Smoking Laws in NY and NJ

[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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

I did not bring up the one drink for the health of the person but for the people that are killed by drunken drivers. I notice all the things that you don't want to give up for this so what your saying the smoking ban does not effect me so go for it but the drink limit would so its not a good law. I do smoke but when I go out to dinner it is 95% of the time to a non smoking resturant because I do not like eating with the guy next to me smoking while I eat. If I go to a bar that allows smoking but no one is I will go out side and smoke it does not bother me.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

We did read your other post and its clear that you want to ban smoking for health reasons(which does not effect you life style). The limit on drinks would so that law goes to far. Read you last paragraph on all the thing YOU could not do. You say how it would impact your life how about the non-drinker who gets kill from a drunk leaving a bar.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

We did read your other post and its clear that you want to ban smoking for health reasons(which does not effect you life style). The limit on drinks would so that law goes to far. Read you last paragraph on all the thing YOU could not do. You say how it would impact your life how about the non-drinker who gets kill from a drunk leaving a bar.

Firstdown, you're not hearing me. YES DRINKING AND DRIVING HAS A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON SOCIETY'S HEALTH.

Sorry, I know the caps are annoying, but I've acknowledged your point before and you haven't seemed to understand me. The negative impact I'm talking about is the deaths of drunk drivers themselves AND those they kill. I get your point, it's a similar argument because second hand smoke harms OTHER people, and drinking and driving harms OTHER people.

The difference is an indoor smoking ban allows the smoker to continue smoking without harming the health of others, by simply smoking outside. A ban on alcohol (or limiting to one beer an hour) would keep EVERYONE from getting drunk, even those who are responsible enough to take a cab home.

A ban on smoking indoors allows you to smoke responsibly, keeping others out of harm's way. A ban on drunk driving allows you to drink responsibly by getting drunk and finding another ride home. But a ban on drinking altogether would be going too far, it would punish everyone, even those responsible enough to handle themselves in an intelligent manner.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Firstdown, you're not hearing me. YES DRINKING AND DRIVING HAS A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON SOCIETY'S HEALTH.

Sorry, I know the caps are annoying, but I've acknowledged your point before and you haven't seemed to understand me. The negative impact I'm talking about is the deaths of drunk drivers themselves AND those they kill. I get your point, it's a similar argument because second hand smoke harms OTHER people, and drinking and driving harms OTHER people.

The difference is an indoor smoking ban allows the smoker to continue smoking without harming the health of others, by simply smoking outside. A ban on alcohol (or limiting to one beer an hour) would keep EVERYONE from getting drunk, even those who are responsible enough to take a cab home.

A ban on smoking indoors allows you to smoke responsibly, keeping others out of harm's way. A ban on drunk driving allows you to drink responsibly by getting drunk and finding another ride home. But a ban on drinking altogether would be going too far, it would punish everyone, even those responsible enough to handle themselves in an intelligent manner.

Like you said the goverment passes laws every day on business that effect some, few, or all people. You could stay at home and drink all you wanted so it would not stop you from drinking. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on the role of our big goverment which just got a little bigger.

[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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

You can't?LOL