STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

ILoveChoo · Hermes

RE: Smoking Banned!

RyanJ · Coach

I think I have to stop reading this post.

Now I remember why I don't read the current events section.

zeitgeist4 · Gucci

I actually had no idea that smoking in restaurants is still allowed in most states. Smoking in restaruants has been banned for 10+ years here, and I assumed it was the norm. When I went to New York several years ago I was shocked to be sitting in a restaurant and smell cigarette smoke-- someone at the bar was smoking.

I'm glad more states are banning it. Thanks to cigarettes I never knew two of my grandparents, and the more smoking is banned, the better.

JoceyBaby23 · Gucci

ILoveChoo wrote:

The difference is that you can go to a restaurant and order something else. Other people drinking pop wouldn't affect you. But if you go someplace that allows smoking, even if you choose not to smoke you can have adverse health affects becasue other people do. It doesn't just cause harm to the person participating in the activity. Sure I guess I could just not go to places that allow smoking, but that would mean that I'm pretty much stuck staying home. No going out to eat, out to drink, playing pool or bowling... pretty boring life, if you ask me.

That is a good point ILC. Many people, employees included, don't have a choice to stay away from these places. And they shouldn't have to stay home just to avoid some else's dirty habit. Let the smokers stay home, if you ask me! LOL!

Maddie · Coach

JoceyBaby23 wrote:

Maddie wrote:
That's not really affecting anyone's health but my own. I just really don't understand the logic. I guess it's annoying? I think the smell of meat cooking is annoying yet no one seems to be banning that for my protection.

RED FLAGS are going up everywhere with this one too..
Yes, you are affecting other people's health when you smoke around them. Dana Reeves for example, dies of lung cancer and never smoked a day in her life. How did it happen? Second-hand smoke.
Also, a less serious example.. I have asthma.. It developed around the time I was 15. Would you like to know the cause? My father smoked around me for 15 years, since the day I was born, my home was a "smoking" home.
You do affect others!!!
Also, I don't mean for this to sound bitchy.. BUT
When was the last time, the smell of meat caused cancer to those around it?

I said I agree with not smoking inside, I was only refering to smoking outside. My mom also has asthma from her parents smoking around her and I have no doubt that second hand smoke in enclosed areas or over long periods of time has adverse health effects. I don't think the moment it takes for some one to pass me on the street is going to give them lung cancer.

-- Edited by Maddie at 01:04, 2006-03-21

lilyann · Dooney & Bourke

RyanJ wrote:

I don't need the goverment to protect me from the cigarette smoke. I can't protect myself. I don't go where the cigarette smoke is. What is next? Is the government going to protect me from pop? We all know how bad pop is for you. I think maybe they should stop serving pop in restauraunts too. The would be protecting us from obesity, tooth decay, caffeine dependency and weakened bones.
Yes! This is exactly how I feel! Your statement, in its entirety, is not paranoid- or alarmist. In California, where I live- regulations are in the works to save us from the evils of sugar-and the resulting obesity. You see, in California, we are not of sound enough mind to make these personal decisions for ourselves. So, our ever benevelant government is helping us with our troubles. Those in other states who lament being far behind the enlightened California and other such states- dont worry- your moving in the right direction. But, let me just say, beware the choices you give up- you will never see them again. These proposterous health measures will soon be legislated ( and sanctions given for Americans to be exorbinately taxed) by our central government.The majority is pleading with them to- and they will gladly take this over for you- its the least they can do. But, in the meantime, there is freedom of choice in all these scenerios- including smoking. If you dont smoke- dont go to a bar or restaraunt where smoking is allowed- heres a choice- imagine that. If you are an employee of these types of establishments- choose the one that works for you- its America. If you happen to own a bar or restaraunt- implement the decision by virtue of a democratic soceity- yea, or nay- it really is quite simple. With "free will" being the operative word here: these establishments, these employees, you- all at this point, do still have the luxury to make choices of your own. Not so in California. Hell, our bodies are no longer our own here. Let me tell you how it works here: Our liberal media comes up with a "concept", tells the majority how to feel about this "concept", there is knee-jerk panic- and "poof" the "concept" becomes an institution-fully regulated and taxed by all. But heh, its what we all wanted wasnt it?

