Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

No Smoking NYC

Page: (1)2 3 4 5

Matthew Fluxington

17:25 / 19.08.02

I'm curious about what you all think of NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg's plans to eliminate smoking in all NYC workplaces, including bars and restaurants. Bloomberg has already increased taxes on cigarettes, enough so that the average price of a pack of cigarettes including the tax would be around $7.

To me, this is a wonderful thing - I am not a smoker, and I really do dislike being forced to breathe in or smell cigarette smoke in public spaces. I also think that whatever can be done to discourage smoking is a good thing, because I strongly believe that it's unhealthy, selfish and inconsiderate of other people, and lines the pockets of the corrupt tobacco industry.

But that's me - what do you think about this? Is this unreasonable? Are there better ways to do this?

Here's some links to get more informed about this topic:

Washington Times

No Smoking.org

Smoke Free Air.org

Op-ed from the NY Observer

Subarban Chicago News

17:46 / 19.08.02

Live and let die.

18:18 / 19.08.02

And it's not selfish and inconsiderate to make another person's vice freakin' illegal?

You already can't smoke in restaurants (which I think is fine), but bars really smell worse without tobacco to cover the stale beer. The whole thing is irritatingly conformist. Did you ever see that stupid Stallone movie, Demolition Man? We ought to resist the restriction of individual choices on principal, whether they benefit us or not.

What's being done with all this tax money? If it's not being spent on helping people kick the habit or pay for chemo, it's pure exploitation.

Q

18:24 / 19.08.02

To me, it's the height of hypocrisy to tax something, criticise it, ban it everywhere and yet keep it legal.

Like it or not, people go to bars to take drugs. I'm fine with the concept of no-smoking bars - I wouldn't go to them, but I know a lot of people who'd prefer them. Similarly, there are no-drinking bars, they're called coffee shops. That's a matter of personal choice. I'm also okay with no-smoking workplaces. I'm fine with mandated no-smoking areas in bars/workplaces. I smoke, but I don't want to forever, and I don't like enforcing it on other people.

Attempting to ban it everywhere by decree, though, is just ridiculous. And it will just lead to "illegal" no-smoking bars. Can you think of anything more stupid than a place being raided because the management allow smoking on the premises?

Allow non-smokers smoke-free areas, fine, but if something's going to be legal to buy, it should be legal to allow people to consume it.

18:25 / 19.08.02

Oh, and congratulations to NY - they've managed to be one of the few places in the world with tobacco taxes as high as the UK. Higher, in fact, because I think sales taxes are less.

Expect vastly profitable tobacco smuggling operations to begin, just as they have here, except more so because it's an easier overland route.

18:35 / 19.08.02

Fridge, a couple of years ago we had bars getting raided in NY because they allowed dancing on the premises. That was back when Giulianni was a bad guy.

Q

gentleman loser

18:44 / 19.08.02

I'm not a regular smoker though I do indulge in the occasional cigarette. I have no problem with smoking being banned from restaurants and most businesses and indoor public areas (like aircraft for example).

No smoking in bars? It's absurd.

As far as I know, people don't go to bars for the health benefits. As for the workers worried about secondhand smoke, they make a choice by working there and maybe they should develop more of a social consciousness since they're basically legalized and socially accepted drug suppliers.

Sorry folks! Alcohol is a drug.

Question: is New York City really going to waste resources to make sure that people aren't smoking in thousands of bars? Another question: as Qalyn rightly points out where's all of this tax money going?

I think Eddie Izzard called it right:

No, no smoking in bars now and soon no drinking and no talking.

Another thing that's annoyed me for a while is the whole politically correct component attached to anti-smoking. I once saw a guy who was smoking a cigarette outdoors get screamed at by some asshole who promptly got in his Ford Expedition and drove off at high speed. Irony is really wasted on some people, huh?

One extremely dumb thing that NYC is doing is creating the largest black market for tobacco products on Earth. Do you hear that "vroom, vroom" sound? That's thousands of black market cig trucks in Virginia and North Carolina getting ready to head north.

Organized crime must be absolutely thrilled.

Say hello to my little friend, the cigarette!

19:04 / 19.08.02

Organized crime is a major part of NYC's economy. For all we know, Bloomberg is doing this specifically to stimulate the mobster market that Giulianni depressed.

