No more smoking in New York State

[bort8]

exactly

[Narbus]

No. Once again you're ignoring the fact that it's not much of a choice to go into a smoking restaurant if everything is smoking. And don't give me this "but there are some non-smoking establishments". Because that's when I bring up the point that it's more just to inconvenience those that choose to smoke than those who don't have said addiction.

Okay. Here's the thing. Your arguement currently HINGES on the "everything is smoking" thing. If, somehow, you could still go out and enjoy a meal, a few lanes, a cocktail or whatever, and do it in a smoke-free environment already, then there's no need for this law. So the fact that there are a lot of places that are not smoking is actually a complete and total counter to your arguement. So "don't bring it up," is like saying, "A theocracy is a perfectly peachy form of government. Don't give me the 'but that leaads to discrimination' crap either."
The very fact that you do have a choice in the matter invalidates your arguement. You haven't come up with a reasonable response to this.

As for property ownership, I can see your point, but something had to be done here to create a more just situation, as I explained above.

No, you haven't. You are still suggesting that what makes for a more convienient life for you is worth sacrificing the rights of others. How is this just?

Personal attacks? I thought you were above that.

I did say the view was retarded, not you. Attack on the view, not on the person.

I feel that this law is just. What does that have to do with having the government walk me through life? Oh I see. My opinion is obviously "retarded" because it's different than yours. Even though I can back up my opinion and explain myself, just as you have, I obviously have some sort of mental disorder.

You want this law because it makes your life easier. That's it. There are places you could frequent that offer a smoke-free environment, but you clearly think the effort to find them is just too much, despite the fact that many cities offer free guides to clean-air establishments.
You have decided that your conviences are more important that others' rights. Yes, this is a retarded viewpoint.

- Second hand smoke harms and kills
- Second hand smoke is also unpleasant (ie, breathing it and tasting it)
- Non-smokers can rarely find places to go that are non-smoking
- Non-smokers (being the ones that DIDN'T choose to have an addiction and a filthy habit) shouldn't be forced to search for places that are non-smoking, and should not be limited to those places for a clean place to eat
- Since smokers choose to smoke, they should be the ones - if anyone - to be inconvenienced, by waiting only a short time before going outside to smoke
- The above mentioned inconvenience is a much smaller inconvenience than the one forced on non-smokers before the law
- If it was left up to the property owners, nothing would have changed
- Establishments will now have more even business because non-smokers will be more comfortable going, and smokers will go because all places are non-smoking, so that doesn't affect their choice

ALL of this is countered by two things:
1. You still have a choice whether or not to frequent places that allow smoking.
2. There are still places that don't allow smoking.

You haven't come up with a satisfactory reply to either of these.

I would also like, particularly, to point out this one: "Since smokers choose to smoke, they should be the ones - if anyone - to be inconvenienced, by waiting only a short time before going outside to smoke."(emphasis mine)

Clear proof that you believe what is merely convenient to you somehow trumps the rights of others.


And again, with this analogy: It's very inconvient for me to have to suffer through screaming children and loud conversation. This noise DOES have harmful effects on me, and if I'm in the restaurant than I'm stuck dealing with it. So why not make children and conversation illegal in bars and restaurants? Surely it would be just a small inconvience for people to step outside if they really have to talk? MUCH smaller an inconvience than me living out the next 50-70 years with hearing problems.

[Sufjan Stevens]

And again, like what Dan said pages ago, there's no concrete proof that second-hand smoke causes health problems. We're going on a guess and scare tactics from public service announcements. That isn't enough to make me fear the smoke. I want concrete proof second-hand smoke will kill me, and when I get it, then your views might be more valid.

And what Dan said pages ago, there are things that produce oodles more smoke than a cigarette, and is equally as harmful. Here are some situations.

Let's say you want to go for a walk. Well, when it comes down to it, you're going to be around of smoke, so let's get rid of that too. Let's pass a law that won't allow cars to drive from the hours of 6-8PM so everyone can go out on walks and not have to worry about that pesky smoke from cars, which is more harmful than second-hand smoke. Along with that, we can't possibly allow people to use barbeques during those hours too, because cooking food causes smoke, so let's ban that too. I mean, that smoke you could potentially inhale can't possibly be good for you, so let's get rid of that. Oh jeez, what happens if you live by a factory? We'd have to shut them down too because they produce smoke that's more harmful than cigarette smoke. What if you don't live in a nice part of town? Well, we'll all make sure the homeless can't start garbage can fires to keep warm in the winter, because that smoke has to be bad for you.