blubirde · Chanel

Austin banned smoking about 6 months ago and as far as I know, no businesses have been adversely affected. I don't buy that argument anyway, at least not in Austin. I can see a feasible argument where one city butts up against another and one city has a smoking ban and one doesn't. Then I can see how it would be fairly easy for a smoker to choose the smoking city over the non-smoking city. In Austin's case, a person would have to drive half an hour either way (from downtown) to get to places that allow smoking.

At first I was against the ban for some of the reasons listed on this post. I didn't like the idea of government getting involved and telling us what we can and can't do with our personal decisions. In practice, though, I love the smoking ban, again for all of the reasons listed on this post.

Frankly, the more time I spend away from smoking environments, the more repulsive I find smoke. I don't want to inhale it (and yes, I could leave the bar), and I don't want to smell like it. I think it's quite a nice luxury to be able to go out and not have to deal with second hand smoke. That said, I do think people should be allowed to smoke outdoors. I personally don't like it when people congregate around the exits and smoke because I have to smell it and walk through it. However, I can hold my breath and the smell won't linger on my clothes. All of my complaints are superficial, at best. So, in that regard, I overlook my own personal wishes and thing that smoking should be allowed in areas where it doesn't affect other people (outdoors, for instance). 25 feet away from the entrance is ridiculous. Something like 10 feet is acceptable, I think.

Seashells · Dooney & Bourke

I have some points to add to this.

I live in a tri-state area. Pennsylvania has not banned smoking, New Jersey just banned it and New York has had the ban. My personal experience- none of the bars in Pennsylvania have seen an increase in business because its New York and New Jersey patrons can smoke there. Nor have i seen a decrease in business in New York or New Jersey. The only problem- really- with going outside is its cold right now. But I know smokers love to go smoke outside when its nice (mainly at work)!

My mother is a smoker- she loves the ban. She doesn't want to smell like smoke either-which is why she goes outside- she even does it at home. I was smoked around since I was born- I cannot definately attribute my severe allergies to that- but its a cause.

The government has not said - "You cannot smoke cigarettes" they have simply said, in order for you not to harm others do not smoke in CLOSED IN public places. Technically, smoking that can be proved to lead to the death of someone can be called negligence or manslaughter- which inevitably someone with a savvy lawyer will be able to sue the government over. They are doing their due diligence to keep up with changing times.

Medical note: Second Hand smoke is actually worse for you than smoking first hand because when you exhale, you are expelling the toxins that your body doesn't take in.

sephorablue · Marc Jacobs

blubirde wrote:

Austin banned smoking about 6 months ago and as far as I know, no businesses have been adversely affected. I don't buy that argument anyway, at least not in Austin. I can see a feasible argument where one city butts up against another and one city has a smoking ban and one doesn't. Then I can see how it would be fairly easy for a smoker to choose the smoking city over the non-smoking city. In Austin's case, a person would have to drive half an hour either way (from downtown) to get to places that allow smoking.

I think this point is the crux of what negates the "it'll hurt my business" argument. If bars selectively ban smoking, especially in areas where most people do smoke, then they probably would see their business hurt because if most of their usual patrons smoke, those patrons will go elsewhere. Whereas if you put a city-wide or state-wide ban into effect, everybody's on equal footing because every business faces the same restrictions. I'm not buying that it's an intrusion into people's rights, because like Jocey said, employees of bars and restaurants have a right not to be subjected to large amounts of carcinogens at their workplaces, and I think the right to a healthy work environment trumps the right of smokers to indulge in a willingly acquired habit. Other kinds of hazardous chemicals in people's work environments are heavily regulated and this should be no exception. And besides, none of the smokers I know even care; the attitude of everyone I know in New York who smokes is, "fair enough."

