might be smoking. Trust me on this one
Originally posted by Eugene
I react to people how they react to others. Your iBook thread just put everything into perspective. There are a few people I don't take seriously *at all* on this board. SPJ, for example...
Come on, Eugene! You'll turn around one of these days
Originally posted by Whisper
Well, in addition to the normal harm caused by second hand smoke, some people are allergic to it. Which makes it a real pain to go any place where people might be smoking. Trust me on this one
But it's a personal right to smoke where one pleases according to some people on this board! I'm amused that smoking is now a platform for personal rights.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I have you right where I expected you to fall.....
Did you really think before you typed that?
You want full right to destroy your liver in a public place while you can do that at home in front of the tv.
BUT! you want smokes to smoke at home so you can go to the bars. I am not saying one is better or worse than the other but do you not see the hipocracy in that statement? You are more than free to drink at home in no smoke whatsoever.
That is the trap I expected some to fall in.
Fellowship
Except that I have never heard of the phrase second-hand drinking.
He can destroy his liver and it doesn't do anything to your liver. If you choose to destroy your lungs with smoking and I happen to be sitting next to you, it will destory my lungs as well.
Try again,
Nick
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
NYC has chosen to ban smoking. I think it is wrong to ban smoking in a pirvate business. Many who drink smoke. Not all but there is a large %. What authority does the city gov't. have to mandate no smoking in a private business? If the customers do not like smoking they can spend their dollars at a non-smoking private place of business. If there are few non-smoking places of business then by all means the non-smokers are welcome to start a non-smoking business directed to customers who do not wish for smoke. I am sorry but the city has no business in this. We live in a free marketplace and that means customers can create all kinds of businesses to serve the needs of the diverse population. If some do not want smoke then they are free to go to smoke-free places of business. If there is a shortage of smoke-free outlets then that is sign of a void in the marketplace that a business person can solve by opening a new smoke-free business. We do not need mommy and daddy in the gov't to "take care of poor little us" We vote with our $$$ when we go out.
I am 100% against this and I do not even smoke.
Link
Your thoughts?
Fellowship
Many of the towns where I live have done the same thing. Personally, I dont smoke, but I dont think it should be banned.. but then again, i think most drugs should be legalized and then taxed.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
That is a poor argument and here is why..
I do not think any student in a public school should have to recite a manditory prayer to a Christian God.
That's another issue, but I felt like commenting. At my primary school, we had to recite Christian prayers. I had memorised the Lord's prayer by age 5. At this time I wasn't a Christian (I am now; I became one at age fourteen). The school was a state school (what you Americans call a public school) and was the only school with a catchment area where I lived. (In other words, I had to go there or find a private school.) None of the kids or parents ever saw it as a problem that it was a Church of England school - my parents weren't religous at all (and definitely not Christian) and didn't mind. Basically, I don't see why many Americans (generalisation I know) make such a big deal about things like that.
Amorya
First off, Fellowship needs to understand why the NYC smoking ban went into effect. City passed the law because employees who work in cafes and bars where smoking is allowed, the employees are subjected to second hand smoke by default. Ofcourse everyone would say "hey if you can't tolerate smoke then don't work in bars!" The problem is that under the city law, employees would then have legitimate right to sue employers (and perhaps the city). A private bar is NOT A PRIVATE BAR, because it is a publically accessible place, therefore City also has a responsibility to employees in such places. It is for this reason why the law was drafted and voted and passed. It was NOT because non-smoking customers complained that caused the law to be drafted.
By the way, I live in Manhattan and I can smell cigs being lit half a block away. The City living is very confined that you can't compare it to any other cities. As for how I feel, I'm indifferent. I don't smoke and hate the stench of smoke but if the law goes effectively (which I doubt because the City only hired 12 more health inspectors to help out the ban) then NYC is another step closer to Disneyland. I have not visited any adult emporiums or peep shows that used to define Times Squre. It really made NYC like what you see in films of what urban city would look like. Now, you have Disney owning majority of the real estate.
Why did I respond to this thread, because the argument that Fellowship started with wrong facts to begin the discussion. Now let's see where it goes...
I don't see why many Americans (generalisation I know) make such a big deal about things like that.
Amorya
Maybe if you go back and re-read your English history books you'll understand why this is so important to us Americans.
Originally posted by kwondo
Okay, I started reading the thread and then decided not to read completely through it before making my comment because Fellowship is still not in his right frame of mind since his withdraw from iBook.
First off, Fellowship needs to understand why the NYC smoking ban went into effect. City passed the law because employees who work in cafes and bars where smoking is allowed, the employees are subjected to second hand smoke by default. Ofcourse everyone would say "hey if you can't tolerate smoke then don't work in bars!" The problem is that under the city law, employees would then have legitimate right to sue employers (and perhaps the city). A private bar is NOT A PRIVATE BAR, because it is a publically accessible place, therefore City also has a responsibility to employees in such places. It is for this reason why the law was drafted and voted and passed. It was NOT because non-smoking customers complained that caused the law to be drafted.