I can be a tad bit more sarcastic, but I think we get the point.

[Axtech]

I'm done with this debate. You two are ignoring my points and using my "lack of a point" (the ones you ignore) to argue with me. I've explained my view thoroughly numerous times.

In fact, by looking at my last post, I can find points that counter your counter-points. But you choose to ignore them to your advantage.

And so I bid you adieu, more or less stopping this debate as the only one on my side who's actually been speaking up (except for bort8).

[Sufjan Stevens]

1. Second hand smoke harms and kills
2. Second hand smoke is also unpleasant (ie, breathing it and tasting it)
3. Non-smokers can rarely find places to go that are non-smoking
4. Non-smokers (being the ones that DIDN'T choose to have an addiction and a filthy habit) shouldn't be forced to search for places that are non-smoking, and should not be limited to those places for a clean place to eat
5. Since smokers choose to smoke, they should be the ones - if anyone - to be inconvenienced, by waiting only a short time before going outside to smoke
6. The above mentioned inconvenience is a much smaller inconvenience than the one forced on non-smokers before the law
7. If it was left up to the property owners, nothing would have changed
8. Establishments will now have more even business because non-smokers will be more comfortable going, and smokers will go because all places are non-smoking, so that doesn't affect their choice

Alright Rob, I know you will read this, so I will go on and defy your points on this.

1. There's no conclusive study and physical proof that second had smoke does anything more than make the air smell bad.

2. Lots of things make the air smell bad, like automobiles, lakes and rivers, animal shit, and sewers, should we ban those too?

3. Like Narbus said, they make lists of places that are non-smoking if it really means that much to you to eat in a non-smoking atmosphere.

4. Non-smokers do have the choice to not go out if they really are inconvenienced so much by putting in an effort to find a place that is smoke-free. Non-smokers have lots of choices to avoid the smoke that will supposedly kill them, if they don't want to put the effort in to avoid the smoke, they should deal with being in it. Being babies and having the federal government ban it is not the answer.

5. No one should be inconvinienced when it comes to smoking when there are a plethora of options and different places to go that don't allow smoking. People should not have to change their lifestyles because someone like you wants to go out, not be in a smokey environment, and are too damn lazy to pick up the little piece of paper that says what the non-smoking establishments are.

6. This makes no sense. This isn't a point. If non-smokers really care about the environment they're in, then they would drive to a different establishment and miraculously save their lives from not being around smoke.

7. Yes, nothing would have changed because they don't want it to change. If they wanted it to be a non-smoking environment, then they should have the choice to make it one or not, not a person in a different area dictating what they do. Now if the government bought the land, built the bar, and opened it up themselves, then they should have the right to mandate the smoking laws or not.

8. How do you know business will go up? You don't. I am confident that people are that paranoid about smoke that they will give up any chance of going out with their friends and having a good time because evil second-hand smoke might be there. Wake up, no one is that paranoid. Yes, they might not like the smoke, but if they don't go out because of that reason only, then when the smoking option is taken away, those paranoid people will find another reason to not go out. They have problems if smoke dictates their lives.

And these reasons you listed, no matter how much sense they might make to you, do not give the government any right to take the smoking choice away from anyone. Last time I checked, we're in a democracy, and therefore should have the right to vote on things like these. I am confident that if this went to vote, it wouldn't have been passed. Yet, the law was passed without the feedback of the people. Hmmm, that doesn't sound too democratic to me. That kind of feels like we're being run by a dictatorship. Oh, well then, it looks like we should find the 40 highest ranking people in America and kill them, because hey, it's the same reason we went after Iraq. Down with America!

[Axtech]

Just had to try to get the last word in, eh?

[Axtech]

1. There's no conclusive study and physical proof that second had smoke does anything more than make the air smell bad.

2. Lots of things make the air smell bad, like automobiles, lakes and rivers, animal shit, and sewers, should we ban those too?

3. Like Narbus said, they make lists of places that are non-smoking if it really means that much to you to eat in a non-smoking atmosphere.

4. Non-smokers do have the choice to not go out if they really are inconvenienced so much by putting in an effort to find a place that is smoke-free. Non-smokers have lots of choices to avoid the smoke that will supposedly kill them, if they don't want to put the effort in to avoid the smoke, they should deal with being in it. Being babies and having the federal government ban it is not the answer.

