NYC bar and restaurants report increased revenue after smoking ban

Many on DU have argued that smoking bans hurt business, particularly bars and restaurants. A new report from www.tobaccofreekids.org suggests the contrary

http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0144.pdf

"...Following the City of New York’s March 2003 implementation of its comprehensive smoke-free workplace law, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene reported that data from the New York State Department of Labor showed that the law “has not had a negative impact on employment in bars and restaurants in New York City.”11 According to the city's finance commissioner, New York City bars and restaurants paid the city 12 percent more in tax revenues in the first six months after the smoke-free law took effect than during the same period in 2002.12 The 2004 Zagat New York City Restaurant Survey provides additional evidence that New York City’s smoke-free law is not hurting business. The survey of nearly 30,000 New York restaurant-goers found that 23 percent of respondents said they are eating out more often because of the city’s smokefree workplace law, while only four percent said they are eating out less. Zagat’s press release concludes, “The city’s recent smoking ban, far from curbing restaurant traffic, has given it a major lift.”13

"In Delaware, business remains steady one year after the state’s Clean Indoor Air Act went into effect in November 2002. Data from the Delaware Alcohol Beverage Control Commission show that the number of restaurant, tavern and taproom licenses increased in the year since the law took effect.

Data from the Delaware Department of Labor show that employment in the state’s food service and drinking establishments also increased in the year since the smoke-free law went into effect."

I Florida it's had no effect. Folks adapat and so do the restaraunts...

It's the best thing thats happened for me and my kids... We can actually enjoy a smoke free evening out....

a lot of them eat.

Seems predictable enough.

...that suffer, its the bars/clubs/lounges. I go out in the city on regular basis, and I usually go to bar/clubs/lounges...and there really are less people there, than before. Now I'm a smoker, and I fully support the ban in restaurants...but banning smoking in bars and clubs, I don't agree with. You have people outside all the time, all the garbage in front of the place. I think it should be left up to the bar owner.

What's that you say?

Bar owners should be allowed to decide whether or not they will offer smoke-free or smoker-friendly places?

And potential patrons should be able to choose whether they want to patronize bars, clubs, and lounges which offer places to smoke or bars, clubs, and lounges which prohibit smoking?

And do I hear you saying that potential employees of bars, clubs, and lounges ought to be able to decide -- before they apply for jobs in bars, clubs, and lounges -- to choose whether or not they wish to subject themselves smoke in the places they will work?

Freedom of choice?

We just cannot have any of that!

If we allow THAT, someone, somewhere just might enjoy his/herself.

Next you'll complain about your lack of freedom to kill.

It's a little more complicated that.

I used to smoke, and most of my friends still smoke, and I'll occasionally have one when out drinking, and I really don't like the idea of a smoking ban in bars, but as a health issue for employees I really just can't justify an exception because it suits my lifestyle.

Do companies have a choice about hiring children?
Do companies have a choice about dumping toxic crap in the water?
Do companies have a choice about reducing the hazards in their workplace?

Unless you support child labor and deliberate environmental pollution then I think we can all agree that no one has complete and total "freedom of choice." The government regulates businesses all the time.

The left has long accepted that employers have a responsibility to their employees. If I'm a window cleaner my boss can't just "choose" to not give me a safety belt, telling me to shove it if I won't work without one. Are you saying liberals would side with the employer in that case? Supporting smoking bans is entirely consistent with progressive principles, specifically the idea that employers have a responsibility to provide their workers with as safe a working environment as possible. I would be surprised if the left didn't support these bans.

The work of a coal miner is inherently dangerous. People who sign-up to work as coal miners, I think, understand that.

The government can tell businesses (including coal mining businesses) to take prudent steps to ensure the safety of their workers.

But coal miners will always be exposed to coal dust and other hazards.

That is one of the reasons I chose not to mine coal.

Same with bar-tenders and servers in restaurants.

If a restaurant owner decides that she wishes to offer a place where people who wish to eat, drink, and smoke can come to enjoy a night of fine dining, then she ought to have an obligation to make the work environment for her staff as safe as possible -- within the limits of her business.

She is in the business of providing a place where people who wish to eat, smoke, and drink can come for a night out.

It makes no sense for her to ban smoking -- or for the government, in the interests of "protecting" people who freedly choose to work in such an environment -- to prohibit smoking altogether.

If the government bans smoking as a way to protect the people who have chosen to work in restaurants, then why doesn't the government also ban coal mining?

Coal mining is not inherently dangerous. Saying it is doesn't change the fact. Furthermore, coal mining provides us with something useful; coal. Smoking does not.

But coal miners will always be exposed to coal dust and other hazards.

Safety equipment can eliminate the possibility of their breathing coal dust. Other dangers can also be addressed.

If a restaurant owner decides that she wishes to offer a place where people who wish to eat, drink, and smoke can come to enjoy a night of fine dining, then she ought to have an obligation to make the work environment for her staff as safe as possible -- within the limits of her business.

Nope. There is no such right, and spreading your fantasy around doesn't make it any less untrue.

I have often wondered what it feels like to live at the center of the universe. Perhaps you can tell me how it feels to be there. I'd really like to know.

You state -- absolutely categorically -- that "coal mining provides us with something useful; coal. Smoking does not."

If you live in the center of the Universe, it is, I suppose, quite easy to decide, both for yourself and for others, what is "useful" and what is not.

I happen to think that electricity that is generated from coal is quite useful. But there are those who might disagree, and say that coal - and the smoke it creates when it is burnt -- is not a good thing.

I also happen to think that cigarette smoking is not particularly useful, but then I have never smoked. But there are people who do find them "useful" -- to calm them or just to enjoy them. You are, in effect, saying to people who enjoy smoking that one of the activities that they have chosen to enjoy is "useless". I wonder how you might feel if someone were to tell you that an activity that brings you some pleasure is useless and should be banned.

And I am not entirely sure I understand the last part of your statement. Are you suggesting that a restaurant owner who decides to offer her customers a place where they can eat, drink, and smoke should NOT be obliged to make the environmemt as safe as possible for her staff -- within the limits of her business?

That has NOTHING to do with the law.

I happen to think that electricity that is generated from coal is quite useful. But there are those who might disagree, and say that coal - and the smoke it creates when it is burnt -- is not a good thing.

Who cares what you think? The law certainly doesn't. And the law has already decided that coal, electricity etc provide something that is not only useful, but also necessary.

You are, in effect, saying to people who enjoy smoking that one of the activities that they have chosen to enjoy is "useless".

No, the law has said, in effect, that smoking provides no benefit to society.

I wonder how you might feel if someone were to tell you that an activity that brings you some pleasure is useless and should be banned.

More BS. No one has said smoking should be banned because it's useless. If you were honest about this, you would try acknowledge that the ban is based on the FACT that smoking causes harm to OTHERS.

And I am not entirely sure I understand the last part of your statement. Are you suggesting that a restaurant owner who decides to offer her customers a place where they can eat, drink, and smoke should NOT be obliged to make the environmemt as safe as possible for her staff -- within the limits of her business

The restaurant or bar owner has no legal right to offer a place where they can smoke.

Perhaps you could share with the rest of us something -- like a peer-reviewed, scientific study -- which demonstrates what you say: "the FACT that smoking causes harm to OTHERS."

You are already familiar with the studies. You don't believe them. Don't pretend you don't know about them. It's disingenous

I guess you would rather call me names - like "disingenuous" -- and cast aspersions towards me -- and say that I already know about them.

