Smoking Laws in NY and NJ

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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?

No I wouldn't be in favor of a ban on fatty foods like that. First off, it's not a fair comparison. I'm not advocating a total ban on all smoking. I'm advocating a ban in indoor, public places. You're suggesting that the government ban fatty foods, which is going MUCH further than the indoor smoking ban law does. Smokers can still smoke by stepping outside. What you're suggesting is that the goverment limit fatty foods completely. That's not a fair comparison.

Banning fatty foods would be the same as banning alcohol or banning smoking altogether, in my mind. It's going too far and taking away too much personal freedom.

I agree that banning fatty foods would be a health benefit to society. But if you read my previous posts, you'll see I don't agree with having to give up too much in the way of personal freedoms. An indoor ban on smoking doesn't ask too much of smokers: simply step outside to smoke. It's not saying "you can't smoke at all, harumph harumph harumph." You can smoke, just go outside, and come back when you're done. Quite easy.

[Schneed10]

And the money lost by the bar and restaurant business due to a smoking ban will be more than offset by savings people will experience on health insurance premiums, Medicare and Medicaid taxes, and healthcare expenses in general over the next 50 years.

The less exposure society has to second hand smoke, the lower the incidence of cancer and other harmful health effects.

Sucks for the bar owners, but in the long run it's going to be better for America's collective pocketbook.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

And the money lost by the bar and restaurant business due to a smoking ban will be more than offset by savings people will experience on health insurance premiums, Medicare and Medicaid taxes, and healthcare expenses in general over the next 50 years.

The less exposure society has to second hand smoke, the lower the incidence of cancer and other harmful health effects.

Sucks for the bar owners, but in the long run it's going to be better for America's collective pocketbook.

Then why stop at restaurants? Why not ban smoking period? Make it as illegal as marijuana, cocaine and heroin. We all know how well that's working!

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

And the money lost by the bar and restaurant business due to a smoking ban will be more than offset by savings people will experience on health insurance premiums, Medicare and Medicaid taxes, and healthcare expenses in general over the next 50 years.

The less exposure society has to second hand smoke, the lower the incidence of cancer and other harmful health effects.

Sucks for the bar owners, but in the long run it's going to be better for America's collective pocketbook.

Ok now we need a one drink per hour limit thats one beer, or one glass of wine, or 1oz achol. Druken driven kills thousands of people each year and alot of the drivers are coming home from bars or Resturants. This will reduce accidents, deaths, save on health insurance, medicade because of injuries in accidents. The less exposure society has from drunkin drivers the lower incidence of accidents and other harmful things drinking does.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Ok now we need a one drink per hour limit thats one beer, or one glass of wine, or 1oz achol. Druken driven kills thousands of people each year and alot of the drivers are coming home from bars or Resturants. This will reduce accidents, deaths, save on health insurance, medicade because of injuries in accidents. The less exposure society has from drunkin drivers the lower incidence of accidents and other harmful things drinking does.

Well in case you hadn't noticed, drunken driving is illegal too. DUI laws say you can drink, you just have to find a ride home. The smoking law says you can smoke, just not in this enclosed space.

It's simple. Go outside to smoke, and find an alternative ride home when you're drunk. Nothing needs to be banned completely, that would be taking it way too far. There are ways to reconcile between personal freedoms and respect for the health of others. I honestly wouldn't mind if they tried to make tobacco illegal, but I realize this is totally unrealistic and runs contrary to the freedoms this country stands for. There's a way we can all exercise our freedoms and still protect the health of others around us. You should be allowed to get wasted if you want, as long as you plan to arrange another ride home so you don't hurt people. And you should be allowed to smoke if you want, as long as you smoke outside so you don't hurt people.