Is this that threadrot stuff I keep seeing around? Someone please let me know if I'm messing up.

Q

Matthew Fluxington

19:16 / 19.08.02

Well, I would think a very reasonable thing to do would be to follow through with the banning of smoking in all workplaces, and then offer licenses so that bars can be allowed to let their patrons smoke, very much in the same way they are allowed liquor licenses.

No one is stopping anyone from smoking outdoors or in their homes just yet - though that might not last, because I imagine many apartment buildings will become strictly non-smoking before too long.

I'm still reeling from the absurdity of Qalyn's notion that this is all about enforcing conformity, since for an overwhelming number of people, conformity is exactly what got them smoking in the first place.

19:25 / 19.08.02

licenses so that bars can be allowed to let their patrons smoke

This would really just be another tax on bar-owners, since it would be a rather foolish bar that didn't want to buy that licence. There's also much less justification for it. Alcohol users are known to cause trouble in the area round the point of consumption, which has to be dealt with by local authorities. Tobacco users aren't.

all about enforcing conformity, since for an overwhelming number of people, conformity is exactly what got them smoking in the first place

The key is that it's not enforced conformity, is it?

Matthew Fluxington

19:41 / 19.08.02

Well, tobacco users do cause a lot of problems, depending on who you ask. They cause discomfort and a potent health hazard for all sorts of people who just happen to be in the same physical space - that's unfair, and those victims should be allowed to exist without having to be at the mercy of inconsiderate strangers.

The simple fact is, people should not smoke tobacco. I really like quote from Glenn McDonald, as it very articulately states my personal position on smoking:

. Smoking is bad. It's bad for the person doing it, it's bad for the people around them, it's bad for society as a whole. It combines the worst qualities of selfishness, suicide and procrastination. If you smoke, you should stop. This is a really simple issue. Quitting is hard, but so are lots of things. If this country had any convictions at all, we'd toss every last tobacco-company executive in jail for five times the length of their industry career, use their fields as a convenient dumping ground for all the napalm we've got left over from Vietnam, confiscate their non-tobacco divisions and turn them over to Junior Achievement, sponsor a pampered week in detox for anybody who needs it, ask Zippo politely to think of some other lovable pocket gadgets to manufacture, and get on with facing all the problems that have some challenging ambiguity to them. The fact that we haven't done this yet is attributable to exactly two things: human weakness and corporate profits. If there are clearer examples of the systemic flaw of capitalism as a social organizing principle, or sadder jokes than the "No Smoking" signs on the theater doors, I can't currently think of them.

19:44 / 19.08.02

I feel like taxing the hell out of cigarettes is already enough. The point should be to firmly discourage people from smoking. And get some money for backing up health care (assuming it really goes there).

If someone neeeds a smokefree environment, they just have to not look for work at bars. Mind you I feel for the non-smoking waitresses, bartenders, and strippers. Especially the strippers.

19:49 / 19.08.02

He's convinced me Flux!

19:56 / 19.08.02

Why must this be enforced on the government level, when workplace managers are perfectly capible of enforcing their own rules about where people can smoke? You won't find many offices where smoking is allowed, and that's not because of any laws. However, in some workplaces such as bars, smoking is entirely appropriate. There is no need for this, other than as a publicity stunt to compare NYC with California where similar laws are already in place.

20:08 / 19.08.02

Originally posted by Flux
The simple fact is, people should not smoke tobacco.

Tobacco has held a cherished spiritual position in many cultures worldwide for thousands of years, and has extensive ritual use as a drug, plant ally and sacrificial offering. I agree with some of your points about creating more safe, smoke-free areas. I don't agree with your statement above.

Just given up about two weeks ago, and doing really well, BTW. Trying not to think about them.

20:10 / 19.08.02

tobacco users do cause a lot of problems, depending on who you ask. They cause discomfort and a potent health hazard for all sorts of people who just happen to be in the same physical space - that's unfair, and those victims should be allowed to exist without having to be at the mercy of inconsiderate strangers

The difference between that and alcohol users is that smokers cause problems for other people within a strictly defined space. Boozers throw up and start fights and cause noise etc in areas outside of the place of consumption. So it's not a public health issue. Bars are not public spaces.

