Bloomberg Seeks to Ban Smoking in Every Restaurant and Bar

The New York Times ^ | August 9, 2002 | JENNIFER STEINHAUER

[SheLion]

It could very well happen that someday smoking cigarettes will be illegal.

I don't think we will see the day that comes when tobacco is illegal. Check out some of the threads I am doing about how much smokers are contributing to the states:

There's a lot more, but it takes time to get them posted:

California Smokers'Contribution To The State Economy -2001

INDIANA SMOKERS' CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STATE ECONOMY - 2001

MICHIGAN SMOKERS' CONTRIBUTION TO THE STATE ECONOMY - 2001

[jenny65]

How can you ever have a smoke free environment in Manhattan as long as taxis, trucks and buses are allowed to roll around?

A-F'ING-MEN! I was in downtown Chicago the other day, and the streets were pretty crowded. I started to light up, and immediately some woman behind me starts with the faux coughing/gagging. I mean really obnoxious. Not wanting to start a scene, I put it away for later. About that time, a CTA bus came rolling by, and the thick black smoke blew right though the crowd I was in, including Miss Anti-Smoking-Nazi-B*tch. As the smoke from the bus was wafting by us, I turned, looked right at her and did my best impression of her coughing routine. She just gave me dirty look and walked on.

I'm gettin' worked up all over again just thinking about it.

[robertpaulsen]

What I would like to see go away is holding the establishment responsible for their drinking patrons. If a person drinks, drives, then gets in an accident, it should be 100% his resposibility. I've never understood why the bar is responsible.

[N. Theknow]

A-F'ING-MEN! I was in downtown Chicago the other day, and the streets were pretty crowded. I started to light up, and immediately some woman behind me starts with the faux coughing/gagging. I mean really obnoxious.

You should have told her that it sounded like her a$$ was backfiring.

[BikerNYC]

It's just not that. What business does government have in telling this or that establishment that they can or cannot serve alcohol or cigarettes? As long as adults are using them, any establishment should be able to allow patrons to partake of them.

[FourtySeven]

A-F'ING-MEN! I was in downtown Chicago the other day, and the streets were pretty crowded. I started to light up, and immediately some woman behind me starts with the faux coughing/gagging. I mean really obnoxious. Not wanting to start a scene, I put it away for later. About that time, a CTA bus came rolling by, and the thick black smoke blew right though the crowd I was in, including Miss Anti-Smoking-Nazi-B*tch. As the smoke from the bus was wafting by us, I turned, looked right at her and did my best impression of her coughing routine. She just gave me dirty look and walked on.

LOL

[janis]

Cigarette smoke stinks? Nothing stinks worse than sanctimony.

[robertpaulsen]

And anyone should be able to start a taxi service in New York City, too. But, there are good reasons for limited restrictions on bars, which I do support (for example, zoning restrictions, location relative to church or school, etc.). Or, if a community of like minded citizens wishes their town to remain dry (or free from other adult entertainment), they should be allowed that freedom.

[SheLion]

I'm gettin' worked up all over again just thinking about it.

Well, this Bloomberg issue is really heating up on MSNBC! However, Curtis and Jeff are just letting more ANTI's express their opinion. I emailed Jeff and told him he is a DAMN liar about second hand smoke. And why doesn't he let the public know about the Federal Court throwing OUT that EPA study?

Jeff also said that the ban has HELPED in California since the bans. I told him that once again, he is a damn liar. There is a study out about the Smoking Bans Impact on California:

SMOKING BAN IMPACT ON CALIFORNIA RESTAURANTS

I wish you all would send in an email to those idiots about this New York ban! They seem to think it's OK to take away people's rights and business rights! Let them have it!

question@msnbc.com

[SheLion]

Cigarette smoke stinks? Nothing stinks worse than sanctimony.

You got THAT right. And like I have said before: I bet these anti smokers have some habits that WE would find disgusting!

[Great Dane]

But bribery? Please!

LOL, Sorry I forgot myself, didn't I..... remember the good old days, "if it walks like a duck.... and so on."

[BikerNYC]

Or, if a community of like minded citizens wishes their town to remain dry (or free from other adult entertainment), they should be allowed that freedom.

Then please extend to those same like-minded citizens (perhaps those who view smoking as against the wishes of God and who would prefer not to be confronted with it or have their children see it in their public accomodations) the freedom to rid themselves, not only of alcohol and adult entertainment, but of cigarettes as well.

Or is this simply a matter of favoring one vice over others?

[robertpaulsen]

Apples and oranges. Mr. Bloomberg does not wish to stop selling cigarettes, he just wants people to stop smoking cigarettes.

Now, if Mr. Bloomberg and the people of New York City vote to ban the sales of cigarettes and the smoking of cigarettes within city limits, that's fine by me. But it's just a little hypocritical to sell people a carton of cigarettes for $75., take the tax, then tell the smoker to go to New Jersey to smoke them, don't you think? Just how strongly does New York City feel about smoking?

[SupplySider]

Great point about the employee safety scam. It's too bad also that businesses are subject to a lot of horrible regulations that could never be passed off on individuals. I guess the constant drumbeat about the evils of business in the news and entertainment media make people forget that businesses are owned by people.

[BikerNYC]

It's no more hypocritical than a community banning the sale of liquor at restaurants, but letting people bring their own liquor to drink.

So, apart from the hypocricy in allowing the sale but not the smoking of cigarettes in public accomodations, you have no problem with a city prohibiting the smoking of cigarettes within its limits?

[lowbridge]

One just remodeled. They did a beautiful job. But get this: You know how most places put the smokers in a enclosed glass "house?" Well, THIS place has the NON SMOKERS in there. Now THEY get to look out at the people smoking, drinking, eating and having FUN! I laughed my a$$ off when I saw that!

Whats the name of this place and where is it? :-)

[SheLion]

Whats the name of this place and where is it? :-)

Oh, it's in northern Maine. WAY up here in Aroostook County. They also installed a new Golf computer game that takes up one whole wall. People bring in their own golf clubs, and what with the harsh winters up here, the avid golfers have found a home!

This place is starting a golf tournament in October. Should be fun to watch.

[aristeides]

And like I have said before: I bet these anti smokers have some habits that WE would find disgusting!

Like that mayor of Friendship Heights, MD who was backing a town ordinance banning out-of-doors smoking, and who was charged with molesting a 14-year-old boy in the men's room of the National Cathedral in D.C. I think he ended up admitting the charge in a plea bargain.

[aristeides]

I've never understood why the bar is responsible.

Because the bar typically has deeper pockets than the drinking patron. And trial lawyers love deep pockets.

[robertpaulsen]

You got your hypocrisy backwards. According to your example, Mr. Bloomberg would ban the sales of cigarettes yet allow people to smoke them. I'm saying the hypocrisy is in profiting (actually profiteering) from the sales of cigarettes, then not allowing people the opportunity to smoke them.

Now, from a city that banned a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, banning cigarettes would be a walk in the park. But if New York City continues to sell cigarettes, I would find the message to be disingenuous at best. If I were a voting resident of New York City, I would not vote for prohibition.