PS I work as a financial analyst for Temple University Health System in Philly. We get a grant from the state every year (and so do many other city hospitals) to help cover the costs of treating uninsured patients for illnesses due to smoking. We don't get any such thing to cover the costs of alcohol related illnesses. The state recognizes the financial impact smoking has on hospitals. The financial impact is nowhere close from that of drinking, hence no alcohol grant from the state. Treating lung cancer is A LOT more costly (radiation therapy, chemotherapy, biopsies, lung transplants, lung volume reduction surgery, and surgical removal of tumors) than treating trauma-related injuries from DUI accidents.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Well in case you hadn't noticed, drunken driving is illegal too. DUI laws say you can drink, you just have to find a ride home. The smoking law says you can smoke, just not in this enclosed space.

It's simple. Go outside to smoke, and find an alternative ride home when you're drunk. Nothing needs to be banned completely, that would be taking it way too far. There are ways to reconcile between personal freedoms and respect for the health of others. I honestly wouldn't mind if they tried to make tobacco illegal, but I realize this is totally unrealistic and runs contrary to the freedoms this country stands for. There's a way we can all exercise our freedoms and still protect the health of others around us. You should be allowed to get wasted if you want, as long as you plan to arrange another ride home so you don't hurt people. And you should be allowed to smoke if you want, as long as you smoke outside so you don't hurt people.

PS I work as a financial analyst for Temple University Health System in Philly. We get a grant from the state every year (and so do many other city hospitals) to help cover the costs of treating uninsured patients for illnesses due to smoking. We don't get any such thing to cover the costs of alcohol related illnesses. The state recognizes the financial impact smoking has on hospitals. The financial impact is nowhere close from that of drinking, hence no alcohol grant from the state. Treating lung cancer is A LOT more costly (radiation therapy, chemotherapy, biopsies, lung transplants, lung volume reduction surgery, and surgical removal of tumors) than treating trauma-related injuries from DUI accidents.

I no driving and drinking is illegal but rest. and bars still serve drunk people that they know are going to be driving. So by passing this law you would be looking out for the good of everyone.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I no driving and drinking is illegal but rest. and bars still serve drunk people that they know are going to be driving. So by passing this law you would be looking out for the good of everyone.

Granted, but you'd be limiting personal freedoms too much. Nobody would ever be able to get wasted.

Didn't you bring up this point to make a comparison to my argument that the indoor smoking ban has long-term health benefits? The reason I back the indoor smoking ban is because it protects the health of non-smokers while not asking smokers to give up too much in the way of personal freedoms.

Personal freedoms have to be protected in this country, that's first and foremost for me. But if you can make moderate changes to those freedoms and gain a lot in terms of health for non-smokers, that's a win for the country.

Trying to keep people to one beer an hour, while I agree would be a benefit to society's health, basically takes away all personal freedoms regarding getting bombed. There would be no drunken hookups, no good stories from a night out with your buddies, no bachelor parties, etc. It sounds like I'm kidding, but I'm not. That has a big impact on our lives, it would directly affect quality of life. Asking smokers to step outside to light up doesn't have anywhere close to the negative impact on our personal freedoms. It's a simple solution, and it's not asking too much at all.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I no driving and drinking is illegal but rest. and bars still serve drunk people that they know are going to be driving. So by passing this law you would be looking out for the good of everyone.

Bars serving drunk people are breaking the law in almost all states. Lets face it folks there are limitations on your rights...it isn't as universal as you might think. I mean, you can't masturbate in public during Sunday launch at Denny's. Why? Good question, maybe you pro-smoker people can explain why...lol.

[MTK]

Lets say smoking was banned and everyone stopped smoking tomorrow... obviously in the long run the average age of the population is going to increase and probably result in an increase in health care costs anyway.

I wonder how much of a tradeoff it would be... killing people off early vs. people living longer.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Lets say smoking was banned and everyone stopped smoking tomorrow... obviously in the long run the average age of the population is going to increase and probably result in an increase in health care costs anyway.

I wonder how much of a tradeoff it would be... killing people off early vs. people living longer.

But when people live longer and healthier lives, they contribute to society by working longer.

If you're assuming the average retirement age stays exactly where it is now, then I agree with you. But it won't. As the country's life expectancy rises, many will continue working well into their 60s and 70s (especially amongst the working class population who don't have the wherewithall to build large retirement savings accounts).

