New York considers smoking ban...Discuss

[Living-In-Clip]

I have grown up in a family of smokers. Both my parents do and almost all my relatives do.  Guess what ? I don\'t smoke. I don\'t agree with smoking, but I\'ll be damned if I am goin\' to support a new rule that says people can\'t smoke at all in a bar and what not. It should be left up to the owner of the establishment.

People have minds. We can make choices. I make a choice everytime I go in a restruant to sit in the "no smoking" section. Owners of establishments can make choices on what they want to do. We don\'t need the goverment making  rules for every little thing we do , while at the same time taking money from us (...let\'s see, we\'ll do everything but BAN smoking...that way we can still get paid!) .  The only time I think people shouldn\'t be allowed to smoke is when they are in the grocery store / supermarket / wal-mart type establishment and let\'s face it, that\'s just common sense.

P.S - They are trying to pass the same law in two cities that I live next to (work in one of \'em).

FUnny thing is, not many places follow the rule. I know it hasnt happend in florida yet and in CA almost every place I went, ppl were smoking indoors.  Most business\' just ignore the law and pay the stupid fine.

Only time will tell to see just how serious they are about playing big brother/little sister.

Hell, I say make it illegal everywhere.

What good is it doing us? Besides killing people off, destroying lifes, eventually polluting, etc.

1)  They have now absolutely proven that second-hand smoke is harmfull, not only long term, but short term, causing pulmonary and cardiac cells to function at a lower level while exposed.

2)  It\'s fine to say that owners have a right to run any kind of establishment, but then they\'re discriminating not only against non-smokers, but against the waitresses and bartenders who would NOT be able to find jobs away from smoky bars.

3)  They\'re not taking away your right to smoke (yet... that\'s probably decades away), but they\'re saying that your right to smoke interferes with MANY other peoples right not to, and so you\'ll have to take it outside.... where the others won\'t be affected.

Remeber... every rule and law in civilized society is based on one principal, and if everyone followed it, we would all be a lot better off.

You have the right to do almost anything you want, but your rights end where another individual\'s (or society\'s) rights begin.

*edit*

PS - Since Ottawa went smoke-free last year, the night life here has improved 100%, at first, there was a drop in night-goers, but now it\'s as busy as before (smoker\'s simply going outside), and I don\'t have to quarantine and dry-clean my shirt, pants, and jacket every time I go out.  I for one love the improvement.

Originally posted by FatalXception
1)  They have now absolutely proven that second-hand smoke is harmfull, not only long term, but short term, causing pulmonary and cardiac cells to function at a lower level while exposed.

2)  It\'s fine to say that owners have a right to run any kind of establishment, but then they\'re discriminating not only against non-smokers, but against the waitresses and bartenders who would NOT be able to find jobs away from smoky bars.

3)  They\'re not taking away your right to smoke (yet... that\'s probably decades away), but they\'re saying that your right to smoke interferes with MANY other peoples right not to, and so you\'ll have to take it outside.... where the others won\'t be affected.

Remeber... every rule and law in civilized society is based on one principal, and if everyone followed it, we would all be a lot better off.

You have the right to do almost anything you want, but your rights end where another individual\'s (or society\'s) rights begin.

*edit*

PS - Since Ottawa went smoke-free last year, the night life here has improved 100%, at first, there was a drop in night-goers, but now it\'s as busy as before (smoker\'s simply going outside), and I don\'t have to quarantine and dry-clean my shirt, pants, and jacket every time I go out.  I for one love the improvement.

1] Everyone should stop driving cars then. That is far more dangerous on any scale vs. 2nd hand smoke.

2] How is that discrimination when being anti-smoke isnt?

3] They are taking the smokers rights to smoke anywhere anyway though. So a technicality

You have the right to do almost anything you want, but your rights end where another individual\'s (or society\'s) rights begin.  

Its a terrible cycle that will never end.

Originally posted by luckee



1] Everyone should stop driving cars then. That is far more dangerous on any scale vs. 2nd hand smoke.

2] How is that discrimination when being anti-smoke isnt?

3] They are taking the smokers rights to smoke anywhere anyway though. So a technicality

You have the right to do almost anything you want, but your rights end where another individual\'s (or society\'s) rights begin.  

Its a terrible cycle that will never end.

1) Cars are something that the whole world economy at this time relies on, not something people rely on on a personal scale, and do for personal reasons.  Driving isn\'t guaranteed to cause you harm, either (it can, of course, but that\'s a risk, not a given).

2)  Because descrimination against smokers indoors isn\'t discrimination, since they have the choice to go outside/to their car/to their home.  

When the bars were smokey in Ottawa:
Non-smokers had the choice of breathing smoke or staying home.
Non smokers could smoke anywhere.

With non-smoking bars:
Non smokers can go to bars, or stay home.
Smokers can goto bars and smoke outside, or stay home.

Seems to me the choice is obvious.

3) See above.

sigh... I hate the fact that my father smokes, especially since there is a history of cancer in the family.  I just know he\'s gonna get it cause he must do 1-2 packs a day.  I understand its addictive and some people didn\'t know any better, but I swear every person who\'s quit said it was worth it, he just won\'t put forth the effort.

Some people would give their life to learn a lesson.

Originally posted by FatalXception


1) Cars are something that the whole world economy at this time relies on, not something people rely on on a personal scale, and do for personal reasons.  Driving isn\'t guaranteed to cause you harm, either (it can, of course, but that\'s a risk, not a given).

2)  Because descrimination against smokers indoors isn\'t discrimination, since they have the choice to go outside/to their car/to their home.  

When the bars were smokey in Ottawa:
Non-smokers had the choice of breathing smoke or staying home.
Non smokers could smoke anywhere.

With non-smoking bars:
Non smokers can go to bars, or stay home.
Smokers can goto bars and smoke outside, or stay home.

Seems to me the choice is obvious.

3) See above.

1] I wasnt talking about the potential danger of an accident, I was talking about the exhaust and C02 released.

2]It isnt discrimination either way is my point. Non-smokers have choices too.

We have choices in life. Its not like there werent any non-smoking places b4 these bans started happening. And yes, there were plenty of them. You dont like smoke that much, dont go out. I dont care, I know how to wash clothes and I know how to avoid smokey establishments.

I just have a question luckee.

Why would you smoke?

Just answer it. Why?

Why would I? I dont know..I dont smoke...

Why would they...maybe b/c they like it. Maybe b/c it relaxes them. Maybe some like the flavor of certain brands.

Hmm, here is a thought, for the same reason anyone likes anything.