Sort of like making a personal attack when you don't have the facts, eh?

not you. I criticized your post, not your person or your character.

but when you say, in a post directed to me, that

"You are already familiar with the studies. You don't believe them. Don't pretend you don't know about them. It's disingenous"

You do, in fact, attack my character. You say that I know something and pretend not to. That, I think, comes pretty close to calling me a liar.

YOU may not consider that to be an attack on my character.

But I do.

Disingenous.

There's a difference

You call it whatever you want to.

You say you said that you called a statement of mine "disingenous", but that you did not attack me or my character.

I say that, in saying that a statement I made was "disingenuous", you were really saying that I am a liar. And when you do that you attack my character.

But whether you want to use the word "lie" or "disingenuous", it makes no difference to me, really.

Because either word is a personal attack on my character.

on edit:

By the way, Have you come up with the study to support your statment about the "fact" that second-hand smoke is harmful to non-smokers yet?

10 of which showed NO correlation to secondhand smoke and the health of non-smokers. The 11th showed a tiny increase in smoking related illness, yet still well within the margin of error.
Guess which study they chose?

I wonder.......

Which of the ten studies which demonstrated NO correlation between second-hand smoke and the health of non-smokers did the EPA choose?

is the single most dangerous occupation in the US.

Tobacco farmers might disagree that tobacco provides nothing.

The original article in the Times, unedited by Tobacco Free Kids, includes criticism of the report:

"There's no separation between McDonald's and the nightclub and bar industry," Mr. Rabin said. "Many restaurant and bar workers have had to take second jobs to make up for lost tip income."

"The report does not reflect the harsh realities faced by the city's bars, which catered to a smoking crowd before the ban, said bar merchants, who questioned why bar data was not separate in the report."

Bars are getting hammered, so the city puts out a report which essentially says that restaurants like Starbucks are doing well.

Also...
I don't own a car or drive. I walk, bike and use mass transit.
Yet 90% of the pollution I inhale is car exhaust. When will the government change auto exhaust regulations? We have to wipe the black petroleum residue off our windowsills constantly. Yes, cars are necessary, but SUV pollution is not!

Agricultural worker have a gugher rate of injury on the job.

Tobacco farmers might disagree that tobacco provides nothing.

So what? What does their OPINION prove besides the fact that they have an opinion?

"There's no separation between McDonald's and the nightclub and bar industry," Mr. Rabin said. "Many restaurant and bar workers have had to take second jobs to make up for lost tip income."

The critics of smoking bans never distinguished between the two segments. They claimed that both would be hurt, so why should the refutation be broken down?

Bars are getting hammered, so the city puts out a report which essentially says that restaurants like Starbucks are doing well.

Wrong again. The study was of both restaurants AND bars. Try again.

I don't own a car or drive. I walk, bike and use mass transit.
Yet 90% of the pollution I inhale is car exhaust. When will the government change auto exhaust regulations? We have to wipe the black petroleum residue off our windowsills constantly. Yes, cars are necessary, but SUV pollution is not!

I agree with you, and I hope that someday cars are banned from urban areas. Mass transit is cheaper, cleaner and healthier. However, not preventing one harm is not an excuse to do nothing about another harmful practice.

have a fatality rate of 53.9/100,000, more hazrdsous than agriculture. The fatality rate for all occupations is 4.3/100,000.
(Source: Forbes)

Tobacco farmers have more than opinions. They get paid cash for their product.

NYC banned smoking in restaurants years ago. Only the bar ban is new. So what is the effect of the NEW ban on bars? Is that not a legitimate question? The statistics should be broken down because the current report is misleading. Restaurants are doing great business in NYC, gin mills are not.

No need to try again. The city needs to try again, putting out an honest report on the effect of the new ban on bars and nightclubs only.

Not preventing one harm, in the case of auto exhaust, is inexcusable. It chokes entire cities. Look at LA on a smog alert day. In NYC the sky turns a bluish brown on hot days. The elderly and children are advised to stay indoors with the windows shut.
Yet nothing is done. At least an individual can choose not to enter a smoky booze joint. (I avoid them like the plague and therefore am not exposed to either secondhand smoke or obnoxious drunks)

Injuries count too.

Tobacco farmers have more than opinions. They get paid cash for their product.

And pimps have an opinion on prostitution, and guess what? They make money from it, too!

NYC banned smoking in restaurants years ago. Only the bar ban is new. So what is the effect of the NEW ban on bars? Is that not a legitimate question? The statistics should be broken down because the current report is misleading. Restaurants are doing great business in NYC, gin mills are not.

If you're going to assert that bars have been hurt, but not restaurants, then please present your evidence.

Not preventing one harm, in the case of auto exhaust, is inexcusable. It chokes entire cities

So your answer is to inexcusably ignore another health hazard. I guess two wrong DO make a right.

Tobacco growers are engaged in a legal activity.
The grower does not involve a third person as does the pimp. The prostitute may be victimized by the pimp or the customer.
To compare growing tobacco plants with pimping is absurd.

I wish I could "present evidence" showing the damage to bar owners, but the city decided not to tell us. Maybe the bar owners will commission an honest report in the future. Some interviews with damaged business owners are available for your review in todays NY Times.

Ignore one health hazard? You're kidding right? Smoking is banned EVERYWHERE in NYC. Every single indoor space.
That's what you call ignoring? It's the toughest anti-smoking law in the world. Even some outdoor parks now have smoking bans in NYC! The only air pollution hazard being ignored is the one that causes all the air pollution.
Leave the boozy smokers one private place to congregate. Now they're all out on the sidewalk making noise, drinking and throwing butts all over the place.

First, it was because tobacco farmers make money from growing tobacco. Now it's because it's legal. It doesn't seem as if you have thought this line of argument through. Do you really understand the point you're trying to make her?

If so, could you please make it?

I wish I could "present evidence" showing the damage to bar owners, but the city decided not to tell us.

So you have no evidence, but you're still certain you are right?

You're certainty is not persuasive. Facts are. Show me facts (not anecdotes) and then you'll have a shot at making an argument.

Smoking is banned EVERYWHERE in NYC. Every single indoor space.

Not true. You can smoke outdoors and you can smoke in anyone's house that allows you to.

It's the toughest anti-smoking law in the world.

And in spite of that, business in bars and restaurants has increased since the ban.

In post 41 you wrote:
"Coal mining is not inherently dangerous. Saying it is doesn't change the fact. Furthermore, coal mining provides us with something useful; coal. Smoking does not."

1. I cited evidence that coal mining is 13 times more dangerous than the US occupational average.

2. You said smoking does not provide us with something useful. I said tobacco farmers, who earn their livelihood growing tobacco, would not agree. Then you brought up opinions and pimps. What's your point?

Only have anecdotal evidence from news reports and personal conversations. The bar figures were kept away from public view. Since this will not meet your high standards of proof, such as a politically motivated and selectively edited city business report, I will give up.

Correction: Smoking is banned everywhere in NYC. Every single indoor space, except outdoors. (and private homes)

Tourism and population are way up in NYC. Restaurants are doing well because of these factors. Bar owners are complaining bitterly. Many NYC bars have petitions in the window asking for the law to be repealed (bars only).

Would you support a separate survey of only the businesses affected by the March 2003 ban?

1. I cited evidence that coal mining is 13 times more dangerous than the US occupational average.

No you didn't. You cited evidence about fatalities, and left out info about injuries and other hazards

. You said smoking does not provide us with something useful. I said tobacco farmers, who earn their livelihood growing tobacco, would not agree. Then you brought up opinions and pimps. What's your point?

The fact that someone can make money from something has no bearing on it's ability to be regulated or even banned.

Only have anecdotal evidence from news reports and personal conversations. The bar figures were kept away from public view. Since this will not meet your high standards of proof, such as a politically motivated and selectively edited city business report, I will give up.