[SmootSmack]

By the way. Have any of you seen "Thank You For Smoking"? It's actually a pretty entertaining movie, though it has a bit of a lull about 3/4ths in but it starts and ends strong.

[Schneed10]

I go back to Malcolm's point: What's easier?

A) The smokers walk outside, catch a smoke, come back in.
B) Non-Smokers search far and wide for the one of the very few bars and restaurants that don't allow smoking, many driving a great distance to get there because such a business is rare.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I go back to Malcolm's point: What's easier?

A) The smokers walk outside, catch a smoke, come back in.
B) Non-Smokers search far and wide for the one of the very few bars and restaurants that don't allow smoking, many driving a great distance to get there because such a business is rare.

What's easier indeed.

A.) Non-smokers in restaurant that allows smoking are repulsed, inform the manager of their plans, and promptly leave.

B.) Non-smokers petition their representatives in the government to ban smoking in every single restaurant and bar. Nevermind the fact that they aren't forced to eat out every night in order to survive. But because on one particular Saturday night, they can't stand the cigarette smoke in the local pizza joint, so they seek to punish every restaurant or bar owner in the state, (or the nation if they could do it) and make it illegal for everyone else to light up under the penalty of law.

By the way, Schneed, no one has a "right" to go out to eat and force restaurants to cater to their particular needs, likes or dislikes. If you don't like loud music, you don't go to a rock concert, complain that it's unhealthy for your eardrums and seek out legislation to outlaw loud music.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

What's easier indeed.

A.) Non-smokers in restaurant that allows smoking are repulsed, inform the manager of their plans, and promptly leave.

B.) Non-smokers petition their representatives in the government to ban smoking in every single restaurant and bar. Nevermind the fact that they aren't forced to eat out every night in order to survive. But because on one particular Saturday night, they can't stand the cigarette smoke in the local pizza joint, so they seek to punish every restaurant or bar owner in the state, (or the nation if they could do it) and make it illegal for everyone else to either light up under the penalty of law.

By the way, Schneed, no one has a "right" to go out to eat and force restaurants to cater to their particular needs, likes or dislikes. If you don't like loud music, you don't go to a rock concert, complain that it's unhealthy for your eardrums and seek out legislation to outlaw loud music.

In regards to the bolded part, why don't non-smokers have the right to lobby for an indoor ban? Where in the constitution does it say that people can't do this?

You act like it's this law that's in place that the government can't tell you what to do with your place of business. That's simply not true. From a legal standpoint the government is well within it's rights to pass laws governing your behavior within your own establishment.

I think it's simply your personal belief that the government should't be telling businesses what to do in this situation, because you can't possibly have any legal ground to stand on. And when there's no legal reason why this ban can't affect private establishments, the rule of the majority comes into play. If there are enough non-smokers who want these places smoke free, and they have the representation in NJ state congress to get that law passed, then they are well within their legal rights to enforce the ban on these places.

Maybe you are arguing your point based on your utopian view of the way the world works: this notion that the government can't tell me what to do with my own damn bar. But dude, I live in the real world, and it doesn't work that way.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

In regards to the bolded part, why don't non-smokers have the right to lobby for an indoor ban? Where in the constitution does it say that people can't do this?

You act like it's this law that's in place that the government can't tell you what to do with your place of business. That's simply not true. From a legal standpoint the government is well within it's rights to pass laws governing your behavior within your own establishment.

I think it's simply your personal belief that the government should't be telling businesses what to do in this situation, because you can't possibly have any legal ground to stand on. And when there's no legal reason why this ban can't affect private establishments, the rule of the majority comes into play. If there are enough non-smokers who want these places smoke free, and they have the representation in NJ state congress to get that law passed, then they are well within their legal rights to enforce the ban on these places.

Maybe you are arguing your point based on your utopian view of the way the world works: this notion that the government can't tell me what to do with my own damn bar. But dude, I live in the real world, and it doesn't work that way.

Yes and when everyone thinks like that we can be mine numb and just do as we are told. I would bet that it was not a majority in NJ that got the law passed it was the people who yelled the most and a liberal state. If the demand was so high why are there not any smoke free places.