Smoking Ban Faces Little Protest (???) Boston

Yahoo News ^ | 16 October 2002

[SheLion]

A proposal to ban smoking in all workplaces in Boston has not met with much controversy.

NewsCenter 5's Kelley Tuthill reported that since Mayor Thomas Menino proposed the ban three weeks ago, there has not been much of a response, according to city officials. The ordinance would make all workplaces smoke free, including restaurants, bars and clubs.

The ordinance will be voted on by the Public Health Commission.

"We haven't received as much input as we expected we would," commission member John Auerbach said. "We received a number of letters -- scores of letters -- and the letters are running about 10-to-1 in favor of the regulation."

Currently in Boston, smoking is relegated to certain sections of restaurants and allowed in bars in clubs.

"We are part of a trend of cities that are going smoke free," Auerbach said. "All the large cities in California are currently smoke free in all workplaces. New York City is debating virtually an identical regulation to ours."

Some Boston bars are starting a petition drive against the ordinance, but at Whiskey's on Boylston Street, managers said that they have no problem going smoke free, as long as their competitors have to.

"It'll hurt business originally, but then people will get used to the non-smoking thing, and business will pick up as usual," manager Austin Eichelberger said.

Cigar Masters owner Steve Saloman said that he is worried that his cigar bar would go out of business if the ordinance is approved. He spent $300,000 moving his 6-year-old cigar bar to Boylston Street.

"We feel that we fall in a gray area," Saloman said. "Everybody who comes in here is here to smoke, so they're not offending anybody."

The commission said there may be an exemption that would allow Cigar Masters to stay open. A public hearing is set for Wednesday night from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. at Roxbury Community College. The commission could vote as early as Nov. 6.

[MacDorcha]

the incoherebnt stuff actually comes from me being bi-polar. as for the rest of it, maybe if you werent a lemming, youd realize that if we all agreed, noone would be thinking.

[MacDorcha]

chintzy means cheap or trashy, not "fun"

good to hear that your g/f isnt addicted, sorry she does it at all, but if it improves your life, its all good:)

[Madame Dufarge]

the government shouldnt have total control over us by any means, but smokers(a minority that puts the majority and themselves at risk) shouldnt have controll over anyone at all. government is for regulations. its for a slap in the face or a kick in the teeth when we do wrong.

Oh.

im sorry im actually normal

Where ever did you get that idea?

[Calico Cat]

Your post made my eyes hurt! Capitalization and punctuation are good things; they help people to read what you've written and to understand what it is that you're trying to communicate. You ARE trying to communicate, aren't you?

Hmmmm--'government is for regulations'. If that's your opinion--that government is funded by taxpayers solely to create ever-more-inane laws--then I seriously wonder what you're doing on this board.

[Madame Dufarge]

I think he likes the idea of Mama Government pulling down his pants and spanking him for being a naughty boy.

[Calico Cat]

Could be, Madame. I'm not sure that he knows what he wants, but whatever it is--he expects legislators to provide him with it. Grow up, MacDorcha. GROW UP. If Joe Smith decides to open a bar and chooses to welcome smokers, you are under no obligation, at any time, to frequent that establishment. Let me repeat myself: you're free to walk right on by. No evil smokers are going to hold a gun to your head and force you to go inside, or to work there. If I was speaking aloud to you, I'd be speaking v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y, because I get the feeling that pounding good sense into your head is an extremely laborious process.

But the future seems to belong to those who want their decisions made for them, so you should fit right in.

[Windsong]

"55 million of us still enjoy smoking a legal commodity

Its always a hoot listening to you libbies rant and retch about "big government" yet don't realize that it is *I* (the non-smoker) who have to foot YOUR effin health bills 40 years down the line!!!

Retch!!!

[Calico Cat]

Oh, it comes down to that, does it? Well, what's more expensive--paying for those 'effin' health bills 40 years down the line, or paying for those who live to be 95, and wind up frail and demented, living off the taxpayer for 10 years or more? Hmmmm? Take a good guess.

[Calico Cat]

Or try to imagine the Baby Boomers, the healthiest generation on record, who will probably be the longest-lived ever, who never quite got around to producing enough children to support them in their old age. Imagine paying for 15, 20, 30 years of Medicare and Social Security for each of the Boomers.

