Smoking Laws in NY and NJ

[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.

[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

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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

If I knew I was loosing the 65% of the non smokers to a non smoking bar do to the smokers I would become a non smoking bar. Then word would get around and the 65% going to anothr smoking bar may come to my bar.

[RiggoRules]

Originally Posted by firstdown

If I knew I was loosing the 65% of the non smokers to a non smoking bar do to the smokers I would become a non smoking bar. Then word would get around and the 65% going to anothr smoking bar may come to my bar.

Why would I go to the non-smoking bar? The chicks who put out the easiest are going to be at the smoking bar.

Seriously, if non-smoking bars and restuarants were good for business, there wouldn't need to be a law.

On top of that, while it goes against the conventional wisdom, the arguement that second hand smoke causes anything more serious than stinky clothes is simply junk science. There causal link between second hand smoke and cancer or any lung disease has not been established nor is it likely to exist. There simply isn't enough concentration of any hazardous substance in even the most smoke filled dive to do any damage.

By way of antedotal evidence....

How many non-smokers spend significant time in heavy smoking environments yet never smoke themselves? Quite a few, right?

Well, far more powerful than the cancer causing agents smoking are the addictive properties of nicotine. If second hand smoke was a problem, just walking into a bar would get people addicted.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by RiggoRules

On top of that, while it goes against the conventional wisdom, the arguement that second hand smoke causes anything more serious than stinky clothes is simply junk science. There causal link between second hand smoke and cancer or any lung disease has not been established nor is it likely to exist. There simply isn't enough concentration of any hazardous substance in even the most smoke filled dive to do any damage.

Not even anywhere REMOTELY close to the truth.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/co...Indoor_Air.asp

Secondhand smoke can be harmful in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:

• An estimated 35,000 to 40,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are not current smokers
• About 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmoking adults
• Other respiratory problems in nonsmokers, including coughing, phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
• 150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations
• Increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million asthmatic children.

Canada agrees:
http://www.bchealthguide.org/healthfiles/hfile30a.stm

People who do not smoke, and who are exposed to the toxic chemicals in second-hand smoke on a regular basis, can suffer serious and life-threatening health problems.

In the long term, people exposed to second-hand smoke have a greater risk of suffering from lung cancer, nasal sinus cancer, heart disease, stroke, and breathing problems, including increased coughing, wheezing, pneumonia, bronchitis, and asthma.

People who live with someone who smokes and are exposed to tobacco smoke on a regular basis have a 30 per cent increased risk of developing lung cancer and heart disease.

People who do not smoke will suffer from the effects of breathing second-hand smoke right away. Even as little as 8 to 20 minutes can cause physical reactions linked to heart disease and stroke, such as increased heart rate, less oxygen to the heart, and constricted blood vessels that increases blood pressure and makes the heart work harder.

Pregnant women exposed to second-hand smoke can have a greater risk of miscarriages and babies with low birth weight.

I've got LOTS more where that came from.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by RiggoRules

On top of that, while it goes against the conventional wisdom, the arguement that second hand smoke causes anything more serious than stinky clothes is simply junk science. There causal link between second hand smoke and cancer or any lung disease has not been established nor is it likely to exist. There simply isn't enough concentration of any hazardous substance in even the most smoke filled dive to do any damage.

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.