Smoking Laws in NY and NJ

[PWNED]

well beemn, its not a majority vote type of thing i wouldnt think. i would think its a HEALTH thing.

[PWNED]

the bottom line question for me is, why should nonsmokers have to adapt to someone elses habit that hurts both people?

sorry to butt into the argument guys but i have to throw my two cents in

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by PWNED

well beemn, its not a majority vote type of thing i wouldnt think. i would think its a HEALTH thing ... the bottom line question for me is, why should nonsmokers have to adapt to someone elses habit that hurts both people?

My argument is they don't have to "adapt". Non-smokers can take matters of health into their own hands and leave a smoke-filled restaurant, and go to a non-smoking one.

According to those that favor smoking bans, there would be no restaurants that a smoker could go to. In a free country and in free markets, everyone has a choice.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

My argument they don't have to "adapt". Non-smokers can leave a smoke-filled restaurant, and go to a non-smoking restaurant.

According to those that favor smoking bans, there would be no restaurants that a smoker could go to.

No one says smokers can't go. Just don't smoke there.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

No one says smokers can't go. Just don't smoke there.

My statement should have read, "there would be no restaurants a smoker could go to and smoke."

Non-smokers don't have to go to a restaurant that allows smoking.

My position is two-fold: the government should not be able to dictate that a private restauranteur cannot allow smoking, or loud music, or serve fatty foods, when no one is forced to go there. Secondly, one class of citizens should not be able to petition the government to outlaw the actions of another class of citizens when everyone has the choice to disassociate themselves from them or leave the premises.

[gibbsisgod]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

My statement should have read, "there would be no restaurants a smoker could go to and smoke."

Non-smokers don't have to go to a restaurant that allows smoking.

My position is two-fold: the government should not be able to dictate that a private restauranteur cannot allow smoking, or loud music, or serve fatty foods, when no one is forced to go there. Secondly, one class of citizens should not be able to petition the government to outlaw the actions of another class of citizens when everyone has the choice to disassociate themselves from them or leave the premises.

Very insightful, i never thought of it that way.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

According to those that favor smoking bans, there would be no restaurants that a smoker could go to.

That's fine with me.

I was thinking of backing up my car to a bar or restaurant and just piping the exhaust right into it, hey, the non-exhaust enjoying people could just leave, right?

Let me enjoy my exhaust in peace.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

That's fine with me.

I was thinking of backing up my car to a bar or restaurant and just piping the exhaust right into it, hey, the non-exhaust enjoying people could just leave, right?

Let me enjoy my exhaust in peace.

Though your statement was in jest, (or maybe it wasn't) you cannot take that action upon someone else's property without their consent. You can certainly do it if the property belongs to you, though.

[SkinEmAll]

ive been a smoker on and off for many years. im extremely considerate of nonsmokers even in outside settings, out of respect for their choice to not smoke. i dont smoke in my house or around my kids,ever. mostly i smoke during the day in my truck between jobs, and i do enjoy having a smoke if im out having a drink. i know theres alot of a-hole smokers out there who could care less about non smokers, which i think is ignorant. theres a time and place for everything.we shouldnt open the pandoras box of what should be legal/illegal and how the govt. should/shouldnt get involved. bzness owners should be aloud to make that decision. trust me if a bar/rest. owner can make more money being smoke free...well thats a no brainer. drinking,smoking and many other things should be done responsilby and w/ care. anyway, im going outside to burn one while i try the new heiny lite beer.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SkinEmAll

anyway, im going outside to burn one while i try the new heiny lite beer.

Speaking of that new heineken light, it's pretty damn good!

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by SkinEmAll

trust me if a bar/rest. owner can make more money being smoke free...well thats a no brainer.

Exactly, the market should dictate it, not government.

[Schneed10]

This entire argument about "free markets" dictating whether or not someone should allow smoking is off base. Sure, customers can choose to attend the restaurants/bars that suit their needs. But what about the employees? They have to work in that environment. Being subjected to a smoke-filled environment creates a hazardous work condition.

And if you let free markets dictate smoking and non-smoking, all bars are going to choose to allow smoking (as is the case in Pennsylvania and all other states without Tobacco bans). It's a no-brainer, they'll make much more cash by allowing smoking. And that's why there are no smoke-free bars in PA, and hence no smoke-free choices for bartenders and waitresses to work in. The law has to be in place to protect workers' rights, not to mention the health of everyone.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

But what about the employees? They have to work in that environment. Being subjected to a smoke-filled environment creates a hazardous work condition.

And if you let free markets dictate smoking and non-smoking, all bars are going to choose to allow smoking (as is the case in Pennsylvania and all other states without Tobacco bans). It's a no-brainer, they'll make much more cash by allowing smoking. And that's why there are no smoke-free bars in PA, and hence no smoke-free choices for bartenders and waitresses to work in. The law has to be in place to protect workers' rights, not to mention the health of everyone.

No one forces anybody to work in a smoking bar or restaurant. Just like no one is forced to work in a coal mine or join the police or fire departments. I used to work in the restaurant business. There are ALWAYS jobs available for waiters, servers and bartenders. The turnover rate is like nothing you've ever seen in that field. If there are absolutely no restaurants that non-smoking employees can stand, then move to a place where there are non-smoking restaurants. If you can’t find any, THEN FIND A NEW LINE OF WORK.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

No one forces anybody to work in a smoking bar or restaurant. Just like no one is forced to work in a coal mine or join the police or fire departments. I used to work in the restaurant business. There are ALWAYS jobs available for waiters, servers and bartenders. The turnover rate is like nothing you've ever seen in that field. If there are absolutely no restaurants that non-smoking employees can stand, then move to a place where there are non-smoking restaurants. If you can’t find any, THEN FIND A NEW LINE OF WORK.

Oh sure, Beem. Go ahead and tell everyone who is subjected to smoky environments that if they don't like it, find another job. If you were running for office with that stance, you'd lose in a landslide. People don't want to hear a leader say, "if you don't like it, tough sh*t, deal with it."

I know you're not a politician, but your stance is not realistic from a politics point of view. There are too many votes there to just brush off the problem.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Oh sure, Beem. Go ahead and tell everyone who is subjected to smoky environments that if they don't like it, find another job. If you were running for office with that stance, you'd lose in a landslide. People don't want to hear a leader say, "if you don't like it, tough sh*t, deal with it."

I know you're not a politician, but your stance is not realistic from a politics point of view. There are too many votes there to just brush off the problem.

First of all, I don't base my philosophical beliefs on what is popular, in the hopes of earning points with the rest of the sheep. I'm also not running for anything. Unfortunately though, you're correct – any politician would lose if they ran on the platform of personal responsibility.

"Don't like smoking in a restaurant?" Mr. Politician might say, "No problem! I'll just use the police powers of government and ban all smoking in private restaurants. That way, you don't have to get off your ass and take your personal health standards in your own hands, just let the government do that for you!" More and more in this country, that exact scenario is actually very appealing to voters. I don't like something, so I'm going to my representative in the government to get him to outlaw it.

Let me try a little intellectual honesty test on you, Schneed: In the interest of protecting the health of all Americans, should the government also institute legislation to prohibit the serving of all fried, fatty foods and desserts? I mean, certainly you must agree that obesity and heart disease also pose a tremendous burden on our health care situation. So if your consistent, you'd be in favor of banning Buffalo wings and brownie sundaes, right?