The only thing that concerns me is the rights of staff in those environments, but (a) no-smoking-at-the bars are fine with me (where you're not allowed to smoke at the bar itself, not a perfect measure but it does do something) and (b) there is a certain level of choice for bar staff as to which establishment they work in.

I'm frankly not interested in whether other people think I should not smoke. If I'm not harming others, or giving them ample opportunity not to be harmed, then their opinion is irrelevant. Car drivers are far more publicly dangerous than smokers.

20:10 / 19.08.02

I don't think the tax money is going there -- not much of it, anyway. I have a sneaking suspicion it's being used to offer tax breaks to large corporations to keep them in the city, though I may just have a suspicious mind. The hikes all seem to be tied to real estate shakeups.

Flux, people smoke. People also drive cars -- arguably harmful in more dimensions than smoking. Should we make it totally unfeasible to drive cars? And what about all those McDonald's cows farting their way through the ozone layer?

I agree that the tobacco industry may be the closest thing to evil our postmodern perspective allows -- but where do you get by punishing the addicts? Even Mr. McDonald doesn't suggest that it's reasonable to tax smokers up the wazoo and legislate against their constitutional right to assemble peacefully. Criminalizing tobacco is an example of corporate margin-shifting and exploitation (and I'm trying to be pretty literal with that word) in the private sector -- not surprising, given Bloomberg's curriculum vitae -- not a blow for freedom.

If you really want to get rid of these companies, what about passing a law making it impossible for them to pass the cost of law suits on to consumers. If they get sued, they have to pay out their own pockets. It's simply a market correction, and utterly destructive industries like tobacco and fast food would be driven out by market forces.

Q

The Apple-Picker

21:03 / 19.08.02

From one of the articles Flux has linked: "The do-gooders are winning out," Meagher said. "This is people who never had a fun time trying to take all the fun out of life."

That makes my blood boil. First of all, saying "do-gooders" as if it's a bad thing!!!! And then saying that those who want public smoking stamped out have just had no fun in their lives and are trying to extinguish fun for everyone else. And what's more, that very very dangerous and ludicrous implication that cigarettes = fun!

What a crock!

Now, this making it illegal thing is a little bit sticky. It makes me nervous to give a government more power, especially having been raised in what I consider to be a super conservative household. But freedom relies on responsibility, doesn't it? You're individual responsibility not to infringe on my freedoms, and my individual responsibility not to infringe on yours. Well, smokers infringe on my freedom to breathe comfortably. And I'm going to leave bars out of my discussion for now, since that seems like an even touchier place for this debate than the others. And, if I had my way, I'd infringe on a smoker's freedom to indulge in her vice--because of my breathing. This doesn't really seem to be a place where compromise is possible, and if it is, I can't see it. So this is one place where individual responsibility can't bring us freedom because each side's freedom is so violated by the other's.

So, what about respect? I don't respect a smoker's freedom to smoke. And from experience, they don't appear to respect my freedom to breathe comfortably.

Also, I didn't know that smoking was constitutionally protected. Let me check. Nope, it isn't. The constitution does protect the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, right? As far as I can see, public smoking violates all three of those things--for everyone. And yes, I realize that maybe using the constitution to bolster (what I'll loosely term) my argument is about as powerful to some as using the Bible in an argument. But just because those documents have flaws does not mean that Thou Shalt Kill.

21:21 / 19.08.02

It is perfectly possible to reach a compromise. Smokers smoke in certain places. Non-smokers don't go there if they don't want to breathe in smoke.

It is nonsense to suggest that smoking in designated areas impinges on anyone's freedom to breathe. You might as well say that playing loud music in a club impinges on your freedom to sleep. If you want to sleep, don't go to a club; if you want to breathe and you're sensitive to cigarette smoke, don't go to a smoking bar.

If there's a place where you have no other reasonable choice but to stay there and breathe other people's fumes, or it's a public facility that should be comfortable for all visitors, then that's a place to ban smoking (e.g. subways, buses). Bars and restaurants, which is what this is about, just don't fall into that category.

21:30 / 19.08.02

$7 for a pack of cigarettes, that's terrible, truly ridiculous, unheard of. (Sorry, UK based smoker, no sympathy)

Over taxing cigarettes and using the 'it's to discourage people from smoking' excuse is a purely cynical move to raise tax revenues. Cigarettes are addictive and few have the will to give up. Cigarette marketing is sophisticated and persuasive so the number of fresh users does not drop. Perhaps if it were $40 a pack there might be some noticable impact but as fridge points out this just makes trafficking more lucrative. I would be disapointed if many were fooled by this.