5. No one should be inconvinienced when it comes to smoking when there are a plethora of options and different places to go that don't allow smoking. People should not have to change their lifestyles because someone like you wants to go out, not be in a smokey environment, and are too damn lazy to pick up the little piece of paper that says what the non-smoking establishments are.

6. This makes no sense. This isn't a point. If non-smokers really care about the environment they're in, then they would drive to a different establishment and miraculously save their lives from not being around smoke.

7. Yes, nothing would have changed because they don't want it to change. If they wanted it to be a non-smoking environment, then they should have the choice to make it one or not, not a person in a different area dictating what they do. Now if the government bought the land, built the bar, and opened it up themselves, then they should have the right to mandate the smoking laws or not.

8. How do you know business will go up? You don't. I am confident that people are that paranoid about smoke that they will give up any chance of going out with their friends and having a good time because evil second-hand smoke might be there. Wake up, no one is that paranoid. Yes, they might not like the smoke, but if they don't go out because of that reason only, then when the smoking option is taken away, those paranoid people will find another reason to not go out. They have problems if smoke dictates their lives.

And these reasons you listed, no matter how much sense they might make to you, do not give the government any right to take the smoking choice away from anyone. Last time I checked, we're in a democracy, and therefore should have the right to vote on things like these. I am confident that if this went to vote, it wouldn't have been passed. Yet, the law was passed without the feedback of the people. Hmmm, that doesn't sound too democratic to me. That kind of feels like we're being run by a dictatorship. Oh, well then, it looks like we should find the 40 highest ranking people in America and kill them, because hey, it's the same reason we went after Iraq. Down with America!

1. What rock have you been living under? It's a well known fact that second hand smoke harms and kills.

2. I'm talking about being in a closed environment filled with the smoke. Not my strongest point, I admit, but a point none the less. People go out to enjoy themselves, not breathe in the smoke from other people's disgusting habit.

3. Why should non-smokers be forced to find somewhere to go from a list? Smokers made the choice to smoke, they should be the ones to have to live with the inconvenience of their habit, not non-smokers.

4. Once again, non-smokers should not have to be put out by something that other people choose to do.

5. Change their lifestyles? What's the big deal about waiting until you're done your meal to step outside and have a cigarette? However, it is a big deal to have to endure the smoke-filled environments night after night.

6. Why doesn't that make any sense? If a smoker chooses to smoke, they should be the ones - if anyone - to be inconvenienced. Stepping outside to smoke is a much smaller inconvenience than trying to find somewhere else to go from a short list of non-smoking places. Smokers can go anywhere and step outside to smoke. Non-smokers can't (couldn't) go anywhere and eat smoke free.

7. In this, it doesn't matter what the property owners want. It's about the thousands upon thousands of non-smokers.

8. I didn't say business will go up. I said business will be more even because now no one is restricted to going anywhere regardless of whether they want a smoke-free environment or not. Everywhere is smoke-free, so everyone is open to go anywhere. Now it's all up to personal preferance of the business, not about smoke.

9 (your last unnumbered point). I agree that this should have been voted on. I'm just explaining why I agree with the law, not with the way it was carried out. Basically, I'm giving my reasons why I would have voted "Yes" on this one.

[Narbus]

If anyone is ignoring points here, it's you, Rob.
I still want to know how laws that merely make your life more convienent at the expense of the rights of others are just.
I still want to know how this law is just when you do have the option to go to a non-smoking establishment.

You have NOT answered either of these, nor have you replied to the "noise in restaurants" bit. Get off your high horse.

[Axtech]

If anyone is ignoring points here, it's you, Rob.
I still want to know how laws that merely make your life more convienent at the expense of the rights of others are just.
I still want to know how this law is just when you do have the option to go to a non-smoking establishment.

You have NOT answered either of these, nor have you replied to the "noise in restaurants" bit. Get off your high horse.

This law is just because it takes the inconvenience from those who don't smoke, and lays a smaller inconvenience on those who choose to smoke. I don't see how this is "at the expense of others". Unless you mean property owners, which I have explained time and time again.

I've also explained time and time again how the inconvenience of finding a non-smoking establishment (which are very few and far between) is unjust as it is smokers who make the choice to smoke. Therefore, any inconvenience should be on them, not the non-smokers. With this law, the only inconvenience is on the smokers; they have to wait a bit and step outside to smoke. Not a big deal.

I have answered both of those in the past. The fact that you don't agree with my answers doesn't mean that I haven't answered.

