SMOKING LAWS TOO HARSH, VOTERS SAY (New York)

Yahoo News ^ | September 8 2003 | FREDRIC U. DICKER

[Outraged At FLA]

NEW YORKERS over whelmingly believe that Gov. Pataki and the Legislature "went too far" in passing the state's harsh new anti-smoking law, a bombshell new poll shows.

And the poll found they want the law - which took effect July 24 - changed.

The still-secret survey, a copy of which was obtained by The Post, shows that nearly 68 percent of all New York state voters - and 63 percent of city voters - say the controversial anti-smoking ban is too severe.

New Yorkers of all ethnicities agree that the ban went too far: blacks, 78 percent; Hispanics, 68.4 percent; and whites, 66.4 percent;

They also agree it went too far by sex: men, 70.7 percent, and women, 64.5 percent. They even agree it went too far by political orientation: Democrats, 63.8 percent; Republicans, 67.9 percent; independents, 75.3 percent.

And even nonsmokers agree it went too far.

A whopping 62 percent of nonsmokers said the law is too harsh.

The poll also shows a majority of New Yorkers want the law changed.

The poll, conducted by the nationally renowned firm of McLaughlin & Associates, found two out of three voters say Pataki and state lawmakers should modify the law to permit - at the very least - some smoking in bars, nightclubs and lounges.

Just 28 percent said they wanted the current law left the way it is.

The poll - the first to become public since the smoking ban took effect - was commissioned by the state Conservative Party.

It found a majority of New Yorkers believe the state should keep its hands off local smoking regulations and leave it to bar and restaurant owners alone to decide if smoking should be permitted.

Nearly 57 percent of all those surveyed - and nearly 53 percent of New York City voters - said the decision should be left to the private sector.

Just 22 percent said state government should make the decision, and another 17 percent said it should be left to local governments.

"This poll shows that the Legislature and Gov. Pataki went too far," said state Conservative Party Chairman Michael Long.

"Voters wisely know we can find a workable way to handle smoking without big government crushing everybody's freedom of choice," said Long, who is expected to make the poll public as soon as today.

The new poll surveyed 600 likely New York voters July 29-30 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

[Great Dane]

Enjoy those empty seats while they last. Believe me, the smokers will be back. They will just step outside for a smoke.

Don't think so, our ban has been in effect over 2 years, I have only dined in Ottawa once, and that was under duress, other smokers are taking their business out of town as well, we have found a lot of delightful places out of town, and Ottawa is still losing a lot of money.

[Rainmist]

There's nothing worse than an ex-smoker who chastises someone for the same bad habit that they formerly indulged in. I think they're just p***ed that they can no longer smoke so they have to pass judgement on everyone else. I despise beer but I don't try to prevent anyone from drinking it.

[FLAMING DEATH]

You're entitled to your opinion. Here's mine.

"I like smoke free air." is not a justification of taking away a bar owner's property rights. It is his establishment, bottom line, and he invites guests into it. He pays the bills. Neither the guests nor the government should have any say in whether or not people smoke.

If that upsets you, voice your opinion with your feet. If you like smoke free air, go to restaurants that maintain that environment. If enough people agree with you, those sorts of establishments will become more common.

Also, whether or not you find the habit "filthy and unhealthful" is irrelevant. "Smoking is icky" is not justification for taking away property rights. Again, if you don't like it, stay away from these types of people.

It is not, nor should it have ever been, the government's job to adapt the world to suit you.

[jmc813]

Those of us who are former smokers or never smoked think it is great. Sorry smokers, you are in the minority.

It amazes me to see the amount of people, even FReepers who still think we live in a democracy.

[cajun-jack]

a good while back, there was a pubbie rep in north dakato that proposed legislation to completely ban smoking in the entire state....there was a thread on here about it but i didn't bookmark it and don't know the keywords, but a hearing was held at the state level and the ones to come out against a total ban was American Cancer society and various doctor and nurse's groups. their reason....the loss of the tax revenue would eliminate the funding for their stop smoking programs. not kidding..if some one here is smart enough to find it, please re-post that thread.

[Looking4Truth]

A bar is private property. This is about property rights.

Thank You! This needs to be heavily emphasized on these type of threads before it sinks into a smoker vs. non-smoker battle.

It's not about health, children or puppy dogs, dammit, it's about private property rights and gov't control IMHO.

Thanks again for bringing it up, Nik.

[Fred Mertz]

I love the smell of cigarette smoke.

You, on the other hand, make me want to barf. You and your ilk is what is wrong with this formerly great nation.

[CdMGuy]

Under your vague difinition of Property Rights, a tavern owner would have the right to spread the SARS virus in his bar. Sorry, smoking has nothing to do with property rights. It is a public health issue.

[CdMGuy]

Hey Fred,

Do you berate your wife like that too? Or, does she bow and scrape before you to avoid your beligerance? Or perhaps she kicked your butt out of the house a long time ago. Nice guy, NOT.

[CdMGuy]

Oh, sorry Fred. Just noticed you come from Kentucky. That explains it. Must be losing your ass on tobacco farming these days.

[CSM]

"Under your vague difinition of Property Rights, a tavern owner would have the right to spread the SARS virus in his bar. Sorry, smoking has nothing to do with property rights. It is a public health issue."

Of course it is always about health and it is for the children. If you really think this is about health, you should switch your political posting to DU. SARS is a proven health hazard, ETS is not!

