Smoking Laws in NY and NJ

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I'm not talking about an all-out ban, Schneed. I never said anything about a ban on all fried, fatty, unhealthy foods EVERYWHERE. I'm talking restaurants only. In this scenario, I'm assuming that you can eat whatever you want if you go elsewhere, or decide to eat at home -- just like you can with smoking -- if you don't like it, you can stay home and eat or find another restaurant.

If the government can ban smoking in restaurants to protect the health of the patrons, why can't they do the same with the food that restaurant serves?

OK fine, but there's still a difference. Restaurants offer choices, you can choose to order something fatty or you can choose to order something healthy. If I want to order something healthy, whether or not the guy sitting behind me is eating fried chicken has absolutely NO IMPACT on my health. Some restaurants only serve fatty foods, such as KFC. But if I want to be healthy, I'm not forced to go to KFC to eat. I have OPTIONS, I can go to Subway.

However, if I want to find a bar to meet a girl in (I'm married, so this is just hypothetical) I'll have to put up with somebody else's unhealthy habit. I have NO CHOICE. I could opt to stay home, but I ask you what's easier: ask those who don't like smoke to stay home, or simply ask those who smoke to step outside and return when finished?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

LOL

Why didn't the non-smoker get a cab? In that absolutely ludicrous hypothetical example, it was the drunk driver's choice to get behind the wheel that killed the guy, not the many beers he drank "in celebration" of a smoking ban.

The alcohol is not an excuse. You still have to be responsible for your actions when wasted. It's not the bar's fault that he chose to drive home, it's not the state's fault, it's not Anheuser-Busch's fault, it's HIS fault.

True but if the state had a limit that the person could drink than we would have less deaths from drunking driving. It would be in the puplics best interest to have this limit to save lives. Its funny how the role of goverment changes to meet your needs but when its something that effects you its not a good pratice or the role of the goverment. You even addmitted yourself that it would not be good law because it effected what you wanted and listed how and why it would effect you.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

True but if the state had a limit that the person could drink than we would have less deaths from drunking driving. It would be in the puplics best interest to have this limit to save lives. Its funny how the role of goverment changes to meet your needs but when its something that effects you its not a good pratice or the role of the goverment. You even addmitted yourself that it would not be good law because it effected what you wanted and listed how and why it would effect you.

Firstdown, I listed drunken hookups, funny stories from nights out with your buddies, and bachelor parties. You think that's me?

You must have missed getting to know me over the last year on the Warpath because I am married with a child on the way in October, I think ATVs are extremely dangerous, and I haven't been to a bar in like six months. This whole bar argument doesn't apply to me at all. I don't go to bars. I'm simply arguing the point based on my sense of right and wrong.

The argument is not about how it would affect ME. The argument is that it prevents all responsible people from getting drunk and having fun, in addition to preventing drunk driving. It limits EVERYONE's freedom to CHOOSE to get drunk; it doesn't just limit the drunk drivers. A ban on indoor smoking still allows people to smoke outside, which barely limits freedoms at all. So you have to walk 10 feet to get outdoors for five minutes to catch your smoke. Oooh, big inconvenience.

[BDBohnzie]

Originally Posted by firstdown

True but if the state had a limit that the person could drink than we would have less deaths from drunking driving.

I apologize, but had to jump at this...

States do have limits as to what is acceptible drink-wise. Hence why DUI laws exist.

In essence, each alcoholic drink is .02 on your BAC...and takes just over an hour or so for that alcohol to leave your system. 6 drinks in a 2 hour period (.12 - .04 = .08) Meaning if you get caught, you're up DUI creek without a paddle.

And it still does not deter people from driving drunk...

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Firstdown, I listed drunken hookups, funny stories from nights out with your buddies, and bachelor parties. You think that's me?

You must have missed getting to know me over the last year on the Warpath because I am married with a child on the way in October, I think ATVs are extremely dangerous, and I haven't been to a bar in like six months. This whole bar argument doesn't apply to me at all. I don't go to bars. I'm simply arguing the point based on my sense of right and wrong.

The argument is not about how it would affect ME. The argument is that it prevents all responsible people from getting drunk and having fun, in addition to preventing drunk driving. It limits EVERYONE's freedom to CHOOSE to get drunk; it doesn't just limit the drunk drivers. A ban on indoor smoking still allows people to smoke outside, which barely limits freedoms at all. So you have to walk 10 feet to get outdoors for five minutes to catch your smoke. Oooh, big inconvenience.