I'd say that's the reasonable thing to do, and I respect you for saying it. If you don't have evidence that bars are being hurt, why make the claim?

Smoking is banned everywhere in NYC. Every single indoor space, except outdoors. (and private homes)

A small quibble. Smoking is banned in every single PUBLIC indoor space.

Tourism and population are way up in NYC. Restaurants are doing well because of these factors. Bar owners are complaining bitterly. Many NYC bars have petitions in the window asking for the law to be repealed (bars only).

Would you support a separate survey of only the businesses affected by the March 2003 ban?

I'm not sure what you mean by support (ex - I'm not gonna pay for it) but I would have no objections. I'm not afraid of information.

1. OSHA has most dangerous occupations as agriculture and mining in the #1 and #2 positions. Fatality rate is highest among miners. Either way, your claim that mining is "not inherently dangerous" is false.

2. Original point did not include regulation or banning or pimps or opinions. Tobacco does provide jobs, income and pharmaceutical products.

3. Why make the claim? Because bar-owners are circulating petitions to have the ban repealed. An association of bar owners is suing the city over the ban. There are signs in bar windows asking you to call your councilman to repeal the ban. That is, to me, evidence that bars are hurt by the ban and that's why I brought it up.

1) So I was right about agriculture being the most dangerous sector, and the fact that something is dangerous does not mean that the danger is "inherent". Your claim that it is inherently dangerous has yet to be supported by any argument other than "it's dangerous"

2) Prostitution also provides jobs, income, and has even contributed to the development of pharmacuetical products.

We can still ban it. Making money and producing jobs does not make it impossible to ban something if it results in a public health hazard. Tobacco is a leading cause of death in this country. Coal is not.

3) And insurance companies are circulating petitions to limit punitive damages and to have bills passed limiting the damages. An association of insurance corporations have filed lawsuits against punitive damage awards they feel are too high, and have asked citizens to call their elected representatives and ask them to pass bills limited punitive damages.

So I guess you think that's evidence that punitive damages should be limited. I think it's evidence that people will lie if they think it's in their financial interest to do so.

has become an absurd waste of time, one last response.

1. Mining is inherently dangerous. Period.
2.Good luck banning tobacco.
3. Insurance companies? Not the topic. Bar owners are petitioning and suing because their business is down.

1) Spoken like a Freeper. NO need for evidence or supporting facts. "Period" is not an argument.

2) Straw man. I have never called for banning tobacco. I support banning smoking in indoor public places

3) You argued that because bar owners says they are losing money, that is evidence. Since insurance corps are also claiming they lose money, that too must have evidence to support it.

Bar owners are petitioning because they are liars who think the ban hurts their business, something you have yet to provide any evidence, unless you consider statements like "Period" an "argument"

"I agree with you, and I hope that someday cars are banned from urban areas. Mass transit is cheaper, cleaner and healthier."

Is this statement of yours a fact, sangh0, or merely your opinion?

Believing that sneezing never harmed anyone's health is, I submit, quite consistent with the view that mass transit is "healthier" than driving in one's own automobile.

But for those of us who do believe that it is possible for us to catch all kinds of diseases from being in an enclosed bus or subway car with many other people who cough, sneeze, and touch handrails and other surfaces -- often without having washed their hands -- we just might have some doubts that mass transit is "healthier: than driving alone in one's own car.

Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that anyone has the right to blow smoke in someone's face, either directly or indirectly. That's just bullshit.

You don't have the right to smoke around me.
You don't have the right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.
You don't have the right to drive a car without a seatbelt.
You certainly don't have the right to drive a car with an open beer in your lap, even if you aren't over the minimum BAC.

There are a LOT of things you can't do. It's part of being able to live together without wanting to choke the living shit out of each other. It's for the greater public good, and the fact that many Libertarians don't understand that is what turns me off to their whole whacked philosophy. Sure, in a perfect world, we can live without rules, but this isn't a perfect world, even if God made it, so take that coffin nail OUTSIDE, please.

Nowhere in the constitution is it written that someone doesn't have the right to blow smoke in your face. Isn't that document more about the limits of government than the limits of the people?

Look, like I said, I support most bans, and I think smokers should be considerate and move away from crowds, put out their smokes if people are bothered, etc. It's amazing what common sense can do to solve a problem sometimes.

At the same time, I think people tend to lose perspective when it comes to smoking. There are A LOT of things out there that are way worse for you than second hand smoke but that people accept as part of living in an industrialized world. Unless you just hide in a closet your whole life you are going to be exposed to unhealthy things. It's called life.

Basically, both sides need to chill the fuck out. Some bars and restaurants in my town have banned smoking, some have not. Some have "smoking hours," etc. I prefer the non-smoking establishments, but occasionally I'll go to the smoking ones because that's where my friends want to hang out. A night here and there isn't going to kill me.

There are reasonable solutions here, people just have to be reasonable enough to accept them.

n/t

Regardless of what you think, the FACTS show that you are wrong. But then, I wouldn't expect someone who thinks bar owners should have a choice while restaurants should not, to be persuaded by the facts.

If people have less money they go out less whether they can smoke or not. I find these numbers even more important because they are registered during an economic slowdown. If Bar and restaurant business revenues are up during bad times then what do you think they will be like when things are good again?

Giving businesses, their customers and employees a choice. People don't want to work in places with smoke? well theres like a million businesses in NYC and probably 200,000 are food and drink. Plenty of choices.

Fire and health insurance would be lower for a smoke-free business, labor costs might be higher as they would have a smaller labor pool, being only those people who choose to expose themselves to smoke. Businesses that go smoke free have an economic advantage, the smoking-permitted businesses must have some counter-advantage - sufficient people preferring a non-smoke-free business.

So some substantial minority prefers non-smoke-free. American Liberty should prevent the majority from forcing compliance from the minority. American capitalism should let the free market work out the balance between smoke-free and non-smoke-free private businesses.

In the US, the market is regulated. If you don't like that, you could always try Eritrea

smokers can still eat and drink and go outside to smoke. their addiction is now a bit more inconvenient to them, but they can still do it, or hold off a bit to smoke. what, are they going to cook now?

many non-smokers can now actually enjoy eating out. makes sense that they'd eat out more.


everything we ever thought was good about smoking, even restaurant business, was all just propaganda by tobacco pushers and addicts.

that was famous for serving cheap and good tacos on Monday nights. A group of people from my building made it a weekly ritual to have dinner there, but I went only once because of the smoke. I HATE the smell of tobacco smoke, and no matter how cheap and delicious the tacos were, they were not worth having my clothes and hair saturated with smoke. I wasn't the only one who avoided bars because of the smoke.

Since only about 1/3 of adults smoke, it makes sense that banning smoking would have either a neutral or a positive effect on attendance at restaurants and bars.

You mean to say that no one FORCED you to go into the bar that offered a place where smokers could eat, drink, and smoke?

the restaurant got a new customer from the smoking ban, proving again that smoking bans are good for business.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

which is the typical response from those who can't argue the facts.,

The deleted message was mine, and I take responsibility for it.

I am sorry that my reply to your message was considered to be a personal attack.

As a person who has been personally attacked on the pages of DU< I know that it does not feel good.

Please accept my apologies.

is the way you took the liberty to interpret another person's post, and then took me to task when I did the same (and doing it with a personal attack, to boot)

Half-apologies don't cut it with me.

Since half-apologies don't cut it with you, please allow me to

apologize for any and all faultsw of mine which have cause you any pain.

apologize for any and all faultsw of mine which have cause you any pain.

You may want to take a peek at FlaGranny's post to this thread (post#30).

