No more smoking in New York State

[Axtech]

Then outlaw cars, industrial factories, power plants, etc etc etc. They pump FAR more smoke into the air than cigarettes.

Unless of course, you were exaggerating because you really have no point here, because, as I've pointed out multiple times in this thread, there are a mighty fuck-ton of places, resturants, bars, and bowling alleys included, where smoking is already prohibited. You don't breathe in cigarette smoke "everywhere you go."

And yes, choosing to smoke is a right. A person has the right to choose what to do with their own body. If a person chooses to inhale carcinogens and toxic fumes, then so be it. You, on the other hand, do not have the right to tell a person what they can and cannot do with their own body.

Again, and this is the point that I have yet to see you actually counter, a private business owner should have the right to choose what to do with their own property that they paid for and worked for.

You're talking about segregating non-smokers. As smokers, you make the CHOICE to smoke. Therefore, it is just to tell you where you can't do it, as it harms those you do it around.

Smoking wherever you want isn't a right, as this new law clearly points out.

This law overrides the property owner's right, just as many other laws do. If I own a store, I can't have cock fights in the back room. Why not? I own the store! Because there are just laws against it, that's why.

[Narbus]

First I am not segregating smokers and non. I don't smoke, there are a few resturants in town that I enjoy where smoking is allowed, I still go there. There's a choice on my part. No segregation.
Also, driving, industry, etc all do pollute, and affect those in the area. With industry in particular that area is substantially larger than that of smoking, so by your own argument we should outlaw cars and industrial plants.
Again, and you still haven't answered this, the noise from conversation in resturants does reach dangerous levels where people are in danger of hearing loss, especially if there are screaming children around. So why don't we outlaw talking in public places, and children in public places? It does negatively affect those who you do it around, after all.

And yipty shit for the law. Owning people was once legal. That doesn't make it right. I can't believe I even have to explain this one.

[nelison]

Also, driving, industry, etc all do pollute, and affect those in the area. With industry in particular that area is substantially larger than that of smoking, so by your own argument we should outlaw cars and industrial plants.

And the govt is attempting to reduce the population cause by those that you mentioned. They now must go through emission tests and must meet standards in order to be put in service. Now the govt is doing the same with smoking. They're attempting to decrease the emissions in which the public is subject to.

Again, and you still haven't answered this, the noise from conversation in resturants does reach dangerous levels where people are in danger of hearing loss, especially if there are screaming children around. So why don't we outlaw talking in public places, and children in public places? It does negatively affect those who you do it around, after all.

This is probably the worst parallel you've ever came up with.
Just to let you know "According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (1998), the maximum exposure time at 85 dBA is 8 hours. At 110 dBA, the maximum exposure time is one minute and 29 seconds. If you must be exposed to noise, it is recommended that you limit the exposure time and/or wear hearing protection."
http://www.lhh.org/noise/decibel.htm

Take a look at the nice list that explains that even a loud noisy restaurant only produces 85dBA. So unless you eat for 8 hours straight it doesn't have any affect on you.


The thing is though, you can live without your hearing. There are millions of deaf people in this world who lead healthy lives. Cigarette smoke can lead to health problems in many cases. That's the difference.

[Narbus]

"Emissions standards" all you want, but emissions are being pumped into the air. Industrial plants also use more toxic chemicals than are in cigarettes, so the fumes from these places are worse.
If you want to use "it pollutes the air," as a cause for something to be illegal, then you can't back off as soon as you are the one inconvienced.

Two: 85 dB is the AVERAGE level of noise in a busy resturant. The sound levels can hit over 90 db, and a baby's scream comes in at 110 dB.
I work in a resturant, and I'm there for long hours, particualarly on the weekends, when the noise level peaks. So when it's REALLY loud, I'm there for a REALLY long time.
Also, that's in a resturant. Bars and dance clubs are MUCH worse.

Three: You can also live with shitty lungs. You just need a respirator. You can live with cancer, you just need life support. You can live without legs, etc etc etc. Unless you're somehow saying that knowingly crippling people for life is fine.

[Axtech]

About the "property owner" argument...

If I own a restaurant that's nice and clean up front, so people all come in, I can't have a shithole kitchen crawling with bacteria and flies and people smoking, etc. Do I, as the owner, have a right to an unclean environment? No! Of course not! Why not? Because it harms the customers when they eat the shit that comes out of the kitchen. Same deal. No smoking in establishments because it harms the customers when they breathe the shit that comes out of the smoker's cigarettes and mouths.