Noise in restaurants has nothing to do with this debate. When was the last time noise caused cancer? The occurance of an extremely noisey restaurant is minimal, especially when compared to the number of extremely smokey restaurants.

[starvingeyes]

1. What rock have you been living under? It's a well known fact that second hand smoke harms and kills.

it really isn't. lung cells regenerate at a rapid rate. there have been no conclusive studies to show any link to second hand smoke and enhanced smoke-related diseases. you know how you see that little commericial on tv about the guy smoking next to the girl and the party and the announcer says "what are you picking up tonight?" and then it shows a host of cigarette smoke diseases? yeah, that commericial is a lie. yup, your government does lie. all the time, in fact.

you should look into what happens after you quit smoking. your lungs <i>will</i> heal completely in about 15 years. 8 hours after the fact, all the little hairs (what the fuck are they called again?) that you've burned up will regrow.

besides, smoking a single cigarette increases your chances of lung cancer et. al, by like, .00000001%. if you sat in a crowded bar as the only non smoker for some 8 hours, maybe then you would've inhaled as much smoke as a smoker who has had one cigarette.

secondhand smoke will not kill you.

2. I'm talking about being in a closed environment filled with the smoke. Not my strongest point, I admit, but a point none the less. People go out to enjoy themselves, not breathe in the smoke from other people's disgusting habit.

so? those people who are going out to enjoy themselves (you know it's coming) don't have the <b>right</b> to be where they are. they are there with the owners permission. they have to accept any and all consequences from (here it is again) <b>their choice</b>

3. Why should non-smokers be forced to find somewhere to go from a list? Smokers made the choice to smoke, they should be the ones to have to live with the inconvenience of their habit, not non-smokers.

actually, nobody should be forced to do <i>anything</i>. whether or not smoking is allowed on a property is the sole decision of the owner of that property. period. how you can argue against this fact, which is plain as day, baffles me. i have not seen a logical counter-argument whereby you explain to me how your rights, as a person who has done dick fuck all to maintain and operate that bar, trump the rights of the bar's owner, who has sacrificed his time and energy, in fact his very life, to run it.

4. Once again, non-smokers should not have to be put out by something that other people choose to do.

non-smokers do not <b>have</b> to, they choose to. until somebody shows up are your house in the morning and starts pumping cigarette smoke into your heating ducts, you are not being <b>forced</b> to be exposed to the smoke.

because remember, <b>you don't have the right</b> to go to a bar and not be bothered by smoke. nor do smokers have the <b>right</b> to go to a bar and smoke. this is not a question of your rights vs. smokers rights. it's a question of property rights.

7. In this, it doesn't matter what the property owners want. It's about the thousands upon thousands of non-smokers.

"in this, it doesn't matter what the negroes want. it's about the thousands upon thousand of white slave owners"

"in this, it doesn't matter what the jews want. it's about the thousands and thousands of nazi's"

"in this, it doesn't matter what the iraqui's want. it's about the hundreds and hundreds of war hawks"

are we getting the picture yet? congratulations on invoking the most fascist use of "democracy" there can be, and being so nakedly proud of it.

<b>why</b> don't the <b>RIGHTS</b> of the property owner, who is the <b>only one</b> who has <b>any</b> rights in this entire debate, matter in the face of the <b>force proppped demands</b> of the very much right-<b>less</b> non smokers?

think about it for a second, and tell me how you intend to logically defend what you just said. this should be interesting.

[Narbus]

This law is just because it takes the inconvenience from those who don't smoke, and lays a smaller inconvenience on those who choose to smoke. I don't see how this is "at the expense of others". Unless you mean property owners, which I have explained time and time again.

Replies I have seen:
"The government has a goal..."
The government also had a goal when they locked up citizens of Japanese descent during WWII for no damn reason.

"The building would still be smoking if the decision was left to the owners."
Well, yes, no shit. Coincidently, these are also the only people who have the right to make the decision. You still haven't explained where, exactly, you get the right to make these kinds of decisions for others.

"Well, there's already laws in place that affect business owners. So more laws are fine."

Just because there's a law saying you can't serve toxic food doesn't give you the leeway to put up whatever other laws you may want.
There's a law that says you can't kill anyone. So it's fine to prohibit you from riding the bus because of your skin color. There's already laws against you! It's FINE!
The logic doesn't hold.