In it, FlaGranny mentions that most allergists, because of the adverse effects that cologne and perfume have on people with allergies, do not permit perfumes or colognes to be worn in their offices.

Show me proof that it has an UNHEALTHY effect on others, NOT that it makes other uncomfortable.

This is at least the 2nd time I've had to point out the difference btween COMFORT and HEALTH. How many times will it take to get through to you?

Having an allergy to a substance -- whether it is perfume, cologne, pollen, feathers, cat dandruff, detergent, or anything else, is much, much more than a matter os "comfort".

It is a matter of health. That is precisely why there is a whole field of medicine (along with a number of physicians who specialize in this field of medicine called "allergists") that deal with allergies and peoples' reactions.

More than one person on this thread has indicated that he or she has an allergy to cologne or perfume.

And yet you persist in suggesting that allergies are mere matters of comfort.

They are matters of health. Sometimes serious matters. Ask anyone with a serious food allergy or an allergy to certain medicines or to perfumes and colognes.

If you have no allergy that affects your health, consider yourself very lucky.

Please show me the person who has had their health damaged by their allergy to perfume.

I don't want to hear about a "serious food allergy". Tobacco is not a food. I don't want to hear about medical allergies. Tobacco is not a medicine.

And yet you persist in suggesting that allergies are mere matters of comfort.

Allergies to perfume are a matter of comfort, and not of worker safety.

If you have no allergy that affects your health, consider yourself very lucky.

I am allergic to almost everything on this planet. I know about allergies. Perfume allergies are not a worker safety issue.

I Love Google.

It can be so useful.

Here, for instance, are s few links that it provided about allergies, cologne, and perfume:

http://www.rowatworks.com/Science/To_Do_No_Harm/Invisible_Cripples.html

http://www.cleaningpro.com/products/a-z/f.htm

The second link contains this statement:

Inhaling scented, fragranced chemicals worn and used by others in personal and cleaning type products may actually cause environmental illnesses and impact individuals with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS) by negatively effecting their health. People with MCS experience a range of debilitating physical reactions, some even life-threatening, to chemicals used in a variety of products, including fragrances and personal care products, deodorizers and cleaners, pesticides, wall and floor coverings, and building materials.

It’s a complex issue with a variety of triggering agents and physical reactions. Different people are affected by different products in different ways. The common factor is that the reaction, whatever the type, is very strong and disabling. Information needs to be developed on exactly what brings about such an acute sensitivity to certain chemicals, how and why this happens, and what can be done about it.

People with MCS are too sensitive to chemicals to work in a bar. Just walking around the streets is too much for them. You won't find anyone with MCS in a bar.

what, exactly?

I said that the smell of cologne and perfume makes me ill.

I want to ban the sale of all perfumes and colognes in any department or specialty store (such as Macy's, JCPenney's, Target, Nordstroms, Dillards, etc) that is indoors.

Once I accomplish that, then I will go for a complete ban on the wearing of colognes and perfumes in any inside public space.

We gotta protect people's health, you know.

Also, perfume only affects those few people with MCS. Tobacco smoke harms all who inhale it.

There is nothing inherently dangerous about perfume. There is something inherently dangerous about tobacco.

Surprisingly, the law treats things that are different, like perfume and tobacco, differently.

But I do develop medical conditions when I am around perfume or cologne.

"There is nothing inherently dangerous about perfume. There is something inherently dangerous about tobacco."

No, I suppose there is nothing "inherently dangerous" about perfume. As long as it sits in a bottle on someone's dressing table, the only real danger I can think of is that it might get tipped over by a curious feline who would then drink it and die.

But then the same could be said about tobacco. As long as it remains some dried leaves rolled into 20 cylinders and packed into a packages that is in someone's purse of shirt pocket, I can think of little possible danger.

I suppose one could argue that there is a potential danger to anyone who takes a cigarette and lights it and draws the smoke through his or her own lungs.

But I know of no study that demonstrates any danger to anyone other than the person who actually smokes the cigarette. You have said elsewhere on this thread that people have died as a result of breathing the smoke of others in bars. I await your documentation of this serious claim.

Perfume, unlike cigarette smoke, most likely does not affect the person who wears it, but does affect people who do not wear it. The person who wears cologne does not get sick. People like me do.

So I guess one could say that, to the extent that there is any "inherent danger" in either cigarette smoke or in perfume, there is inherent danger to the person who actually smokes the cigarette, but the inherent danger in perfume exists not to the person who uses it, but to the person who is around the person who uses it.

and a leading cause of death in the nation. Perfume is not.

The law allows the causes of public health hazards to be treated differently than things which do not cause a public health hazard. Quarintines in a time of epidemic is a good example of how one's rights can be limited due to a public health hazard. Tobacco kills as many people as an epidemic. More than most.

It is legal to sell tobacco.

It is legal to purchase tobacco.

It is legal to smoke tobacco.

When some people smoke tobacco, some people will develop conditions as a result of smoking tobacco that will lead to their death.

Now, what I do not understand --- and what you have still not shown me -- is this:

Person A smokes a cigarette.

Person B inhales some of the smoke that person A has drawn through her lungs and has exhaled into the air.

Person A develops a condition that leads to her death.

What health hazard -- shown by peer-reviewed scientific studies -- is there to person B?

It would seem to me that using the logic that you put forth -- namely that the law allows the causes of public health hazards to be treated differently than things which do not cause a public health hazard, and that tobacco use is the leading cause of death in the nation -- that the ban on smoking in bars and restaurants makes no sense at all.

Absent any demonstrable, scientific proof that people are dying or are actually having their health harmed as the direct result of being in a bar or club where other people are smoking, then I can't really see the correlation between the government's action and public health.

...has gotten out of control. I think it's become an elitist and an authoritarian movement of self-righteous indignation, and I am surprised so many liberals support it.

Somebody here said "I'm glad I can enjoy a smoke-free night out.". And I support you in that. You should be able to enjoy a smoke-free night out. But that doesn't mean that every damn bar in the City has to be a non-smoking bar. What's the percentage of people who smoke in NYC? Well, I think that roughly the same percentage of bars should be smoking bars. Bars should be required to, but able to, apply for a license to be smoking bars, and the City could thus regulate the amount of bars in which people are allowed to smoke. You can enjoy your smoke-free night out, and others can enjoy a smoke with their drink.

And what's this bullshit about banning smoking on beaches in California? Especially since LA is notorious for its smog, NOBODY can convince me that second-hand smoke on a breezy beach poses any additional health hazard for anyone. And the smell bothers you? Well, move 10 yards to the right. Please.

If you think that the whole crusade is worth it if it means that less people will smoke, then you must also think that the PATRIOT act is wort it if it means that a potential terrorist or two will be caught.

People should be free to make their own decisions, even if they are hazardous for their own health. Living in cities, eating cheeseburgers, being promiscuous, driving cars, drinking beers are all health hazards. People have as much right to smoke as they do to do these other things. And people also have the right to be free of being bothered by second-hand smoke, but only within limits of reason. No activity that a human being does happens in an isolated universe. Every activity has an effect on someone else, and every activity can be arbitrarily considered bothersome by someone. In Afghanistan people are bothered by the sight of a woman's face. In the South 50 years ago white people were bothered to be in proximity of black people. Wanna-be macho men in the military are bothered if their comrades are gay. So the smell of smoke bothers you. Fine. The government's public policy should do everything it can to minimize health hazards of second-hand smoke, similarly to the way it does it (or hopefully better) with air or water or food polution.

But "the smell of smoke bothers me" as an argument has as much value as any arbitrary peeve people have. It is valid, but it isn't gospel. People compromise all the time. It's just that with some issues at some points in history, they feel like they have a divine right that makes their side of the issue inherently superior to the other.

of colognes and perfumes really bothers me.