By the way, I live in Manhattan and I can smell cigs being lit half a block away. The City living is very confined that you can't compare it to any other cities. As for how I feel, I'm indifferent. I don't smoke and hate the stench of smoke but if the law goes effectively (which I doubt because the City only hired 12 more health inspectors to help out the ban) then NYC is another step closer to Disneyland. I have not visited any adult emporiums or peep shows that used to define Times Squre. It really made NYC like what you see in films of what urban city would look like. Now, you have Disney owning majority of the real estate.
Why did I respond to this thread, because the argument that Fellowship started with wrong facts to begin the discussion. Now let's see where it goes...
I think it will have quite a large effect. In California the effect was substancial and I am not aware that they hired a single person more to enforce it.
The key was that you were ticketed each time the offenses occurred and the fines were very steep. Not many small businesses can eat $300-500 a day. Also a fair number do comply and that leaves the same people to target the remaining folks who don't.
Lastly it isn't like smoking is easy to hide. You have employees who don't smoke and don't want to work in it. They don't have to have an inspector "discover" the business allowing smoking, the employee just calls and reports it. If they get fired then it is grounds for a lawsuit.
Nick
Let me blow some statistics in your face:
Drunk Driving Statistics _
Here's an eye-opening list of statistics on drunk driving for 2000. After reading this list, please visit our home page to find out what you can do to help stem the tide of drunk driving deaths in your neighborhood...and make money at the same time.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines a fatal traffic crash as being alcohol-related if either a driver or a nonoccupant (e.g., pedestrian) had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater in a police-reported traffic crash.(1)
Persons with a BAC of 0.10 g/dl or greater involved in fatal crashes are considered to be intoxicated. This is the legal limit of intoxication in most states.(1)
Statistics continue to show that alcohol involvement (drunk driving) remains the leading factor in motor vehicle deaths.(1)
Traffic fatalities in alcohol-related crashes rose by 4% from 1999 to 2000. The 16,653 alcohol-related fatalities in 2000 (40% of total traffic deaths for the year) represent a 25% reduction from 22,084 alcohol-related deaths reported in 1990 (50% of the total).(1)
NHTSA estimates that alcohol was involved in 40% of fatal crashes and in 8% of all crashes in 2000.(1)
16,653 fatalities in alcohol-related crashes during 2000 represent an average of one alcohol-related fatality every 32 minutes.(1)
An estimated 310,000 persons were injured in crashes where police reported that alcohol was present ? an average of one person injured approximately every 2 minutes.
Drunk driving statistics show that about 3 in every 10 Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related crash at some time in their lives.(1)
Approximately 43 of our fellow citizens are lost each day, 305 each week, and 1309 each month because of alcohol-related accidents. That's one life lost every 33 minutes.(1)
Only 7% of all crashes involve alcohol use, but nearly 39% of fatal crashes do.(1)
Traffic crashes are this country's greatest single cause of death for every age from 6 through 33. Almost half of these fatalities are related to drunk driving.(1)
Male drivers, drivers in the 21-34 age group, and drivers who are of the "white" race constitute the largest percentage of drunk (or impaired) drivers in fatal crashes.(1)
In 2000, 31% of all traffic fatalities occurred in crashes in which at least one driver or nonoccupant had a BAC of 0.10 g/dl or greater (legally drunk). 69% of the 12,892 people killed in such crashes were themselves drunk. The remaining 31% were passengers, nonintoxicated drivers, or nonintoxicated nonoccupants.(1)
In 2000, 30% of all fatal crashes during the week were alcohol related, compared to 53 percent on weekends. For all crashes, the alcohol involvement rate was 6% during the week and 14% on weekends.(1)
Drunk driving rates for fatal crashes in 2000 were highest for motorcycle operators (27%) and lowest for drivers of large trucks (1%). The intoxication rate for drivers of light trucks was higher than that for passenger car drivers (20% and 19%, respectively).(1)
Alcohol involvement in fatal crashes is more than 3 times as high at night as during the day (61% vs. 18%). For all crashes, the alcohol involvement rate is more than 4 times as high at night (17% vs. 4%).(1)
The highest rates of drunk driving in fatal crashes in 2000 were recorded for drivers 21-24 years old (27%), followed by ages 25-34 (24%) and 35-44 (22%).(1)
Fatally injured drunk drivers (BAC levels of 0.10 g/dl or greater) were 6 times as likely to have a prior conviction for driving while intoxicated compared to fatally injured sober drivers (12% and 2%, respectively).(1)
Almost one-third (33%) of all pedestrians 16 years of age or older killed in traffic crashes in 2000 were intoxicated. By age group, statistics show a range of 9% for pedestrians 65 and over to a high of 49% for those 25 to 34 years old.(1)
All states and the District of Columbia now have 21-year-old minimum drinking age laws. NHTSA estimates that these laws have reduced traffic fatalities involving drivers 18 to 20 years old by 13% and have saved an estimated 20,043 lives since 1975. In 2000, an estimated 922 lives were saved by minimum drinking age laws.(1)
More than 2,300 anti-drunk driving laws have been passed since 1980.(1)
More drunk driving statistics: Alcohol-related traffic fatalities by state in 2000:
_\t_
Alabama 399
Alaska 53
Arizona 456
Arkansas 200
California 1,401
Colorado 256
Connecticut 158
Delaware 60
District of Columbia 19
Florida 1,191
Georgia 570
Hawaii 54
Idaho 114
Illinois 614
Indiana 270
Iowa 124
Kansas 154
Kentucky 256
Louisiana 447
Maine 51
Maryland 225
Massachusetts 218
Michigan 506
Minnesota 255
Mississippi 379
Missouri 511
Montana 110
Nebraska 103
Nevada 145
New Hampshire 49
New Jersey 319
New Mexico 205
New York 419
North Carolina 523
North Dakota 41
Ohio 516
Oklahoma 221
Oregon 188
Pennsylvania 618
Rhode Island 41
South Carolina 422
South Dakota 81
Tennessee 511
Texas 1,898 Gee W!
