Posted on 04/01/2004 2:40:44 PM PST by NJ Freeper
Edited on 07/06/2004 6:39:37 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
It's nice to be right every once in a while. Last year, for example, I went to New York City immediately after smoking was banned in bars. I found it an altogether pleasant experience to be able to enjoy a few pints of ale without coming home smelling like I'd just rolled around in a gutter filled with cigarette butts.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
It has also been shown to have some beneficial results in the prevent of Parkinson's and alzheimer's.
Is it the helathiest habit in the world to have? Of course not. Is it the immediate death sentence these clowns claim it to be? An even more resounding NO......
Ouch that's gotta leave a mark...
True or not, this statistic will be used to ram the nonsmoking laws in the remaining states and towns. This battle is essentially over.
Next up will be smoking in auto's containing children followed by smoking parents at home.
The sad thing is most of the stats are untrue, but you are correct, to a point.
This battle is essentially over.
That's where I draw the line that you are correct.
Next up will be smoking in auto's containing children followed by smoking parents at home.
They are trying it in many places......fortunately even rabid anti-smokers are seeing that is taking it too far.
Shut down the tobacco companies and make it illegal....end of arguement......oh wait, the government, anti groups and NGO's can't function without all the revenue from the production, sale and use of the product?????? what's wrong with this picture?
Posted on Mon, Mar. 29, 2004 | ||||
New York City's Smoking Ban Helps Business, Study SaysBy Lisa L. Colangelo, Daily News, New York Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Mar. 29 - The city ban on smoking in restaurants and bars is good for the lungs -- and for business, according to a Health Department report released yesterday. A year after the controversial law went into effect, business in restaurants and bars is up 8.7 percent, according to the report. The study -- done by the same department that advocated the ban in the first place -- compared tax receipts, employment and business openings and closings in 2002 and 2003. "The bottom line is that New York City a year later is a healthier place to work, eat and drink," said Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden. "And 150,000 people don't have to go into work every day and be smoked on by other people." Of the 22,003 establishments inspected from April 2003 to February 2004, 97 percent were deemed "smoke-free." Inspectors saw no ashtrays at these locations, no one was spotted smoking and cigarette warning signs were hung properly. The state Liquor Authority awarded 1,416 new licenses in 2003 in New York City, compared to 1,361 in 2002, according to the report. Mayor Bloomberg risked heavy political fallout when he pressed the ban, which continues to anger smokers who resent being sent to the sidewalk for a cigarette. Despite the rosy numbers, many bar and club owners complain business has suffered. Using 2002 -- when the economy plummeted after the 9/11 terror attacks -- as a baseline for comparison is unfair, bar owners say. "Why don't they just compare job stats to 1929 -- it's about as relevant," said David Rabin of the New York Nightlife Association, co-owner of Lotus. "Two thousand two was probably the worst year to compare to in 20 years. And they simply refuse to separate out bars, clubs and taverns [from restaurants]. They know numbers are bad there." Rabin said bar and club employees have taken second jobs to make up for lost tip income. "Is that an increase in jobs?" he quipped. Frieden said opponents falsely predicted doom and gloom when they warned employment and revenue numbers would drop 30 percent to 50 percent. "They were wrong," Frieden said. "That doesn't mean there aren't businesses that are hurting for a whole variety of reasons. Around the country, stand-alone bars are not doing well." |
Regardless of whether I was smoking or not smoking, I never have presumed it my right to tell others whether they should or should not smoke in the pubs. That's part of the deal. A lot of people like to have a smoke with their drinks.
I do not go into a lot of pubs/bars/taverns that have patrons who induldge in behavior I do not like or approve of. But I never went to the bar and told them they could not do what they did there. And I sure would not frequent the establishment if I felt it endangered me.
But there I go, controlling what happens to me and my life again!
Let's just say that the burr is so far up his... that even a highly skilled surgeon couldn't remove it.
Then there's this:
What's wacko is the assertion that the First Amendment creates a right to smoke. It doesn't. It protects freedom of speech and religion. If it created a right to smoke, New York City would still have hashish houses and opium dens, as it did in the 19th century.
Last time I've checked, hashish and opium are illegal, while tobacco isn't. And I guess the author hasn't heard of the hookah houses run by Arabs in NYC, and how Peter Vallone is lobbying to allow those places to stay open.
And isn't this author allegedly a conservative? How can he justify the government unilaterally imposing such rules on businesses?
I've read rants and diatribes here over the years that were pages long and very well spoken and intelligent. I can honestly tell you that what you wrote there is the best summation of how I view life and beats in one single line, hands down, all of what I've ever read here. Just perfect.
He babbles on presenting silly arguments I have never heard before and knocking them down, without addressing the basic topic:
What "good name" does drinking have? I have never heard of a smoker being driven to date rape. Or becomeming obnoxious after too many cigarettes. Or killing a whole family on his way home. Or just turning into an as****e after too many cigarettes.
The point is simple. Recreational smokers affect only the neurotics. Recreational drinkers offend everybody; and kill a good number of the innocent public.
Now, if you can just get a doctor to write a prescription for carton of cigs, you could get the health plan to pay for it.
Glad to see that there's no bias involved in this one. /sarcasm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.