New York City Alert! New York City Smoker Freep 18 December!

NC CLASH ^ | 17 December 2002 | Audrey Silk

[SheLion]

** PROTEST ANNOUNCEMENT **

CHARGE OF THE CIGARETTE LIGHTER BRIGADE

WEDNESDAY, DEC. 18TH AT 12 NOON
CITY HALL (East Gate)
(Time subject to change.  Please check back for confirmation )

The NYC Council will be voting on Mayor Bloomberg's sweeping smoking ban this date.

Some council members can still be swayed NOT to vote for this bill (see latest news )

It's up to you to convince them once and for all that it's wrong, and not in their best political career interests, to support one man's personal war on smokers.

Thousands of businesses and two million New Yorkers will be affected.

Let them know that you refuse to become a P risoner O f Bloomberg's W ar on smokers!

  it's not too late!   Show up and be heard!

tell everyone you know who has had enough of Bloomberg trying to run this city like he's the boss and not the mayor to come too!

[A CA Guy]

The compromise is that they are smoking in public outside where their smoke hits the air. I imagine many back east could also use the parking garage for a break, or outside on covered patios. Where there is a will there will be a way Max.

I guess it depends on the level of use, if someone is a chimney, the law is the pits. If a person smokes only a few cigarettes a day, to not smoke inside public places is a small adjustment.

I did look up smoking clubs here in California to see if it was legal out here to gather in a shop and smoke or snack. I did not find any on google, but they may exist.

As far as the effect on business, it got better after the ban in a very few months after people adjust to the law. Many people who refused to eat out because of the smell and they came out as did most of the smokers.

The whole point of the inside ban on public smoking is to get rid of the smoke smell everywhere and to avoid getting people sick who have allergies. Rarely does anything else draw as much attention or smell as bad.

[NYCVirago]

The majority of NYers support this new ban and it does not ban smoking in your own home, car, or on the street, which I would not support.

Wow, you're all heart, aren't you?

[NYCVirago]

Go smoke outside, in your car, at home or at another's house where they smoke as well.

Wow, you're another generous one!

[Calico Cat]

I don't know why anyone bothers getting into these arguments, NYCVirago--the anti-smokers aren't changing their minds and really seem to be enjoying their eye-roll-inducing, illogical, totalitarian little victories. Let them rant on about their 'allergies' and their 'friends' and 'family members' who died gruesome, cigarette-induced deaths. We know who the worst anti-smokers are: they're former smokers (like my mother) who won't admit that they wish smoking would disappear so they wouldn't be tempted to take up the habit again. These people are dying inside for a smoke, but like a reformed drunk-turned-prohibitionist, they have to demonize the 'drug' that entices them, as well as the sinners who still partake. It's the oldest current in American society: the Puritan streak.

[Max McGarrity]

Well said.

[VRWC_minion]

So, you agree that if the restaurant owner, staff and all other customers DO want us (proven by their entering said smoker-friendly establishment willingly), you're okay with that? If you say no, you're admitting that was just another of your asinine comments.

I actually began with the idea that it should only be up to the owner. However, after hearing the argument about the staff, I think now it should be up to both the owner and the staff. Unfortunately, it leaves things pretty complex because whether smoking is allowable on any given day would be dependent on which staff is working.

In summary my current posistion is: Smoking policy is first up to the owner but staff could have veto power on any given shift.

[Just another Joe]

Smoking policy is first up to the owner but staff could have veto power on any given shift.

SO, working on the same premise - If a restaurant sells beef steak and a 'majority' of the staff come from India and don't want beef steak on the menu, the owner should just cut that item from the menu.
Why would ANYONE want to own a business if the staff has control over how the business is run?

[VRWC_minion]

Joe, you have better logic skills than that. You created a false analogy because currently smokers in every other workign environment but restaurants and bars don't have to put up with smoking. I was proposing that instead of continuing the workplace ban in restaurants we would give the employees a chance to waive their right to a nonsmoking evironment.

Why do smokers who claim they are so polite and democratic and for choice draw the line on giving the employee of a bar or restaurant either the common courtesy of at least asking if the smoke would bother them or giving them the option to choose ?

You folks only want to have it one way. Whatever way yields the answer that you can smoke wherever and whenever is the answer and all other issues must be second to this. Talk about selfish.

[Max McGarrity]

Joe, either minnie's been dipping into the eggnog or someone else is here using his name, because what he says in the post following this one of yours is (relatively) logical. Really the only fallacy he states there is that workers in other kinds of business other than the hospitality industry have a "right" to smokefree air. I agree that they certainly DO have the absolute right to seek out smokefree businesses in which to work...

I was proposing that instead of continuing the workplace ban in restaurants we would give the employees a chance to waive their right to a nonsmoking evironment.

They do, of course, waive those nonexistent "rights" when they take a job at a smoker-friendly establishment. Sounds like a plan to me.

[VRWC_minion]

Was today the vote ? How did it go ?

[Max McGarrity]

You guys see Audrey on Fox?

[timm22]

I don't think the sign is necessary and should not be forced. I think the market will eliminate smoking in public just fine.

Hmm. Somehow I got the idea that you were on the side of using non-market governmental regulations to prevent smoking in places of business. Was I mistaken?

That said, I do see a problem with one area that your compromise doesn't address. What about the waiter or waitress who doesn't want to be exposed to smoke. Why should the office clerk have a smoke free working environment available while the bartender doesn't ? Its this second question that is the achilles heal in the smokrs arguments and its one that the smokers don't adres other than to say tough or what about those that want to work in a smokey environment. Neither of which addresses the issue of course.