Utah 89
Vermont 31
Virginia 341
Washington 275
West Virginia 175
Wisconsin 345
Wyoming 45
U.S. Total
16,653
(1) NHTSA
Though these hardly compare with stats of cancer deaths from smoking they don't count into the crimes, murders, domestic violence, illnesses and deaths caused by alcoholism.
If the totals of deaths or illness caused by second hand smoke in one year were higher than drunk driving deaths in this country I would be all for stronger laws for second hand smoke. But you won't find them. Prove me wrong!
There are countless alternatives for non smokers to go to. If they also like to drink thay can take the smokers too. Smoking and second hand smoke do damage...so does drinking. Bars and restaurants can equip their places with air purification systems or as have some already, create non-smoking areas.
Did you know that Cigar bars are exempt from this law? I think it's because they're classified under another property law or clause...or something.
Goodbye New York City. I will visit your museums, shops and theatres...but I will sadly will have to ignore your bars and clubs from now on if you are going to treat me like a "second class citizen".
I'm outta breath...
All those statistics do not point to the problems with drinking: they show a problem with drinking and DRIVING, and the laws against that have gotten progressively tougher every year in every state of the Union, along with numerous public awareness programs and whathaveyou. It is already highly illegal--it is deeply unlikely that removing bars will remove the drinking and driving problem, as the majority of folks still drinking and driving (and killing) have drinking problems. Lack of bars isn't going to lower the death toll.
Cigar bars are exempt because they got an exemption when the legislation was being discussed. Tobacconists are also exempt, and a few other places.
If folks are angry about the issue, they should work with groups to change the laws back. There *are* an awful lot of smokers.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
That is a poor argument and here is why..
I do not think any student in a public school should have to recite a manditory prayer to a Christian God. What if in a given community 85% of the population voted to make it the law of the land to force young students to recite a prayer to a Christian God in school? Would you still stand behind your argument? I am simply saying that while sure people disagree on things it is wrong to ban smoking in a private business. Public place just fine with me but a private business is different and what you say about the city granting the right for a business to run its business is a point but it alone while it may be the rule of law does not also mean it is the right thing to do. Again many disagree over many things.
Fellowship
Aha! Fighting against tyranny of the masses I see. Just agree to restore our motto to E Pluribus Unum and remove Under God from the pledge and I'll back you 100% on this. Just checking to see if you are consistent.
And a few points on this one from my mind...
1.) Banning smoking is not the correct choice. What NYC should have done was make it illegal to have ##% of smoke particles (or other toxins) in the air of an indoors building. That way the company can decide to install air extraction / purification equipment or to ban smoking in their premisies.
2.) This argument should not have been linked to pot. Since pot can be taken without being smoked (with or without tobbaco).
3.) Drinking should not have come onto this argument. A person decides to drink or not and it only effects them. Drink Driving IS illegal. That is not an argument to ban drink altogether.
4.) UV radiation from the sun. I am sure if you dig deep enough into health and safety laws you will prolly find that in most cases companies will prolly have to have blinds or something. I expect that in some small print somewhere (prolly with the acceptible working temparature figures, there are acceptible working light condidtions.)
Originally posted by Gargoyle
1.) Banning smoking is not the correct choice. What NYC should have done was make it illegal to have ##% of smoke particles (or other toxins) in the air of an indoors building. That way the company can decide to install air extraction / purification equipment or to ban smoking in their premisies.
This is a very good solution... all forms of air pollution should be handled this way... but for some reason it is not (I want to say cost, but i dont think that is right...)
Quote:
2.) This argument should not have been linked to pot. Since pot can be taken without being smoked (with or without tobbaco).
I know
Quote:
3.) Drinking should not have come onto this argument. A person decides to drink or not and it only effects them. Drink Driving IS illegal. That is not an argument to ban drink altogether.
agreed