What's next, higher fuel duties to encourage the use of mass transit? I doubt it!

21:32 / 19.08.02

higher fuel duties

As a point of comparison, we have enormous fuel duties here in the UK, and does it discourage the use of the motor car? Not a bit of it, because the public transport system is kept shit in line with petrol tax, for a very obvious cynical reason.

The Apple-Picker

21:43 / 19.08.02

Why don't smokers just stick it to The Man and quit smoking? Stick it to him, man!

And Fridge: It is nonsense to suggest that smoking in designated areas impinges on anyone's freedom to breathe. You might as well say that playing loud music in a club impinges on your freedom to sleep. If you want to sleep, don't go to a club; if you want to breathe and you're sensitive to cigarette smoke, don't go to a smoking bar.

No, I might as well not say that. And I said freedom to breathe comfortably--I can still breathe around smokers, at least on a limited basis. I'm not going to clubs to sleep, and if I were, that would be just fucking insane. I don't go to restaurants to breathe, either, but I don't think it's unreasonable of me to expect, or hope, that I can breathe comfortably there.

How 'bout we just not have smoking in any public places? And smokers don't go there, if they want to smoke. That's about as much of a compromise as you offered with "It is perfectly possible to reach a compromise. Smokers smoke in certain places. Non-smokers don't go there if they don't want to breathe in smoke."

Matthew Fluxington

21:46 / 19.08.02

Fridge, what you propose isn't even slightly reasonable for non-smokers.

I love to see live music. I hate to choke on smoke when I'm there, it makes me miserable. So should I never see music because I hate smoke? FUCK YOU! That's completely unfair. There's no good reason why people have to smoke all the fucking time. There's no reason why they can't take a break from smoking while watching a concert or eating dinner.
That's so fucking intolerant - that if we don't like it, we shouldn't go. We shouldn't go see live music, we shouldn't go have a drink or dinner at a restaurant because smokers have commandeered those areas - that's not right.

I'm all for dedicated smoking lounges, I'm all for people smoking in their houses, or outside (though I do fucking hate walking behind a smoker on a street and having to get their blowback..), but when it comes to parts of life that should be able to be enjoyed by smokers and non-smokers alike, it's just unfair to let the smokers win, cos it's them who are doing something negative to the people around them and not vice versa. Especially when it comes to music - people who don't smoke and/or are easily made sick from smoke should not have to avoid seeing music and other live events because some people just can't wait a little while before their next cigarette.

21:59 / 19.08.02

Some non smokers seem a bit belligerent about this, as some smokers are. Is there not room in the world for both?

I can forego a smoke for the duration of a course or about half a decent set. I couldn't sit all night and drink without one. If there were smoking bars and non smoking bars we could choose no? No. Why do you think so few drinking establishments choose to be non smoking? They do not intend to alientate a significant proportion of their customer base. 'But we are customers too' the strong anti smoking lobby contend. Obviously not that significant.

This should not be a case for legislation, either locally or nationally. If there are enough people who want to have non smoking environments in which to listen to live music or drink or watch sex shows or whatever then market forces should provide one.

22:08 / 19.08.02

You're confusing "allow smoking" with "enforce smoking". If smoking in private establishments is legal there's no reason why smoking should be universal. And "you can't smoke in any public places" is not more of a compromise than "you can smoke in some public places".

If you don't feel like you can go see music without people smoking, that's something to take up with the venues. (Except that the bands would have trouble playing there, because every band I've seen recently smokes.) Maybe it's a cause for a boycott. But passing a law making it illegal to smoke in any place where there might be other people around is not the way.

I think cities should be able to be enjoyed by drivers and non-drivers alike. Yet these drivers insist on impinging on my freedom by driving around in built-up areas. They don't have to drive. They could stop it.

Matthew Fluxington

22:12 / 19.08.02

Man, are you trying to tell me that because you (and people like you) are so weak-willed and physically addicted to something, the whole fucking rest of the world, who are smart and strong-willed enough not to make the same mistakes and poorly judged choices that you've all made have to suffer? That because you all can't go 30 minutes without a cigarette, we should all acquiesce and go along with it, cos you don't give a fuck about anybody but yourselves?