Perhaps we could launch a campaign to ban the sale of perfumes and colognes within indoor department and specialty stores.

and that banning perfume will increase revenues for bars and restaraunts, and I'll be your biggest supporter

...dig up some evidence that having smoking bars as well as non-smoking bars will harm your health (in the biggest city in the US in which you are lucky to see Venus and Moon at night), or that being with smokers on the beach in Los Angeles will harm your health, and I'll be your biggest supporter.

Besides, I'll tell you a million things that you do that are harming my health. Your car -- is it hybrid? Well by George, you have no soul. And even if it is, well can't you just bike to work? Oh, what, you want some free time? Do you use styrofoam containers? Spray bottles? Actually, electicity... Do you use electricity? Do you have any idea how much pollution you're putting in the athmospere by supporting the electric industry? Can you express it as an equivalent of number of packs of cigarettes?

Oh, no, but smoking, smoking is the Devil's making.

And as far as "increasing revenues", I won't even comment on that. You know how you could increase revenues even more? Make it MANDATORY for every citizen betweeen the ages of 18 and 65 to dine at a restaurant 5 times a week. Voila.

The health of people who work in smoking bars is worsened by the smoke.

or that being with smokers on the beach in Los Angeles will harm your health, and I'll be your biggest supporter.

Or you feeeling OK or is it your habit to inject non sequitors in the middle of a discussion?

Besides, I'll tell you a million things that you do that are harming my health.

I'll tell you one thing you won't do to harm my health. Smoke in the bar when I'm there too. No matter how many unhealthy things I do, nothing gives you the right to do something that harms my health.

And as far as "increasing revenues", I won't even comment on that. You know how you could increase revenues even more? Make it MANDATORY for every citizen betweeen the ages of 18 and 65 to dine at a restaurant 5 times a week. Voila.

Pretty poor argument. No wonder you make so much stuff up.

Absolutely. That's why there should be smoking bars, and non-smoking bars. As someone else on this thread pointed out, coal miners are exposed to health-risks too, much greater actually. Maybe the bartenders and waiters at smoking bars should be paid extra for the risk they willingly take. I'm sure that smokers wouldn't mind paying extra half a buck for a drink if they could smoke in a bar.

As far as the rest of your response, I don't think it deserves a reply, frankly.

That's why there is a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.

As someone else on this thread pointed out, coal miners are exposed to health-risks too, much greater actually.

1) The owners of coal mines must pay for the doctor's bills of their employees for job-related injuries and conditions

2) Contact with coal and with mines is required in order to mine coal. Smoking is not required to take a patron's order, not does the patron need to smoke in order to order or eat or drink.

3) Coal provides a public benefit. Smoking does not.

Hey, guess what? Death is unhealthy too! Why don't you ignore the arguments being made in support of smoking bans and pretend that we want to ban everything that's unhealthy.

Or is my suggestion a little bit too late?

1) The owners of coal mines must pay for the doctor's bills of their employees for job-related injuries and conditions

I didn't know about this. But even if this is the case, the risks of working in a coal mine are far greater than risks of working in a smoky bar. Risks of working in a smoky bar are almost definitely smaller than risks of being a trucker. Besides, maybe this -- forcing employers to pay for employees' health coverage -- is one of the avenues we need to consider. Or maybe it should be enough that a sentient and informed adult can make a choice to work in a certain place. For example, many choose to live in New York, or Houston, or LA, and thus inhale much more carbon-monoxide and tar than any second-hand smoke you'll ever inhale.

2) Contact with coal and with mines is required in order to mine coal. Smoking is not required to take a patron's order, not does the patron need to smoke in order to order or eat or drink.

A completely irrelevant point, since the whole bar industry isn't based on need for anything, but things that are elective and recreational. You don't need to smoke in order to drink alcohol, and you don't need to drink alcohol to drink soda, you don't need to drink soda to eat, and you don't need to be at a bar at all to eat. People go to bars to have fun. Some people's idea of having fun includes smoking, and they don't need you or anybody else to slap self-righteous labels on them. As I've said before, you should have your non-smoking bars, but smokers should have theirs too.

3) Coal provides a public benefit. Smoking does not.

Spare me. Entertainment is public benefit. Smoking is intrinsic to entertainment for some people. That's what they claim, and that's all you need to know.

Hey, guess what? Death is unhealthy too! Why don't you ignore the arguments being made in support of smoking bans and pretend that we want to ban everything that's unhealthy.

Or is my suggestion a little bit too late?

I don't get what you're saying here.

1) Get back to me when bars are required to give their employees health care because that will cost them more than a smoking ban ever has or ever will. If you're truly concerned about the viability of a drinking establishment, then you have latched onto a very ineffective way to protect their profits.

2) You missed the point. We need coal, so it can't be banned, and you can't mine it without contact with coals and mines. We don't need bars, and we don't need bar employees to smoke.

Also, the law has nothing to do with slapping labels on anyone. I'm allowed to do that with or without the smoking ban. It's about protecting worker's health. Try and keep you focus on the issue, and not on your feeling of personal offense. What I think of anyone (and what you think oif anyone) is of no import in this matter

3) I'm sorry, but according to the law, entertainment is NOT a necessity. Under the law, coal is.

4) What I'm saying is that your use of straw men to refute points no one here is making (ex the way you've argued against the idea that something shouldn't be banned just because it's harmful, like coal even though I've never said smoking s/b banned merely because it's harmful) is an obvious ploy to avoid addressing the real argument I'm making:

No one has the right to do something that hurts someone else, and the govt has a right to ban such behavior UNDER CERTAIN SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.

1) Get back to me when bars are required to give their employees health care because that will cost them more than a smoking ban ever has or ever will. If you're truly concerned about the viability of a drinking establishment, then you have latched onto a very ineffective way to protect their profits.

You're completely ignoring my point that sentient and informed adults should be allowed to make their own decisions. And more importantly, it's not my job to be concerned about the viability of any establishment. My job as a citizen is to be concerned about my rights and about my fellow citizens' rights. The establishment can take care of its own viability. My guess is that the most viable option would be to provide both smoking and non-smoking environments. I know for a fact that, for example, were a smoking bar to open in NYC right now, it would make tons of money.

2) You missed the point. We need coal, so it can't be banned, and you can't mine it without contact with coals and mines. We don't need bars, and we don't need bar employees to smoke.

Again, completely irrelevant. The fact that without an activity the civilization does not stop means nothing when you're deciding whether it's within your rights to pursue that activity. Otherwise you're getting into the shaky ground of deciding what is useful and what is not, which is one of the axioms of totalitarianism. Also, it's worth noting that 300 years ago, coal mining was absolutely unnecessary. Would you have banned it after the usefuleness of coal was discovered, because of the health risks it poses? We've become addicted to coal like we've become addicted to oil, at the price of health risks.

3) I'm sorry, but according to the law, entertainment is NOT a necessity. Under the law, coal is.

The law has nothing to do with this discussion. The discussion is on whether the law to ban smoking in all bars/restaurants, and other public places, is valid. Don't cite a law to defend another law. Also, what is the law that states coal is a necessity? Again, this is COMPLETELY totalitarian: you are saying that anything that is not pronounced a "necessity" is open to being banned. Extrapolate that logic and you'll be banning books, movies, songs, etc, because somebody will deem them "harmful" and "not necessary" and therefore fair game.

No one has the right to do something that hurts someone else, and the govt has a right to ban such behavior UNDER CERTAIN SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.