It sounds callous, doesn't it? Well, who's going to be the bigger burden--those who live long lives, or those who die earlier? Old people are expensive. Since you brought up your resentment of costs--why not bring this up, as well?

[MacDorcha]

for the last freaking time. i agree with the decision reached by that particular establishment. i expressed my support. the point of this forum isnt to down play each and every piece of legislation that passes by. its to incourage our representatives (not our masses, making it a republic, not a democracy) to do what we see fit and most benfitting to the nation. its our job to vote for whom we want that best states what we want for our nation. Joe Smith can welcome smokers all he wants, but the fact is, smoking is on the decline, and people who actually give a damn about themselves and others around them are on the incline. smoking came to peak in the 20's and was continued by the now life-sucking baby-boomers and gen-x'ers. im terribly sorry you apear to be an old hag sitting there trying to find a reason to continue, but my message remains the same: its bad for you, those around you, and just not as welcome as it used to be. get with the times.

and further-more. joe smith can allow as many smokers as he wants inside, but health inspectors (not legislators) still restrict where and at what times one can smoke. ever wonder why hospitals wont let anyone smoke any where around the property? give ya a hint, you're ignorant if you persist to think that its even socially acceptable to the vast majority anymore to smoke. wake up you lazy, tax-money taking, along-for-the-ride, give-me-more, i-could-care-less-if-i-contribute-to-society foggies. cut the new-voice some slack, cause my ass is going to determine if your bed-ridden ass gets treatment in 20 years. im not following legislation, i am legislation. if no one supported it, then it would either be a dictatorship as it was forced upon us, or a complete democracy (communism), as the masses made the choices. as a conservative, you aim for the middle of that road. or at least should. maybe you're on the wrong forum? forgive me for actually not finding fault with a decision made by a government. geesh, what was i thinking? support smoking control because i agree with it? support bush cause i agree with him? man, im WAY off, all government is wrong.... that last bit was sarcasm, in case you didn't quite catch it.

[MacDorcha]

i think its great how, if you actually read the rest of the posts here, youd realize that they are siding with my choice, not yours. the way i arrive at the decision may be off of there base, but at least its the right point i came to.

[A. Pole]

i tend to give MORE money and spend more time in resteraunts and businesses when im not surrounded by a cancerous cloud. less and less people smoke these days anyway

I avoid the restarants which prohibit smoking. BTW, waiters prefer smoking sections since smoker are more MUCH MORE generous with tips and do not tend to be nasty to the people serving them.

[SheLion]

Its always a hoot listening to you libbies rant and retch about "big government" yet don't realize that it is *I* (the non-smoker) who have to foot YOUR effin health bills 40 years down the line!!!
Retch!!!

I think Calico Cat answered you very well, however, I will alert the Puff List to let them see what one of our "own kind" ie: Conservative, has to say about us.

To answer your rant about paying for OUR health care:

Smokers are not a financial burden as been implied: Smoking-related healthcare costs are a pittance to overall healthcare costs (8% in my state of Maine). If every smoker quit, healthcare costs would go down only temporarily and then rise above the amount you are complaining about now, because nonsmokers get sick too and for more years. Smokers more than make up for their extra cost by dying (their choice-not yours) sooner; collecting less social security and pensions, and less time in nursing homes. The state tax on cigarettes is all gravy. This is all backed up by facts.

"After the Clinton administration proposed a fairly substantial increase in the cigarette tax as a way of funding health care reform, my colleague Dennis Zimmerman and I wrote a paper entitled "Cigarette Taxes to Fund Health Care Reform and Economic Analysis." (CRS, Library of Congress, #94214 E ) The part of the paper I'd like to talk about is the justifications for increasing the cigarette tax. "I know an economist, so I start with the presumptions that people have subjective preferences about what they like to do and how they spend their money and that, in general, we want to allow people to enjoy their lifetime resources in accord with those preferences. We would intervene in those decisions only under certain kinds of circumstances that we try to delineate and measure. "When you buy a pack of cigarettes, you pay the price of the cigarettes. You also assume some implicit costs that you know about if you are aware of the health effects of smoking. But there might be another part of the cost that you don't pay, the cost that smokers impose on other people. That is the kind of cost that we were trying to examine. When we looked at the study done by health economist Ray Manning and several associates (funded by the RAND Corporation) we found that the spillover effect per pack of cigarettes was 33 cents. At the time (1994), the sum of federal, state, and local cigarette taxes was about 50 cents per pack. So the cigarette tax was already higher than the spillover cost."--Jane Gravelle, economist, Congressional Research Service.