[Narbus]

If you come out and say, "Hey, I have a shit hole kitchen, ooooo....look at the size of that roach. Jesus that's a new record, Cindy get the book out, we gotta write this one down. That fucker was the size of my thumb!" then yes, it's fine to have a shithole kitchen. You are in no way, shape, or form misrepresenting yourself. The people have a clear, informed view of what they're getting into, and can make the choice for themselves.
If resturants didn't let people know smoking was allowed, or they just walked up to people and randomly blew smoke in their faces, or whatever, then your analogy would hold.

[Venom]

Owners should have the choice whether or not to be a smoking establishment or a non-smoking. Then patrons can "choose" whether or not to goto those places. There should be no restriction by the state. Let the people choose. If I don't wanna inhale smoke I'll goto one of the non smoking bars. ITs as simple as that. (If something like this has already been posted I appologize but I'm not gonna read through 14 pages of posts.)

[Sufjan Stevens]

Venom, that has been said dozens of times, but people just don't want to listen to simple logic. Apparently having someone regualte their lives and make crazy rules to "better their lives" is a smarter choice than not letting the state walk all over them.

[Axtech]

Some things go beyond ownership.

This was a matter of looking at two options (if it was left to owners, most would be left smoking, so everyone can come and spend money):

Inconvenience to non-smokers; making them sit in a smoke-filled restaurant or find a non-smoking place to eat.

or

Inconvenience to smokers; making them go outside to smoke.

The second is a MUCH smaller inconvenience. Plus, smoking is a choice. Therefore, it is more logical to inconvenience the ones who chose to smoke than the ones who don't smoke. Besides, it's a filthy habit (even most smokers won't deny that). Why would the ones with the addiction be given privilage over those without?

[Sufjan Stevens]

OK Rob, why don't you understand this?

NO ONE FUCKING MAKES YOU SIT IN A SMOKE FILLED ROOM. IT'S YOUR CHOICE TO GO IN THERE.

Got it? You choose to go to a restaurant where there's smoking, you deal with your choice. You have no goddamn right to tell people they have to leave the building to smoke because you made the choice to go there and don't want to deal with cigarette smoke. There are places where smoking is not allowed. Go there. It's not your property, you have no fucking right to dictate what happens on it.

Can you conprehend this? I said this on page one, and here I am saying it on page 14. There's nothing complicated about my view here. Stop your bitching and go to a different place to eat or bowl or whatever if you don't want to deal with cigarette smoke. They have establishments for people like you. That's good enough. Don't take away the places that allow smoking. It's the owner's choice, not yours.

I am getting pissed off. You're asking the same question page after page, and it will always be the same answer. If you can't come up with some sort of point about why you have the right to tell people what to do with property that doesn't belong to you, stop posting.

[Ignignokt]

alan and i having been saying the same shit over and over again

its ridiculous.

contrary to your popular belief, smokers are not really a minority. its basically an equal 50/50 split between non smokers and smokers

[Axtech]

OK Rob, why don't you understand this?

NO ONE FUCKING MAKES YOU SIT IN A SMOKE FILLED ROOM. IT'S YOUR CHOICE TO GO IN THERE.

Got it? You choose to go to a restaurant where there's smoking, you deal with your choice. You have no goddamn right to tell people they have to leave the building to smoke because you made the choice to go there and don't want to deal with cigarette smoke. There are places where smoking is not allowed. Go there. It's not your property, you have no fucking right to dictate what happens on it.

Can you conprehend this? I said this on page one, and here I am saying it on page 14. There's nothing complicated about my view here. Stop your bitching and go to a different place to eat or bowl or whatever if you don't want to deal with cigarette smoke. They have establishments for people like you. That's good enough. Don't take away the places that allow smoking. It's the owner's choice, not yours.

I am getting pissed off. You're asking the same question page after page, and it will always be the same answer. If you can't come up with some sort of point about why you have the right to tell people what to do with property that doesn't belong to you, stop posting.

You say the same thing every time, and I will always give the same answer, too.

Smokers CHOOSE to smoke. Therefore, smokers should be the ones who have to find somewhere else to spend their time or eat if they want to feed their addiction while they do it.

[Axtech]

alan and i having been saying the same shit over and over again

its ridiculous.

contrary to your popular belief, smokers are not really a minority. its basically an equal 50/50 split between non smokers and smokers

I know that. But why should your 50 percent get favour over my 50 percent? Like I've said again and again, the choice to smoke is now (and should) come with some set-backs. For example, not being able to smoke while you eat. Wait for an hour, then step outside for a couple of minutes. Bid deal.

We're just going in circles. I give you the reason for the law, then you tell me that it should be the owner's choice no matter how much the law makes sense.

[Narbus]

The law doesn't make sense. People have a constitutional guarantee to privacy. This law is allowing the government to go into private business and tell them how to run their shit.
Again, you put forth exactly jack and shit in terms of efforts to open and maintain that business. Where do you get off telling the person who did work for that business how to run it?