This is completely and utterly false. We do things that hurt other people all the time (we drive cars, for example -- also not a necessity for many people btw). The government needs to do everything it can to make sure that as much of the mutual harm that we commit is consensual as possible, and minimize all other harm.

So, no, I don't propose to smoke in the same bar you're at. I propose to smoke at a different bar, with people -- including employees -- there consensually and on their own will. You are the only one imposing something on somebody else here. The fact this offends you is -- I'll use this word for the third time -- totalitarian.

1) Do you really think that sentient and informed adults s/b allowed to make a decision to kill someone else? How about to hurt someone else?

That's what smoking in a bar does.

It is a libertarian fantasy that adults s/b allowed to make "their own decision". We live in a regulated society, and if you don't like that, you're going to have to change the Constitution which give govt the power to regulate the behavior of sentient and informed adults.

it's not my job to be concerned about the viability of any establishment

But you'll use the argument that the ban hurts businesses even though "it's not my job to be concerned about the viability of any establishment". I guess you'll use whatever argument is expedient.

2) The only word to describe that blather is blather. Of course it makes a difference, and your ranting otherwise does not change the facts.

Otherwise you're getting into the shaky ground of deciding what is useful and what is not, which is one of the axioms of totalitarianism

You seem to have a really hard time keeping a single idea in your head. It's not about what is useful, it's about what is necessary. Necessity DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE when it comes to the law.

3) More blather. Where did you get "The law has nothing to do with this discussion"??? This whole thread is about laws that ban smoking. ANd citing one law to defend another law is how the law works. Haven't you ever heard of precedent? Why are you discussing the law when you seem to know nothing about it?

"No one has the right to do something that hurts someone else, and the govt has a right to ban such behavior UNDER CERTAIN SPECIFIC CONDITIONS."

This is completely and utterly false.

So I guess the smoking bans are imaginary.

We do things that hurt other people all the time

So what? I didn't say all harmful activity has been banned. I said you have no right to do those things, and note that you have no right to drive a car. You have to get a license. You have no right to smoke. In fact, the govt prohibits minors from smoking.

IOW, the govt can ban harmful activities (under certain conditions). Alternatively, the govt can NOT ban them. Either way, you don't have a right to do them. If they're not banned, you still dont have a right to do it. You have the privilige and the power to do so, but no right to do so.

Do you even know what a right is?

"Do you really think that sentient and informed adults s/b allowed to make a decision to kill someone else? How about to hurt someone else?

That's what smoking in a bar does"

Is that a fact?

Smoking in a bar kills someone else?

Smoking in a bar hurts someone else?

Perhaps you could provide some statistical information -- like the number of people who have been "killed" by other peoples' smoking in bars?

Or perhaps you could provide some statistic on the number of people hurt in bars by other peoples' smoking.

Does the New York Department of Labor provide statistic on any of THIS?

and you are aware of the studies.

In post #70 of this thread, you take another poster to task as follows:

"And I find it amusing that you think you can know my top concern based on one thread"

But now you presume to tell me what I do and do not know.

How you possible can know what I am aware of and what I am not aware of, I don't really know.

I asked you for some statistical information to support a claim that you made in this thread -- a rather serious claim that people have died as a result of being in a bar where there were smokers.

You either have, and can provide, statistics -- or you don't.

You have taken others to task on this thread when they have suggested that the study by the NY Department of Labor was flawed since it did not break out information on bars from information on bars and restaurants, and you have, I believe, insisted that those folks provide you with information to support their claims.

So I am merely holding you to what seems to me at least to be the same standard you desire to hold everyone else to.

Provide me, if you can, with any statistics to support your claim that people have been killed or have been hurt be being in bars where smokers smoked.

Otherwise, I guess I'll have to draw my own conclusions about other statements you have asserted.

That's how I know you are familiar with the studies.

have me confused with someone else.

(I don't mean that as any personal attack or anything, since I sense that your tolerance for people suggesting something like that is lower than my own)

(And that statement I just made -- I don't mean that as a personal attack either.)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

People with allergies react -- sometimes adversely -- to colognes and perfumes.

And, please note, I never said anything about banning perfumes and colognes in bars and restaurants.

I want the sale of them banned in department and speciality stores ( such as Macy's, Nordstroms, Dillards, Penney's, Target, etc. -- that operate indoors.

If people wish to buy colognes or perfumes -- fine. But let them do it through mail order or off the net.

I said "Dig up some evidence that perfume harms the health of others and that banning perfume will increase revenues for bars and restaraunts, and I'll be your biggest supporter"

A sneeze never harmed anyone's health, AFAIK. Once again, you confusing your comfort with your health.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I bet you're hoping I won't notice that you couldn't point out any unhealthy effects from perfume.

You are familiar with the germ theory of disease?

sneezes don't cause disease. Germs do.

And one vector by which germs are spread is...

Could it be, Satan? :evilfrown: No, sorry, try sneezing.

.

The Anti-Smoking crusade has gone so overboard that at this point it comes off as self-righteous and hypocritical, especially in a country where "freedom of choice" includes the right to choke the entire planet with fumes from gas-hogging SUVs and Hummers. But for Chrissakes, don't light up that cigarette!

I tend to support most smoking bans, but a report from a website called "tobacco free kids," well...

Here's the other side of the issue:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banlinks.html

I have a lot of friends in NYC who smoke and from what I hear no one really goes out anymore. It's all about parties now. (Well, the handful of non-smoking, health conscious people who live in NY now go out, but they're certainly in the minority.) That's likely to change once it gets warm out and bars start opening up their outdoor seating, though.

You know, it's funny, too, because I was up there this past weekend and as I was driving over the bridge from staten island I looked over at the city and saw the yellow cloud of smog just sitting over it. That's not caused by smokers, and the "bad air" days we have in my city aren't caused by smokers, either. That shit is due to traffic and industry, plain and simple. I agree with most anti-smokers but I just wish they'd get some perspective and go after the Hummer driving assholes as vehemently as they do the smokers.

Anyway, I also don't fully trust these numbers because I know people in NYC are still smoking. I've read several articles now about how bars are cheating, ignoring the rules, locking their doors once the "regulars" are all in, etc. This sort of thing may be fine in CA or restaurants in general, but in NYC bars? That's just nuts.

The fact that bars and restaurants report increased revenues after smoking bans are put in place is meaningless. What really counts is that you have a lot of freinds that smoke and they're not going out anymore.

...you're presenting a cherry-picked list that advocates for a certain position (and I tend to think "Tobacco Free Kids" oversteps its stated field of concern when discussing smoking in bars).

Flaws I can notice without even trying:
1) no distinction between types of establishments (is the ban hurting bars while helping Pizza Huts? can't tell)
2) Zagat surveys are by their nature self-selected, and not rigorous in whether or not they address the issue
3) Following the link to the NYC study (or rather, its press release), the methodology doesn't say if it accounts for other factors (getting back to normal after 9/11, performance of the financial markets (which always affects the NYC bar & restaurant biz), etc.).

The tobacco companies spent decades with a despicable "lawyerly" approach to research (put out what makes our case, squash anything that doesn't). Unfortunately, it seems the anti-tobacco forces are now using the exact same approach.

"The tobacco companies spent decades with a despicable "lawyerly" approach to research (put out what makes our case, squash anything that doesn't). Unfortunately, it seems the anti-tobacco forces are now using the exact same approach."

1) So what? The best available evidence shows a net increase in revenues after the ban took effect. If you think a specific segment is having trouble, then I suggest you do some research and find some evidence to support your belief.

I have provided evidence that refutes the notion that smoking bans hurt the restaurant and bar businesses. Since the critics of smoking bans never limited their assertion to a specific segment of the business, I don't see why I should bear that burden.

