Smoking Ban Cutting NY Lottery Sales

Albany -- New York lost more than $500,000 in lottery sales after hundreds of bars and restaurants unplugged their lottery machines to protest the statewide smoking ban in businesses, officials said Thursday.

The protest was meant to deprive the state of revenue from the Quick Draw game and publicize bar and restaurant owners' concerns that the smoking ban will hurt business, said Scott Wexler of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association.

"Your father was one of the few lucky ones."

I agree, he absolutely is one of the "lucky ones". But he is only in the position to be considered "lucky" (not to have gotten cancer) because HE chose to smoke in the first place!

Someone who never smokes isn't "lucky" not to get lung cancer or emphysema or whatever, they CHOSE not to take the chance.

Yet not attending is often a good way to get firedMaybe you have a point here, but how many people have ever been fired for NOT attending a company party? Fired for doing something in a drunken stupor at a company party? Sure, but for not showing up? I think you're reaching a bit to make an argument there.

My main point is a person should not be forced to smoke just to get a job, not even second hand smoke

Who is "forced to smoke just to get a job"? If you're so worried about breathing second-hand smoke, there are plenty of other professions besides bartending and waitering to get into. If you don't like heights, you don't get a job as a high-rise window washer, you do something else. But maybe people like you think we should ban multi-story buildings so that no one will be "forced" to work in a dangerous place.

That's what the Internet is for! The state and especially NYC where smokes are 6-7 dollars a pack are losing money daily by people either purchasing from the Internet, or the new tobacco black market created by the Nazi's.

Oh, didn't you hear? THAT'S now illegal in New York too, so that the citizens of the state are FORCED to pay the conficatory taxes! Many online tobacco shops won't ship to New York State any more because they're afraid of getting sued by the NYS Attorney General. They're not Microsoft; they could never afford the legal bills.

My main point is a person should not be forced to smoke just to get a job, not even second hand smoke, unless the sole purpose of the establishment is selling smokes. Also bars are a common place for after work parties. Employees should not have to attend parties around smokers. Yet not attending is often a good way to get fired. Does that employee really have a choice?

You have a point - but let's look at it from the other side.

A person shouldn't be forced to quit smoking just to get a job. What in heaven's name is wrong with an establishment that caters to smokers and only hires smokers?

In Delaware it is perfectly legal to refuse to hire someone who smokes, even if only smoke off the job. However, it is also just as legal to choose a smoker over a non-smoker for any job. Can you imagine the outrage if an establish put a help wanted ad in the paper that stated "smokers only need apply"? Yet there is no outrage when the add says "non-smsokers only."

The anti-smoker ban law in Delaware doesn't even permit smoking in tobacco or cigar shops.

You refused to take a job with a company that permits their employees the choice to smoke at work????? Actually I'm surprised you would even have considered a job with a company that makes cigarettes in the first place.

Your experience with your father-in-law is saddening and tragic, and I offer my belated condolences. However, your experience notwithstanding - most smokers do not die because of smoking at young ages.

The CDC promotes the 400,000+ "premature" deaths due to smoking all the time, but really without any basis. If one looks at the numbers the majority of so-called 'smoking-related' deaths occur well after 65.

But the biggest thing with this so-called number of 'premature' deaths is that they really have no idea how the number is derived. There is some computer program that is fed a number of deaths per annum and an estimated number of smokers and it spits out some number.

Who in their right mind can truly accept a figure of 400,000+ PREMATURE annual deaths are due to tobacco, when the fact is more than 20% of these occur past the age of 75 and there is NOT one single solitary name to account for any of them???????

I agree, he absolutely is one of the "lucky ones".

It's great your dad is doing so great, but I'm not sure it's necesary to categorize him as one of the "lucky ones." He's actually one of the more common ones.

The truth of the matter is that while the majority of lung cancer does SEEM to appear in smokers or former smokers, the MAJORITY of smokers do not get lung cancer. And that is a big difference.

There is a big difference in saying that smoking WILL cause lung cancer and saying smoking MIGHT cause it. The second word is the proper one, smoking may increase the risk of contracting it, but there is NO guarantee it WILL cause it.

The only person I ever knew diagnosed with lung cancer was a never smoker who was rarely if ever exposed to anyone else's smoke.

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.