lynnie · Chanel

sephorablue wrote:

blubirde wrote: Austin banned smoking about 6 months ago and as far as I know, no businesses have been adversely affected. I don't buy that argument anyway, at least not in Austin. I can see a feasible argument where one city butts up against another and one city has a smoking ban and one doesn't. Then I can see how it would be fairly easy for a smoker to choose the smoking city over the non-smoking city. In Austin's case, a person would have to drive half an hour either way (from downtown) to get to places that allow smoking. I think this point is the crux of what negates the "it'll hurt my business" argument. If bars selectively ban smoking, especially in areas where most people do smoke, then they probably would see their business hurt because if most of their usual patrons smoke, those patrons will go elsewhere. Whereas if you put a city-wide or state-wide ban into effect, everybody's on equal footing because every business faces the same restrictions. I'm not buying that it's an intrusion into people's rights, because like Jocey said, employees of bars and restaurants have a right not to be subjected to large amounts of carcinogens at their workplaces, and I think the right to a healthy work environment trumps the right of smokers to indulge in a willingly acquired habit. Other kinds of hazardous chemicals in people's work environments are heavily regulated and this should be no exception. And besides, none of the smokers I know even care; the attitude of everyone I know in New York who smokes is, "fair enough."

i agree- most smokers i know are kind enough to not want to subject others to it. I've never had a smoker just light up in my house or car- they ALWAYS ask, and usually I say no. For the most part, people are sensitive to others about that- people usually know its bad for them, and i don't think they'd want to hurt everyone else just because they feel like having a smoke, when they could just as easily go outside. I don't chew with my mouth open because it would bother others- and it doesn't even affect or hurt anyone in any way. i agree that the 25 ft. rule is stupid though, just a few feet would suffice- enough where there is proper ventilation.

nunzi182 · Kate Spade

New Jersey banned smoking and it goes into effect April 1st. As a non-smoker I totally disagree with it. I think the government tries to control our actions in far too many ways. If you want to go the route that it's endangering the lives of other nonsmoking patrons, then technically they should stop serving alcoholic beverages since a drinker could potentially drive drunk, which could potentially result in the bodily harm/death of another. It can't be okay for one and not the other.

As far as Dana Reeves death and not having smoked a day in her life, lung cancer is not JUST caused by smoking. If you have the cancer cell in your body, you are going to get cancer regardless (unless is stays dormant) whether it be cancer of the lungs or anywhere else.

RyanJ, I agree with everything you said.

RyanJ · Coach

Lilyann and nunzi182...Finally a little backup!

blink · Coach

As far as I know, the only place in my area smoking is banned is in restaurants in Dallas city limits...but it's still okay to smoke in bars I believe.

I am happy with any restaurant smoking ban, but as a former smoker who smokes like 2 cigarettes a year on the rare occasions that I go out drinking with old friends, I would be kind of bummed if this right was taken away. When I do go out, I like to participate in the same forgotten rituals to give myself that feeling of continuity with the past. I know smoking is gross, and I don't like "smokers" in general, but since I was never really addicted or a chain smoker, I feel like it doesn't have to be such a big deal so long as there is proper ventilation. Some places just get so smothered with smoke and these establishments should be forced to correct that problem to minimize second hand smoke.

OVERALL though, I think SMOKING BANS ARE A GOOD THING, as long as bars are at least allowed to have a smoking patio or something, should they choose to fork over the dough for building one.

Kari · Dooney & Bourke

RyanJ wrote:

relrel wrote:
silly me, but i actually like it when the goverment tries to do things to protect my health from things that would kill me.

That is my point exactly. I don't need the goverment to protect me from the cigarette smoke. I can't protect myself. I don't go where the cigarette smoke is.
What is next? Is the government going to protect me from pop? We all know how bad pop is for you. I think maybe they should stop serving pop in restauraunts too. The would be protecting us from obesity, tooth decay, caffeine dependency and weakened bones.
I know that pop is a lot different then cigarettes, but where does it end? Give then an inch and they will take a mile.