Let me get this straight, you support seizing private property in the name of public health. That public health argument is based on bogus science and you should know that. NO ONE HAS EVER DIED FROM ETS, show me a case that proves this wrong. Smoking cigs is a CONTRIBUTORY factor that might or might not contribute to multiple other variables that cause cancer or heart disease. Think diet, genes, etc.

If you are all for seizure of private property in the name of health, then we should force all parents to not smoke in their own homes. If it is found that a parent is subjecting their children to ETS, then we should seize their children and put them in control of the state.

How about not allowing people with asthma to have children, how about seizing children when their parents allow them to eat fast food and drink soda.

When will you allow it to stop? Just because it is convenient for you doesn't make it right!

[FLAMING DEATH]

"Under your vague difinition of Property Rights, a tavern owner would have the right to spread the SARS virus in his bar."

Poor analogy. First off, SARS is a disease. Tobacco is a habit. People who have SARS probably don't want it, and possibly don't even know they have it. With tobacco, people want it, and it is easy to spot the person smoking cigarettes, as you would probably agree (it smells icky). In other words, with smoking, it is clear to all what is going on at the establishment. No one has to be subjected to it without their knowledge. Not only that, a person who was spreading SARS for kicks would obviously do it with the intent of harming others, and then could be criminally liable. I doubt that most bar owners want people to come in so that they will get cancer from the smoke, and the bar owner doesn't have some sort of tobacco burner going so that his establishment will be smoky. It is just a coincidental by-product of his customers engaging in activities they enjoy. The two aren't even comparable.


Since you decided to refute my argument by means of reductio ad absurdum, may I do the same to yours? Some pretty benign things can trigger allergic reactions, such as peanuts, which can commonly be found in bars. And, allergic reactions can have deadly consequences. Are we to ban these too? What about all the people who complain of sensitivity to smells? Easy, just ban perfume and cologne. Of course, there are animal sensitivities, too. Maybe people who have petted their cats should not be allowed in until they shower and change their clothing. After all, the will of the people comes first, and the guy who actually owns and pays for the establishment should not be allowed to foist his will upon the public, right? What about alcohol? Doesn't that lead to violence? Shouldn't violence be a public health issue, too? Doesn't it kill people?

This is what happens when we set out to adapt the world to suit every person within it. To do so leads to stupidity in the name of safety. If we keep going, we're going to have smoke-free, alcohol-free bars that serve only water and celery sticks.

Again, I would say to you that if you don't like what's going on in your local establishment, you are free to go elsewhere. You are free to write letters to or talk with the owners. You are free to encourage others to go elsewhere. Heck, you are even free to start your OWN smoke free establishment. But, that other guy's place it is not YOURS, and it is not the GOVERNMENT'S. It belongs to the guy who built or bought it, and it should be his to do with as he wishes. There has never been, nor should there ever be, a guarantee of safety from the Government, because the only method that government seems to use to trying to make us safe is to take away our liberties.

"Sorry, smoking has nothing to do with property rights. It is a public health issue."

I can't think of a more scary phrase than "public health issue". Usually, this phrase is used for attempts to infringe on rights at every turn. For example, people eating fast food is a "public health issue", so tax fast food. Guns are a "public health issue", so ban guns. SUV accidents are a "public health issue", so ban SUV's. It is getting to the point where everything is being dubbed a public health issue so that government can justify taking away more liberties. We are strangling in the name of safety, and you're asking for government to get a tighter grip around our throat.

To paraphase Benjamin Franklin, those who give up essential liberties to gain a little safety deserve neither liberty or safety.

But it isn't even about safety, because you know you can stay safe by not visiting such establishments. No one forces you to go. It is about convenience to you. What you're saying, by hiding under this "public health issue" argument is that it is acceptable for a bar owner to give up his liberties for your convenience. That's wrong, my friend. If you're worried about your health, don't go. It's that simple.

Let's try reductio ad absurdum again. Wanna be safe? Then you need to buy a hardened bomb shelter with padded walls, filtered air, and an endless supply of cholesterol free, fat free, sodium free food. That can be your world, and you're welcome to it. But don't try to make it ours, too.

[Just another Joe]

In my parents generation, and when I was a teenager, smoking was not known to be a killer.

Riigghhtt, that's why they were known as 'coffin nails'.

I used to smoke.

Nothing more self righteous than a reformed prostitute. (smoker)

[Just another Joe]

if some one here is smart enough to find it, please re-post that thread.

I'll find it.

[Just another Joe]

Here it is.

NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE: Tobacco ban gets lit up in House

[Protagoras]

So what are the citizens of New York going to do about it?

Nothing, they will vote for whatever Republicrat promises them the most loot from others pockets.

[Protagoras]

Take me to task. I don't care.

Good, then you won't mind me telling you what you are, a fascist.

[Protagoras]

I love going to smoke free restaurants and bars.

So do it. Just stay the hell out of resturants where the property owners allow it. Mind your own business.

[cajun-jack]

doggone it joe....u 1 smart cookie ain't ya?? thanks a lot...very interesting reading isn't it?

[Protagoras]

Do you berate your wife like that too? Or, does she bow and scrape before you to avoid your beligerance? Or perhaps she kicked your butt out of the house a long time ago. Nice guy, NOT.

Hey, you asked for flames and you got em, don't cry now.