If there are enough people who want to have non smoking environments in which to listen to live music or drink or watch sex shows or whatever then market forces should provide one.

Bullshit! There's no such thing as a fucking option in this matter - and if it were reversed, you'd all deal with having to not smoke when you want to go see a band play or have a meal, just the same way I have to deal with inhaling thick clouds of smoke for several hours most everytime I ever see a show. You'd be a lot better for it, trust me - what you lose in having a nic fit for a few hours will be gained in the self-respect gained from learning that you actually can make it through that expanse of time without lighting up. In the current situation, the people making the sacrifice are losing a lot more than you would be.

22:29 / 19.08.02

There's no such thing as a fucking option in this matter

yes there is, you could not go, or start up non-smoking venues, or do something else, or exercise your fucking free will for a change

and if it were reversed, you'd all deal with having to not smoke when you want to go see a band play or have a meal, just the same way I have to deal with inhaling thick clouds of smoke for several hours most everytime I ever see a show.

Yeah, and we wouldn't whine like bitches. We have to do it all the time. But when you come into a place where smoking is okay, you whine like someone's come into your house, tied you down and blown smoke into your face. Is that a double standard I smell?

Newsflash: nobody gives a shit. When gig-goers don't want to smoke, venues will become non-smoking. I'm fine with that. It's just another place I can't smoke. Until then, deal with it, or don't. It's your choice. Don't claim that it's your human right to go see some shitty band in whatever atmosphere you feel comfortable in. I don't like seeing bands who are crap - do I insist on a law making it mandatory for all bands to be what I consider good? No. I don't go see the ones I know I won't like.

I'm sorry that the environment isn't quite how you'd like it. Actually, no, I'm not sorry at all. Perhaps they should be legally required to install pot palms as well, and ban pogoing, because, y'know, that can be dangerous.

22:32 / 19.08.02

Physical addiction is not relevent. I want to smoke, I choose to smoke, I enjoy it, it's like a hobby and because it is legal you and your kind can't stop me. There are non smoking venues, resteraunts and bars, I don't often go there, it's my choice. If you go to a venue that allows smoking then it's your choice, stop whinging. If you feel there are not enough places for you to go where smoking is not allowed then don't moan at me I don't own a bar.

Do you have some problem with this you are not letting on?

Matthew Fluxington

22:46 / 19.08.02

yes there is, you could not go, or start up non-smoking venues, or do something else, or exercise your fucking free will for a change

Are you out of your mind? And you're telling ME that I have no free will, when you're addicted to a substance that you probably could never quit in a million years cos yr will is so small? Going to see music that I love live is not an issue of lacking free will, it's just a choice tainted by pathetic little people like you who have no sense of consideration or decency.

Yeah, and we wouldn't whine like bitches.

What? Cigarette smokers in NYC are whining incessantly about this - you all complain constantly anytime anyone tries to separate you from your little pacifiers in the interests of other people's health or safety. Being forced to breathe unwanted smoke is simply not in reality analogous to being denied the privelege to smoke the cigarettes creating that smoke.

I completely resent this wrong-headed notion that music venues are places explicitly intended for smokers - they're not. This is a de facto situation, it just happens that these spaces attract a number of smokers. But smoking is NOT a neccessary part of the equation, and it is wrong to claim places like that as 'belonging' to smokers.

Newsflash: nobody gives a shit. When gig-goers don't want to smoke, venues will become non-smoking.

Well, yr incorrect. A LOT of people care, a lot of very powerful people care, and soon, in three of the biggest and most culturally influential cities in the United States - L.A., San Francisco, and NYC - there won't be a choice for smokers anymore. And soon, many other cities and states will follow suit.

The Apple-Picker

22:54 / 19.08.02

The problem is that you are supposing that things are fair and square the way they are now. That, if nonsmokers want to go to a particular restaurant that allows smoking or a club that allows smoking, then that is the same thing as a smoker going to a restaurant or club that prohibits smoking. Those are not the same things.