[A. Pole]

That's interesting about Cambridge though. You'd think they'd be the first place to go PC.

Cambridge is a very funny place. The leftists they have, tend to be non PC (the most obnoxious PC crowd is in Newton, Wellesley, Lexington etc) and doing a lot of things for show.

For example a few years ago they made a law requiring bars, restaurants and other establishments to have condom vending machines. But they included the small print provision that one can get an unconditional exemption if requested. The end result? It is VERY hard to find such machine.

Another example - they made Cambridge a "nuclear free zone" - and Cambridge is one of the few towns which has the nuclear reactor! (for MIT research).

Also Cambridge budget is very well balanced and frugal.

[SheLion]

im reading more of your comments, im noticing something about your attitude, its less "lion-ess" more "she-dog"

Why don't you jump on someone who cares. And btw, I won't put up with your personal attacks.

[SheLion]

MacDorcha signed up 2002-08-17.

You better watch it, newbie! We do not take kindly in here to newbies that come in and flame us!

[metesky]

I know Cambridge very well, although I admit to not having been there for over twenty years, I lived in various places around Central Square for years and am from the Western Ave. area of Allston, right around Smith Field and Harvard Stadium.

Also a very good friend of mine is a niece of Walter Sullivan, who was an long-time oft elected Demo mayor and a lot of his people are still all over Cambridge, clerks of court and the like.

[Just another Joe]

but health inspectors (not legislators) still restrict where and at what times one can smoke.

Health boards/inspectors should have to PROVE that a danger exists to those around before they start restricting ANYTHING.

[Just another Joe]

wake up you lazy, tax-money taking, along-for-the-ride, give-me-more, i-could-care-less-if-i-contribute-to-society foggies.

BITE . . .ME!
If I was lazy I wouldn't work, I'd suck off the government teat, which it sounds like you may.
If I was sucking off the government teat I might be taking tax money. As it is, as a smoker I'm taxed just about as much as ANYONE else (percentage wise) that buys ANYTHING else.
If I didn't contribute to society I expect I would be a pariah. As I have many friends I don't think that's the case either.
As for being a foggie(?), IMO your brain is what is foggy. If you think for one moment that your ox is not going to be gored somewhere down the road your brain is LIVING in the fog.
Name me one organism, and government is analogous to an organism, that given an inch won't try to take a mile.

[MacDorcha]

um, that wasnt "foggy" it was "foggie" as in, elderly. not young. sans spring, spring chicken. ill have you know i dont take anything from anyone. i earn my keep and keep my keep. i give my parents my money for my car, i buy my clothes, my food. only things i dont pay for are utilities (im 18 and in college, no need to leave) and college, which i EARNED scholarship for. i dont wanna pay for your cancre-ridden, bed-wetting, useless body to have a little glimmer of life when others your age are vital and walking. you may pay as much tax percent-wise, but you cost us more by having paid smoke breaks, making you not spend as much time working as the rest of us. and then, once you're to sick to work, you'll get us again by laying in a bed and letting dear ol' Uncle Sam give you bed time manner well into your 60's (average age of a non-smoker? 80+) you wanna actually try to convince me that smoking is ok? go ahead. you want to convince me that by expressing support one way or another on a politcal issue makes me not a conservative? bullshit. its all about us expressing our concerns to the govnt. and my concern is that your shrivled lungs will cause me and my kids on down the road, to have asthma, or allergies. my dad quit smoking once he figured out it wasnt safe. he stopped doing it a few months before i was born. i talk to my dad because i love him, and he has givin me more than enough info to not ever be as easly swayed as you were to remain a smoker. you would never have thought of smoking if it werent for someone around you doing it. and you, being weak minded and weak willed, followed like a little sheep. only sheep are innocent, more like a lemming, falling off a pit. i know how to control my life, i know how to handle myslef, and i dont let a few "friends" pressure me into something wrong. you could live to be as wise as this teen, if youd only not be so... liberal minded.