Oh, and "some things go beyond ownership."
Yes. Great point. Well, some things go beyond equal rights. Like me keeping blacky out of my clean, pure neighborhood. Yes. Great plan there, Rob.

I've also explained time and time again how the inconvenience of finding a non-smoking establishment (which are very few and far between) is unjust as it is smokers who make the choice to smoke. Therefore, any inconvenience should be on them, not the non-smokers. With this law, the only inconvenience is on the smokers; they have to wait a bit and step outside to smoke. Not a big deal.

And how about the inconvience of a person who put up thousands of dollars to open a business having to get jerked around just because there's a few people out there who don't understand the concept of a right to privacy? That's a pretty damn big inconvience.

I have answered both of those in the past. The fact that you don't agree with my answers doesn't mean that I haven't answered.

Yes, you have answered. But your answers don't make sense.
Me: "What's 2 + 2?"
You: "Asparagus."

Noise in restaurants has nothing to do with this debate. When was the last time noise caused cancer? The occurance of an extremely noisey restaurant is minimal, especially when compared to the number of extremely smokey restaurants.

Yeah, when's the last time cigarettes caused hearing loss? And go out on any weekend, including "Thirsty Thursdays." The nights of the week when most people don't have anything to do the next morning, so they can stay out later, and that's when it's the loudest.
You are suggesting that crippling someone for life is somehow okay, you realize this, right?

[bort8]

ok, people....the law was voted on in numerous places, including here in austin, and it passed quite convincingly

[Narbus]

ok, people....the law was voted on in numerous places, including here in austin, and it passed quite convincingly

Yipty rolling fuck on a pogo stick. Slavery was once legal. I don't know why you insist on clinging to the "legal = morally right" notion, but it's not true. Accept this and move on.

[Ignignokt]

@narbus: those little hairs are called Cillia

@rob;bort: breathing in second hand smoke does nothing to you. by the time you wake up the next day, your lungs have regenerated. so basically its just annoyance of smell and having it in your eyes, which it annoys even me, a smoker, when it gets in my eyes. then again, what if i think someone stinks? do i ban them and make them take a shower? no.

you keep giving us these "facts" that second-hand smoke is deadly, but not once have i seen a link to a site with clinical studies or anything. if you're gonna argue something, give us some concrete evidence other than "i saw it on one of those "STAND" commercials.

btw, i just saw one of those about banning smoking on mtv shows. how fucking retarded is that? this is called "DISCRIMINATION" and i had thought that we had made DISCRIMINATION illegal?

[Ignignokt]

sidenote: before you even say that non-smokers are discriminated against because we get to smoke in restaurants, there IS a non-smoking section which is normally MUCH larger than the smoking section and located on the opposite side of the restaurant. so quit your damn whining and bitching and just fucking LIVE WITH IT. christ.

if we banned everything that inconvienced us, no one would ever leave their homes.

[Sufjan Stevens]

And to add to what Dan said, isn't banning smoking discriminatory to smokers? I mean, you're singling them out and you're taking away what they like to do. No one has the right to do that, and never will.

Anyways, don't restaurants have really good venting systems, on top of a non-smoking section? I've sat in the non-smoking section of restaurants many times, and I never have to cope with breathing in much smoke. I breathed in more smoke walking down Fifth Avenue in New York for one block than I do in a restaurant in a smoking section, let alone non-smoking. There's no reason to take away the right to smoke.

[Narbus]

And to add to what Dan said, isn't banning smoking discriminatory to smokers? I mean, you're singling them out and you're taking away what they like to do. No one has the right to do that, and never will.

Not to jump sides, but this isn't discrimination, no. If I like to swear and flash my junk at kids, well I can (and really should) still be banned from several places, with complete justification on the part of the owners.
HOWEVER, if I happen to be in a place where swearing and flashing junk is the order of the day, and all people coming in there know what is going to be going on, and are fully capable of making the choice the be there, well more power to me.

[Sufjan Stevens]

Well, I think it is discrimination because they're picking out a single group and taking what that group does away from them. I guess you're right though Narbus.

[robcore]

You know, for a long while i never agreed with allowing smoking anywhere. Now it turns out many of the legions in my city are being shut down. The people who fought for our civil rights are now being told they can't smoke where they hang out. I say that Narbus is totally right. Banning smoking in establishments is bullshit.

[bort8]

i think u misunderstood me...it was put to a vote for the people and it passed....people were saying how if it was put to a vote like that it wouldnt pass...but in many areas it did