[Venom]

GO ALAN GO!!!! (I'm rooting for Alan....whats gotten into me??)

Anyway hes right. Some people choose to smoke just as non smokers CHOOSE not to smoke. Therefore everyone should be allowed to CHOOSE if their establishment is SMOKING or NONSMOKING. Then everyone can CHOOSE where they want to eat, drink, hangout, etc. I'm baffled at why this is so hard to understand. Oh wait.....I forgot who we're arguing with.

[Axtech]

My point is that smokers choose to have an addiction, so they should choose that knowing that there will be setbacks (ie, waiting to go outside to smoke).

The government went into this with a goal in mind. If it was left to the owners, that goal would not be met.

Efforts to open and maintain the business? Smokers will go to non-smoking establishments if everything is non-smoking. Non-smokers are less likely to go to a smoking establishment. That means more even business for everyone.

The government can tell the owner to do this just as they can tell the owner how to do other things. Laws apply to property owners just as much as they apply to everyone else. So now there's a rule that no new laws can ever be made if it affects someone?

You said that the law doesn't make any sense. I've explained numerous times exactly why the law does make sense.

Since no one is bringing up anything new, I'm pulling myself out of this debate. We're just running in circles. Instead of arguing with my reasons that the law is just, you turn around and talk about ownership. When I talk about how the law being just overrides ownership, you talk about how the law isn't fair to smokers. When I explain why it's just (again), you go back to ownership.

[Narbus]

My point is that smokers choose to have an addiction, so they should choose that knowing that there will be setbacks (ie, waiting to go outside to smoke).

The government went into this with a goal in mind. If it was left to the owners, that goal would not be met.

I would like to know what it is, exactly, that makes the government's goal so much better than the goal of the owner of the restaurant, and why, exactly, the owner must subvert his goal in favor of the government's.

Efforts to open and maintain the business? Smokers will go to non-smoking establishments if everything is non-smoking.

Well no shit.

Non-smokers are less likely to go to a smoking establishment. That means more even business for everyone.

The restaurant I work in allows smoking in the bar and on the patio, and it's one of the busiest restaurants in the city. I don't think we need your kind of "help" with our business.
And you are, conveniently, neglecting that smokers will not go out as much since it's inconvienient for them, which would actually cost these establishments business.

The government can tell the owner to do this just as they can tell the owner how to do other things. Laws apply to property owners just as much as they apply to everyone else. So now there's a rule that no new laws can ever be made if it affects someone?

I have said, at least twice in this very thread, that any law that does more or less than protecting the life, property, and liberty of citizens from forceful action is unjust.
This law is taking away the liberties of the private property owner.
Allowing owners to choose how to run their business does not take anything away from others, since those people who choose to visit that business are doing so of their own free will, fully informed of what their actions will yield.
You seem to want the government to hold your hand and walk you through life. I think this view is retarded. Fundamental difference between us, I guess.

You said that the law doesn't make any sense. I've explained numerous times exactly why the law does make sense.

No, you haven't. You have claimed that making life more convienient for you is more important than the rights of others.
You claim that you have some right to do what you want on someone else's private property, and to force others to do the same. You have not explained where you get this right from. Please do so.

Since no one is bringing up anything new, I'm pulling myself out of this debate. We're just running in circles. Instead of arguing with my reasons that the law is just, you turn around and talk about ownership. When I talk about how the law being just overrides ownership, you talk about how the law isn't fair to smokers. When I explain why it's just (again), you go back to ownership.

Fine. Here we go:
You believe the law is just because people should not be exposed to second hand smoke. However, people expose themselves to that smoke at their own discretion. They are fully informed of the consequences of their actions, and are allowed to choose whatever path is best for them. There is no right, constitutional or natural, that allows you to have all the paths you want open to be open at the expense of others.
Also, I have detailed multiple times the health hazards of conversation and children in resturants, but you seem to think these hazards are fine. You still have not provided me with a good reason as to why these health hazards are acceptable but smoking is somehow not.

The law should not override ownership in this case. These establishments are letting you know full and well what you are getting into. They aren't dragging you in off the street to hold to down and blow smoke in your face.
Again, the only laws that a government truly for the people should enact and enforce are those that protect the taking of life, liberty, or property by force. You have provided no examples or reasoning as to why anything other than this should be the case.

There. Happy?

[Axtech]

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.

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.

You seem to want the government to hold your hand and walk you through life. I think this view is retarded. Fundamental difference between us, I guess.

Personal attacks? I thought you were above that.

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.

[Sufjan Stevens]

How many times can you avoid telling us how the law makes sense?

[Axtech]

?

I've told you many times why it makes sense.

- 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