I think the biggest difference here is what JoceyBaby was discussing. You drinking pop might hurt your health, but it won't affect mine. You blowing smoke my direction will affect me and everyone around you. And, if a few people stop smoking, or smoke less...even better.

Ritz · Dooney & Bourke

nunzi182 wrote:

If you want to go the route that it's endangering the lives of other nonsmoking patrons, then technically they should stop serving alcoholic beverages since a drinker could potentially drive drunk, which could potentially result in the bodily harm/death of another. It can't be okay for one and not the other.

in ohio, bartenders are technically not allowed to continue to serve customers who are visibly intoxicated, and i would imagine this is the same everywhere. i realize this law/regulation is not always enforced, but i know many people who have been "cut off" at bars for being too drunk. so in that sense, to me at least, that arguement isn't valid.. one drink most likely won't hurt the people around the drinker, whereas even one cigarette being smoked will hurt all of the people around the smoker.

the smoking ban has not in any way affected bars in columbus/ohio state. if anything, some of them are doing better b/c by opening outside bars/beer tubs, they are able to serve more people more frequently.

Irene · Dooney & Bourke

I think NYC is so much better with the smoking ban. The following links is to a NYTimes articles written last year, 2 years after the ban was implemented. I know its only one article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/nyregion/06xsmoke.html?ei=5090&en=c69782a611e94cf4&ex=1265346000&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all

nunzi182 · Kate Spade

Ritz wrote:

nunzi182 wrote: If you want to go the route that it's endangering the lives of other nonsmoking patrons, then technically they should stop serving alcoholic beverages since a drinker could potentially drive drunk, which could potentially result in the bodily harm/death of another. It can't be okay for one and not the other. in ohio, bartenders are technically not allowed to continue to serve customers who are visibly intoxicated, and i would imagine this is the same everywhere. i realize this law/regulation is not always enforced, but i know many people who have been "cut off" at bars for being too drunk. so in that sense, to me at least, that arguement isn't valid.. one drink most likely won't hurt the people around the drinker, whereas even one cigarette being smoked will hurt all of the people around the smoker. the smoking ban has not in any way affected bars in columbus/ohio state. if anything, some of them are doing better b/c by opening outside bars/beer tubs, they are able to serve more people more frequently.

I actually think drinking is worse than smoking because people can drink at home, not just in bars. At home, drinking isn't regulated and can cause even more danger to innocent bystanders. So while you think my argument isn't valid in the bar sense, I believe it is valid for drinkers who drink at home. A smoker can smoke at home and not harm anyone, but a drinker drinking at home who decides to go out for a ride can harm someone. Also, the fact that it isn't really regulated (because some bartenders bend the rules or because someone could send a friend or multiple friends to get drinks for them) is a moot point.

Irene · Dooney & Bourke

Nunzi182 - I think the problem with that is that the act of smoking a cigarette can kill a person. The act of drinking a drink is not going to kill someone, it has to accompany another act.

nunzi182 · Kate Spade

Irene wrote:

Nunzi182 - I think the problem with that is that the act of smoking a cigarette can kill a person. The act of drinking a drink is not going to kill someone, it has to accompany another act.

This is why I completely disagree, I'm just stating my opinion that I think drinking is just as bad. You may not realize how big a problem driving while intoxicated is. Where I live there are numerous drunk driving related accidents where the driver ends up without a scratch, but the victims do not. I'm sure it's like this everywhere else too. While it may be indirectly, drinking still causes many deaths.

Elle · Hermes

That's why driving drunk is illegal. The act of drinking isn't illegal, so the part where you could do physical harm to others is. Same with smoking. The act of smoking isn't illegal, just the part about where you could do harm to others, aka smoking in enclosed public places.