Smoking Laws in NY and NJ

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

There's nothing saying you can't lobby for your point, if you think the goverment shouldn't be able to tell business owners what to do with their private businesses, then by all means lobby for that law to be put in place.

I was just pointing out that such a law is not in place currently. Meaning there's nothing preventing people from launching a campaign to ban smoking.

And some stats for you:
- 20-25% of the nation's population smokes
- 30-35% of people aged 25-35 are smokers, the highest percentage of any age group, and these are the people who attend bars most frequently.

If you owned a bar and 35% of your business was smoking, would you want it banned? No, no owner would. But 65% of that age group are still non-smokers, and would still love to see it banned. And yes Virginia, that is a majority, and that's how the law got put into place.

Stats as seen here:
http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-...cts/index.html

[Schneed10]

I know I'm doing my rapid-fire post thing again, where I pretty much talk to myself. But I felt the need to point out one more thing.

There is a subset of the population that views bars as a necessary part of life. Many single people rely on bars to meet people and socialize. Let's face it, they are the single biggest central location for dating and meeting members of the opposite sex. Yes, there are other ways to meet people, and bars may not be the best bet to meet your future wife. But to find a date, for many, that's the place to go.

So in a way, when you say "if you don't like smoke, go somewhere else", you're in effect limiting the freedoms of the non-smokers. Because smokers are allowed to exercise their freedom to smoke in a bar, you're asking the non-smokers to make a choice between their health and a social life to some extent.

It's easier if the smoker just walks outside to catch his smoke.

[gibbsisgod]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

.



It's easier if the smoker just walks outside to catch his smoke.

yeah, we are talking like 5 min. its not like we want to banish all smokers to one place but rather just ask them to smoke their poison in private so we dont have to smell that shit!

[MTK]

My grandfather runs a small, local tavern in NY.

The smoking ban has definitely eaten up a huge chunk of his business.

There are other local bars that allow smoking and are basically giving the state the finger... that's where all his business has gone unfortunately.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

My grandfather runs a small, local tavern in NY.

The smoking ban has definitely eaten up a huge chunk of his business.

There are other local bars that allow smoking and are basically giving the state the finger... that's where all his business has gone unfortunately.

No doubt it hurts him. But I'd bet my life that if you showed me his books, he's still turning a profit.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

No doubt it hurts him. But I'd bet my life that if you showed me his books, he's still turning a profit.

If he is it's very minimal. He's been closing early weeknights and not opening on sundays because it's just not worth it.

The smoking bans hurt the small guys more than anyone.

[SkinEmAll]

heres a nice front page story for ya, so the nice respectfull Smoker accepts the loss of his and all bar and rest. owners right to smoke inside. he goes to his favorite drinking spot after stopping off at his favorite sushi bar for a very healthy dinner (no fat/grease). after drinking a couple heiney lights,and stepping Outside for a couple of smokes hes ready to go. so as hes crossing the street to get to his compact hybrid car, hes plowed down by a Non smoker driving a huge polluting suv who left the same bar celebrating the new non smoking law by drinking 6 mick lights,3 shots of yager and 1 shot of goldschlager. in between drinks hes eating 12 hot wings and a plate nachos supreme (xtra sour cream). i guess if the bar was a Smoking bar the non smoker wouldnt have stayed as long and got as hammered and we'd have 1 happy smoker still w/ us.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SkinEmAll

heres a nice front page story for ya, so the nice respectfull Smoker accepts the loss of his and all bar and rest. owners right to smoke inside. he goes to his favorite drinking spot after stopping off at his favorite sushi bar for a very healthy dinner (no fat/grease). after drinking a couple heiney lights,and stepping Outside for a couple of smokes hes ready to go. so as hes crossing the street to get to his compact hybrid car, hes plowed down by a Non smoker driving a huge polluting suv who left the same bar celebrating the new non smoking law by drinking 6 mick lights,3 shots of yager and 1 shot of goldschlager. in between drinks hes eating 12 hot wings and a plate nachos supreme (xtra sour cream). i guess if the bar was a Smoking bar the non smoker wouldnt have stayed as long and got as hammered and we'd have 1 happy smoker still w/ us.

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.

[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.

[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

[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 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.

[PWNED]

Nicotine causes addiction, not cancer like the tar from the smoke that is in the air.

But yup, if she smokes, she pokes.

[Schneed10]

WebMD:

Is Second-Hand Smoke Harmful to a Person with Asthma?

Second-hand smoke is the combination of smoke from a burning cigar or cigarette and smoke exhaled by a smoker.

Inhaling second-hand smoke, also called "passive smoke" or "environmental tobacco smoke," may be even more harmful than actually smoking. That's because the smoke that burns off the end of a cigar or cigarette contains more harmful substances (tar, carbon monoxide, nicotine, and others) than the smoke inhaled by the smoker.

Second-hand smoke is especially harmful to people who already have asthma. When a person with asthma is exposed to second-hand smoke, he or she is more likely to experience the wheezing, coughing and shortness of breath associated with asthma.

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/45/1660_51090.htm