2) The study was based on info from NYS's Dept of Labor. Not Zagat's. The quote clearly describes the Zagat's info as supporting and is not the primary source for their findings.

3) Again, the critics of smoking bans have claimed these bans put bars and restaurants out of business. It's not my burden to disprove their claims. It's their burden to prove their own claims. I have proven that bars and restaurants are not going out of business.

I'd also like to point out that the revenues rose during a time when businesses are hurting.

stolen from http://www.bantheban.org

Second, and in my opinion more importantly, let’s suppose the report is correct about the business growth over the last year. Just imagine how much greater the growth could have been if the city had looked for a third-way, a compromise that would have helped to fill the demand that exists for non-smoking venues while at the same time filling the demand for smoke-friendly establishments. Imagine if all those folks huddled out on the streets smoking cigarettes had instead been inside smoke-friendly bars and restaurants spending money, while their non-smoking counterparts were in smokefree establishments doing the same.

Compromise...how radical.

Also take note of a previous survey that did find the smoking ban was hurting businesses:

Smoking Ban Fallout

Also take note of a previous survey that did find the smoking ban was hurting businesses

And you don't think that a survey sponsered by the New York Nightlife Association might not be just a wee bit biased?

Now take the NY Dept of Health and Human Services, under the control of tobacco-hating Repukes like Giuliani and Bloomberg. Now *there's* bias!

:crazy:

They want whatever's economically best for their members, not what's best for the public health. If the ban is better for their revenues why wouldn't they encourage more bans? They're about money, not smoking.

If anyone's got a problem with the way the survey was carried out, please feel free to share. Otherwise, merely calling into question the organization's motives - which are likely to be more about money than pro/anti smoking - seems like an easy out. If you want to assert that they fooled around with the results in some way, I believe it's your burden to prove that, no?

Hey, I'm on your side. Even if it was an undisputed fact that bars suffer from smoking bans I would not take that as enough to justify forcing employees to take on added health risks. Got it?

You know, I sort of wish I didn't care about employee health because the attitude from some of the more rabid anti-smokers is enough to make me want to oppose them.

I'm going to go start my own anti-asshole campaign now.

I wondered about that. Isn't it kind of like a pharm company paying a university to conduct a study that will corroborate what its marketing department wants corroborated?

A lot of our restauruants, including our favorite Irish pub, were shut down by our own smoking ban. Mayor Laura Miller, take note - you shut down Tipperary Inn. Dem or no, this means war.

And the estate tax is hurting family farmers and small business owners

If smokers want to go out to dinner, they have no choice because there are no "smoking area available area" resturants. They go outside, or just wait until they leave after the meal.

I don't think that means the ban has helped or hurt the resturant business, it just means smokers haven't decided not to eat out anymore.

I'm a smoker and have always tried to respect the wishes of those around me no matter where I was, and I still feel that way. It really pisses me off that our government has told me I can't have a restaurant "that publicly states" smoking permitted! If an establishment like that failed, then I'm in the minority and will just have to deal with it. If it succeeded I still wouldn't be offending the non-smokers.

I've done the same thing. I smoked a pipe for over 30 years, and back when smoking was allowed in restaurants, I'd always try to be seated furthest from the crowd so I wouldn't offend a nonsmoker. I've even moved to another table/booth when I noticed someone didn't like my pipe smoke.

In those 30-plus years, I can count on one hand the number of people who chastised me for my pipe smoking. Yet the number of individuals who came up to me to compliment my pipe numbers in the hundreds. Often I would hear "That smell reminds me of my grandpa/uncle," or "What blend of tobacco is that? Where do you buy it?" When I was a graduate student, there was one professor who had me blow smoke into her office each time she spotted me passing in the hallway!

I think we smokers are adapting to our newfound "pariah" status.

An afterthought: When California was pushing to ban smoking in ALL public places, I saw an ad that showed 20-somethings claiming the ban was necessary because 80% of those who go "clubbing" were nonsmokers. Fine; then why ban 100% of the public places? Why not allow 20% to remain smoking? Once the "smoking status" of a bar/lounge/club is established, nonsmokers would know not to go there, while smokers would make it a point to frequent such places. And no one is offended.

ergo, its time we banned overeating in restaurants immediately, as my health insurance has gone up dramatically as a result of all the non insured obesity clients that are costing me tons of money.
Nanny state. Restaurants and bars should choose for themselves.

If you want to eat, or smoke, yourself to death, you can go right ahead. But NOTHING gives you the right to inflict it on someone else. Smoking bans are meant to protect the employees. No waitress of waiter has ever dies because a customer ate too much.

You want to smoke, go kill yourself. Just don't take anyone along with you for the rise.

and big polluters like agri business, pesticide manufacturers, chemical plants, GM crops, Monsanto, Depleted Uranium, nuclear proliferation, and everything else destroying the environment and affecting you.
and yes, overeating does affect me, and is detrimental to my high insurance costs.
and I am allergic to perfume, so I think everyone wearing perfume should be banned from restaurants.
No nanny state. Restuarants and bars should choose for themselves.
this is where the left gets fascist.

While there may be other industries and entities worthy of banning or regulation, their existence is not an argument that we should do nothing about smoke in the workplace. After all, two wrongs don't make a right.

And I didn't say that overeating doesn't affect you or your insurance costs. I said that someone else's overeating won't kill you, a point you have now avoided over two rounds of posts.

and I am allergic to perfume, so I think everyone wearing perfume should be banned from restaurants.

Good for you. Aside from you and those who know you, who cares what you like? The law has nothing to do with your comfort.

No nanny state. Restuarants and bars should choose for themselves.
this is where the left gets fascist.

The Repukes agree, and they use the EXACT same language when they do so. Next you'll be telling us that Child Labor Laws are another example of the "nanny state"

which is something entirely different.

I stay away from places that have smoking in them. For one, I really hate the smell of cigarette smoke. It gets all over your clothes and everything else. Second, I am allergic to cigarette smoke. I cough and gag even if I detect a hint of it in the air.

I think smokers should keep their bad habit out of the public. I don't want to die of lung cancer or emphyzema (sp??) because I had to breathe in secondhand smoke.

by exhaust fumes every day so maybe we need to ban cars .

particularly in urban areas. I don't think you're going to make much headway with that argument

Breathing in secondhand smoke is FAR worse than breathing in the car exhaust when you're outside. That arguement is rather weak if you ask me.

My wife and I went out to visit her sister in Delaware for spring break. We went to bars in Delaware and NYC and it was GREAT. I quit going to the bars here long ago, and I now realize that the primary reason is the smoke (well, secondary. primary is the price).

My town has only one smoke-free bar, and it's always PACKED. Their beer is also quite expensive, but people don't seem to mind paying it. I wish some more bar owners around here would go smoke free.

...more will go smoke free to get a piece of it. No law will then be necessary.

But we've had the one, VERY successful smoke free bar for years. None of the others have followed.

If you wish that some more bar owners around your hometown would go smoke free, have you ever thought of approaching them and telling them that you and some of your friends would patronize their establishments if they offered a smoke-free environment?

Start with suggesting that one night a week (a night when business is ususally not too good anyway), and get the bar owner to agree that for one night every week, s/he will offer a smoke-free environment.

YOU then drum up some business. Call your friends and let them know what you are doing and why you are doing it.

I don't like the legislation much, but I hate smoke since I quit. But since I did once smoke I understand wanting to light up. My suspicions are strong that if smokers hadn't so rudely blown smoke in people's faces for so many years, this might not have happened. Eventually, nonsmokers just got fed up. Smokers never seem to care where the smoke is going. Once when my son was 6, we were eating lunch in a McDonalds (a kid's restaurant, if there ever was one). Someone was smoking at the next table and the smoke was permeating our table. My little boy loudly said "That smoke stinks." Finally, we had enough and had to move. The smoker ignored the whole thing and kept right on puffing.