Yes, it did sound like you were talking about yourself and congragtulations on the child it will change your life for ever(in a good way). I'm married myself with a child in college and have not been to a bar in about the same amount of time (did that enough before I got married). We will have to disagree on this but we can agree on the skins

[RiggoRules]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Riggo, do you have any science to back up this absurd statement? If you're going to pull things out of your a$$, I hope you have someone backing you up.

Here is just one link. I've got a number of them that address various issues where political correctness trumps good science.

http://www.junkscience.com/feb01/perske.htm

Here is the article I meant to post:

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/pas-smok.htm

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

I apologize, but had to jump at this...

States do have limits as to what is acceptible drink-wise. Hence why DUI laws exist.

In essence, each alcoholic drink is .02 on your BAC...and takes just over an hour or so for that alcohol to leave your system. 6 drinks in a 2 hour period (.12 - .04 = .08) Meaning if you get caught, you're up DUI creek without a paddle.

And it still does not deter people from driving drunk...

I know they have limits and that they do not work. People where saying that the state passed the no smoking law to protect people and I was saying that it sould be the bars decision. I just used the example that if the state passed laws limiting how much alcolhol they could sell to people it would reduce drinking and driving which would be for the good of the people. It was just an example of just one law they could pass to so call protect people and we could list one after another. I feel people are picking sides based on if they like the law or not and not if its the goverments role to pass such laws. If it limited something they liked to do their opinion would be the opposite and their opinions on goverments role to protect us from everything would change.

[dmek25]

all the friction over violating some smoker or non smokers rights meanwhile illegal wiretapping continues....

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by dmek25

all the friction over violating some smoker or non smokers rights meanwhile illegal wiretapping continues....

Yeah, let's just allow people to call Al Qaeda whenever they want.


Geesh. I hope you were kidding...

[MTK]

Originally Posted by dmek25

all the friction over violating some smoker or non smokers rights meanwhile illegal wiretapping continues....

That's the Bush admin for ya. Distract people from the real issues at hand, and scare everyone into giving up more personal freedoms.

Isn't it time to raise that stupid terror alert again??

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

That's the Bush admin for ya. Distract people from the real issues at hand, and scare everyone into giving up more personal freedoms.

Isn't it time to raise that stupid terror alert again??

I don't see where any freedoms where given up. They tapped about 800 people out of how many in this country and if someone is contacting questionalbe people than I'm glad they are tapping them. I myself have given up no freedoms because I do not do anything for them to wast their time on me. Even if they did they could catch me doing some stupid post on here or listen to me blow off another phone solicitor.

[Daseal]

In essence, each alcoholic drink is .02 on your BAC...and takes just over an hour or so for that alcohol to leave your system. 6 drinks in a 2 hour period (.12 - .04 = .08) Meaning if you get caught, you're up DUI creek without a paddle.

Not exactly. While they give you a sobreity test and deal with other issues, you're metabolising alcohol. The BAC test that's admissable in court is not the road side one because of the many flaws in it, it's the blood test. While I've heard of the road test having a bearing on the court, it's not the one they use for the solid number.

Also, another interesting fact. They can give you DUI for .06, .04, .02, .01. Whatever they want they can give you a DUI, .08 is simply a "suggested" barometer of drunkeness, not a hard law. Most of the time cops won't bother you until you're at least .08, but not to say it could be done.

All of the information comes from Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program, which apparently if you get caught with possession of alcohol by a minor they put you in drunk driving courses, for whatever reason.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Yeah, drinking laws are VERY subjective. Whatever mood the officer is in that night (or day for us heavy drinkers) can get you busted.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I don't see where any freedoms where given up. They tapped about 800 people out of how many in this country and if someone is contacting questionalbe people than I'm glad they are tapping them. I myself have given up no freedoms because I do not do anything for them to wast their time on me. Even if they did they could catch me doing some stupid post on here or listen to me blow off another phone solicitor.

Stuff like that is just the tip of the iceberg. Thanks to the Patriot Act big brother has easy access to more and more of our most sensitive, personal information.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I have mixed feelings about that whole thing. Now don't think I'm taking a stand one way or the other, but even if our personal freedoms are violated, will we ever know unless we're planning on something illegal?