Well, I did write "That way, anyone who chooses to visit that establishment, or work there, knows the risk they are taking."

Anyone who approaches a place of business looking for a job will know beforehand that part of the terms of employment is to be exposed to second hand smoke. Since no one has a right to a job, I don't see the problem with this.

[timm22]

That isn't going to fly anywhere across the country over time no matter what signs you have.

Perhaps, but what do you, personally, think of the proposal? Would you support it?

I understand the desire to want to smoke everywhere, but it has been a problem for the majority of people and to ask someone to ONLY NOT SMOKE in a few conditions isn't stopping them at all.

Asking someone not to smoke is not stopping them, true. However, in many cities, people are not being asked, but prevented by law from smoking.

Go smoke outside, in your car, at home or at another's house where they smoke as well.

Why not add "on the property of a willing owner" to this list as well (so long as the owner warns others of the risk)?

Since 1995 in CA the non-smoking conditions have been great. Now, you don't have to start choking when you enter a building or the work place anymore. Smokers haven't all gone away or died from this, they still find a way to live and smoke.

YOU find the non-smoking conditions great; some smokers and some business owners may not agree with you. Just because the results of the law have not been catastrophic, does not mean the law is good.

But suppose you replaced the California law with my proposal. Wouldn't you get the same, or better, results? That is, you wouldn't have to expose yourself to smoke, because you would know which places allowed it. And smokers would have a few more places to enjoy their habit. Both sides get what they want. Wouldn't this be better?

[A CA Guy]

There haven't been declines in business over time due to non-smoking laws here in CA. A short time after passing the reverse happened. Businesses had more people feel they could come out and patronize, businesses made more money than before. Smokers came back, just didn't smoke and those that couldn't breath with the smoke started to go out and put more money into the economy.

The thing is that cigs hold peoples lungs hostage to offensive smoke. It isn't a minor thing, it causes wheezing, sneezing and illness in many people. It affects others around the smoker. The smoker siezes and changes the air in the room, including another's air and in a drastic manner.

It does not seem unreasonable to ban it in public places. They can still smoke anywhere except indoors where the public meets.

I don't say this to be rude, but just as driving drunk affects others in traffic on the road in a bad way, so does smoke for the air of all inside a building.

[Just another Joe]

You created a false analogy

I created no false analogy. You claimed that the employees ought to be able to control what goes on in a business. I follwed that theory to a place you didn't want to go.

Why do smokers who claim they are so polite and democratic and for choice draw the line on giving the employee of a bar or restaurant either the common courtesy of at least asking if the smoke would bother them or giving them the option to choose ?

I NEVER claimed I was democratic. The choice should be the business owners. The employee should have a choice whether to work there or not.

You folks only want to have it one way.

That's right. We want the owner of the business to have the CHOICE on whether or not to allow smoking on their business premises.

[VRWC_minion]

Anyone who approaches a place of business looking for a job will know beforehand that part of the terms of employment is to be exposed to second hand smoke. Since no one has a right to a job, I don't see the problem with this.

I agree with this to a point. Here is where I am having trouble with it in practice. For one, a person may be an excellent waitress/waiter and be best suited for that posistion. However, if all establishments allow smoking to be competive then if that person wants to work they have no options unlike a counterpart in another industry.

In the aforementioned example, the owner may even want to provide a nonsmoking environment because he may believe that the nonsmoker employee is more efficient and better for serving nonsmoking customers. So we have a case where the employee wants to work at a nonsmoking restaurant and the employer wants to provide it but cannot and stay competive. Its only a small leap from here for the employer to lean on politicians to force a regional ban.

[VRWC_minion]

The problem with your scenario is that trained wait staff and bartenders are in an industry that either needs to be all smoking or all nonsmoking (level playing field). So, all employees in the field have no choice.

So, given that that the wait staff have no choice but to work in the smoking environment why are smokers so rude and obnoxious that they absolutely refuse to ask their waiter or waitress if their smoke would bother them if they smoked ?

My prediction that this argument is so convincing that unless smokers began a policy of asking their wait staff is the smoke would bother them then the removal of smoking privileges will continue at an ever increasing pace.

[Just another Joe]

So, given that that the wait staff have no choice but to work in the smoking environment why are smokers so rude and obnoxious that they absolutely refuse to ask their waiter or waitress if their smoke would bother them if they smoked ?

The OWNER of the establishment has ALREADY said that smoking is allowed.
If the wait staff has a problem with that they should look for a job in a different establishment that does NOT allow smoking.
What? You say there are no establishments that do NOT allow smoking? Guess what the market is telling you.

Pretty simple.

[VRWC_minion]

Thought so. A typical smoker could care less about the folks around him. Even if you have every legal right to smoke you still don't have the common courtesy to consider those around you.

As long as you folks keep that attitude I gurantee that society will see to it that your only smoking places will be in your home.

[Just another Joe]

You don't have a legal leg to stand on and you know it. If I don't like my working conditions for ANY reason that isn't proven scientifically to harm me, I CHOOSE whether I want to work there or not.
The only thing you have is that you don't like the smell.
These types of bans WILL be adjucated eventually. Bet on it.

Until you can come up with a better response than, "I don't like the smell", don't expect any more debate from me. I'm tired of debating with someone that has no ammunition.