When a nonsmoker goes into a smoking establishment, a carcinogenic cloud is imposed upon him--one that I, in particular, find rather nasty to smell, too. When a smoker goes into a nonsmoking establishment, he is kept from indulging in an unhealthy behavior that imposes, usually unasked, on all the others around him.

I'm not sure how to articulate this in the way I'm thinking of it. It just seems a lot easier, as things are set now, for smoking to be imposed on a nonsmoker than for nonsmoking to be imposed on a smoker.

22:57 / 19.08.02

Going to see music that I love live is not an issue of lacking free will, it's just a choice tainted by pathetic little people like you who have no sense of consideration or decency.

Yes it is. If you can't help but go see bands who smoke like chimneys and play in clubs where other people smoke like chimneys, then what does that say about you? Make a choice.

Cigarette smokers in NYC are whining incessantly about this - you all complain constantly anytime anyone tries to separate you from your little pacifiers in the interests of other people's health or safety.

Newsflash #2 - I don't live in NYC

Being forced to breathe unwanted smoke is simply not in reality analogous to being denied the privelege to smoke the cigarettes creating that smoke.

Except, and this is a very obvious point but I feel the need to make it again since it's obviously been missed, you're not being forced to breathe unwanted smoke. You make the choice to go to smoky places. You don't like it. But you are not forced. Like the people suing McDonalds for making them fat weren't actually forced to eat there. Like I am not forced to smoke myself.

Please tell me how, by smoking in a club, people are forcing anyone to inhale it. I don't care how much you "love the music maaaan I couldn't live without it". You can, you could, you would. If you cared about it you'd petition venues to ban it, or start your own. It's just an excuse to get people to behave how you'd like them to. You're no more perceptive of the dangers than any smoker, most probably less (want to swap friend/relative smoking death stories?) you just don't like smoke in places you want to go, and you want things your way.

Fine. You've got your preference. Exercise it. Use your free will. But don't ask daddy to enforce it.

The Apple-Picker

22:58 / 19.08.02

Er... my "the problem is" was in response to Undocumented Feature's Do you have some problem with this you are not letting on?

22:59 / 19.08.02

There is something seriously amiss with someone who constantly moans on about freedom of choice, refuses to recognise their own freedom to make those choices and is so venomous in attempting to deny others that choice.

I don't see anyone here saying they should be allowed to smoke wherever they want despite the wishes of those who own, manage or maintain those places. What gives you the right do dictate that the opposite should hold true?

This has stopped being a discussion and your posts are nothing but assertion Flux.

Matthew Fluxington

23:09 / 19.08.02

Physical addiction is not relevent. I want to smoke, I choose to smoke, I enjoy it, it's like a hobby and because it is legal you and your kind can't stop me.

Smoking is not a hobby! That's ridiculous! It's a vice, it's a way of passing time, but it's not a fucking hobby! And addiction has everything to do with why smoking should be discouraged by limiting places to smoke, and increasing the price of cigarettes. Obviously, people who buy out of state, they will dodge the rules - they know that. They're making it hard for people who suddenly run out and have to go to the corner store, etc, and they pay upwards of $7 and think "well, shit, this is a waste of money. but I like it. but maybe I should quit, cos I'm broke". It's meant to be detrimental, it's meant to be a pain in the ass, it's meant to take some of the money in a negative part of culture and put some of it in public programs that might help some people. It's not something that anyone is realistically expecting to cause people to immediately drop the habit.

23:10 / 19.08.02

Sorry Apple-Picker, takes me so long to post I miss two replies.

I don't think there is a direct comparison to be made between Smoking and non smoking, I don't argue that these things should be equal or that we impose legislation to maintain some artificial ballance. I don't smoke in many resteraunts I frequent, sometimes because the whole place is non smoking, sometimes because it might be rude to do so.

If someone wants to allow smoking in their place of business for the purpose of attracting smoking customers or providing a particular atmosphere then there should be no law against it. There is no law against banning smoking in your place of business or to oblige you to make provision for smokers, we are not considered disabled yet.

If Flux is representative of a large enough group of consumers then I would think there would be provision for this habit (of objecting strongly to smokers). I have that privilege, Flux should too. Looking about there are many venues for music, drinking, watching films, etc that do just that.

I would hate to see smokers protected under the law in the same way some other interest groups are but not as much as I would hate to see them persecuted in this way.

Page: (1)2 3 4 5