When I WAS a smoker, I did not find it difficult to wait 10 or 15 minutes for a cigarette. When I worked in a doctor's office, I did not smoke at work. After I quit smoking, though, I had to endure, several times, working in a smoke-filled environment that drove me crazy, and I DID have to look for other employment to get out of the smoke. Why did I have to leave my job to accommodate other people's addiction to smoking?

I remember going into bars and coming out at the end of the evening with burning, watery eyes, and a scratchy throat. One thing I learned in those days is that taking a smoke made the drinks go down easier and faster. That's how I came by my addiction.

P.S. And yes, I agree with the people who complain about perfume. Some perfumes can make you stick to your stomach. That's why you see signs in most allergist's offices to not wear it. They even tell you on the phone when you make your appointment not to wear it.

Edit: To smokers - don't ever kiss a nonsmoker. It tastes like garbage. Yech.

It might be a tad bit more interesting coming from a different source of course; this is sort of like posting a quote from Newsmax telling of the wonderful accomplishments of conservatives.

It would also be interesting if the file didn't make deductions about restaurants AND bars with information from restaurants alone. No conclusions about bars can be drawn from this information.

It would also be more interesting if they provided more data showing any sorts of correlation (i.e. results of similar cities from the same time frame that had no bans). Not that the bans (at least in NY anyway are vigorously enforced...I moved away four years ago but have been allowed to smoke in every bar I've been in when visiting).

I don't know how their particular poll was conducted (they don't seem to mention it) but every other poll I've seen that got similar results (and quite a few didn't) was conducted at the restaurants themselves. In other words, they never polled those who had changed their habits, thus rendering the results pretty much useless.

Regarding the protection of employees, I've never been able to find actual info on the net about this but as person who a) has done a fair amount of bartending; b) is married to a woman who has done far more bartending than I; and c) has spent much time in bars, I can tell you that a very high percentage of bar employees are smokers themselves so I don't even buy the argument about protecting them from other smokers.

And from a more general point of view, our various governments have no business making these decisions for us anyway. No one has a right to have all things exactly as they want it and all places.

I'll get more first hand experience my self real soon. My county's smoking ban becomes effective on Thursday.

tobaccofreekids is NOT the source of this story. The source is, as reported in the piece, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the New York State Department of Labor

It would also be interesting if the file didn't make deductions about restaurants AND bars with information from restaurants alone. No conclusions about bars can be drawn from this information.

Read it again. It includes info about bars.

I don't know how their particular poll was conducted (they don't seem to mention it)

You are confusing the Zagat's poll with the study conducted by NYC Dept of Health and Mental Hygiene.

And from a more general point of view, our various governments have no business making these decisions for us anyway. No one has a right to have all things exactly as they want it and all places.

Which is why the govt has the power to regulate businesses - You don't have the right to smoke exactly where you want to when you want to.

"tobaccofreekids is NOT the source of this story. The source is, as reported in the piece, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the New York State Department of Labor"

Material which tobaccofreekids cherrypicked for their document. Same thing.

"It would also be interesting if the file didn't make deductions about restaurants AND bars with information from restaurants alone. No conclusions about bars can be drawn from this information.

Read it again. It includes info about bars."

Actually, as I said, it contains ASSERTIONS about bars. The actual examples of data they use are for restaurants or lump bars in with restaurants. I mentioned specific info about bars alone. If you want to accept the assertions at face value alone, fine...I prefer to see actual proof in an offer of proof though.

"I don't know how their particular poll was conducted (they don't seem to mention it)

You are confusing the Zagat's poll with the study conducted by NYC Dept of Health and Mental Hygiene."

Well actually I was aware of who conducted this poll but your comment does not remotely address what I said. Deciding I confused something by mentioning that no methodology was written about shows me that either you are confused or would prefer not deal with the actual comment.

"And from a more general point of view, our various governments have no business making these decisions for us anyway. No one has a right to have all things exactly as they want it and all places.

Which is why the govt has the power to regulate businesses - You don't have the right to smoke exactly where you want to when you want to."

I know smokers don't have any more right in this matter than non-smokers do, including the right you just mentioned. Either way, no one has any right in the matter (except of course for the business owner) so no rights are being infringed upon then either (except of course for the business owner). If no one is being infringed upon in the first place, what is the point of enacting a law on the subject?

Is it to dictate that things people don't like should be illegal? Possible.

Is it for safety reasons? Possible though I think most anti-smokers use it as a convenient excuse. I mean, why don't we then legislate that all pro football players have to play in domes...after all, then can get sick out there. As a matter of fact, pro football is so dangerous maybe we should ban it altogether. It serves no true purpose other than entertainment and it is dangerous to the participants. Wait a second though....people who don't like football just go to a different channel that doesn't have it on, which is real easy to do as most channels will be showing something else. I guess non-smokers want it even easier. Rather than just change the channel (go somewhere else), you want the luxury of not even having to pick up the remote.

Prove it! I know of no material the tobaccofreekids left out.

The actual examples of data they use are for restaurants or lump bars in with restaurants.

No, it includes INFORMATION about bars. The info is not seperated from restaurants, but there is info about bars in there.

I mentioned specific info about bars alone.

The critics have never made the criticism dependent on splitting bars from restaurants. If you want to claim that bars are being hurt, you need to provide some evidence. So far, I see none coming from you.

Well actually I was aware of who conducted this poll but your comment does not remotely address what I said. Deciding I confused something by mentioning that no methodology was written about shows me that either you are confused or would prefer not deal with the actual comment.

No, you are VERY confused. This wasn't a poll. It was a study of NYS Dept of Labor records. Not a poll.

You do know what a poll is, and what a study is, don't you?

Either way, no one has any right in the matter (except of course for the business owner) so no rights are being infringed upon then either (except of course for the business owner). If no one is being infringed upon in the first place, what is the point of enacting a law on the subject?

Again, VERY confused.

1) People DO too have rights in the matter. People (in this, the employees) have the right to not be harmed by other people's (the customers) actions (smoke)

2)The business owner has no right to allow his employees to be harmed by smoke.

"Prove it! I know of no material the tobaccofreekids left out."

Well, hows about the information specific to bars? (see below) Why not separate the data? I'm sure they've collected it (if you answer with your "the critics didn't separate" drivel, see below).


"The actual examples of data they use are for restaurants or lump bars in with restaurants.

No, it includes INFORMATION about bars. The info is not seperated from restaurants, but there is info about bars in there."

If you want to play silly little semantics games to avoid the point, fine. The info about the bars is kind of useless (assuming I merely take your word for the fact that it is there) if THEY DON'T TELL US WHAT IT IS!!!


"I mentioned specific info about bars alone.

The critics have never made the criticism dependent on splitting bars from restaurants. If you want to claim that bars are being hurt, you need to provide some evidence. So far, I see none coming from you."

Actually many of critics HAVE indeed said that bars would have been affected more so than restaurants and I happen to be one of them so don't base your answers on what you think I might believe. I would be very interested in seeing that data.

And no, I don't need to provide a thing to you. YOU are the one claimed this post was proof. That onus is on you. I can point out that they don't seem to be telling the entire story without having to show you anything else. Regardless of anything I showed you, it would not change what this post says or doesn't say.


"No, you are VERY confused. This wasn't a poll. It was a study of NYS Dept of Labor records. Not a poll.

You do know what a poll is, and what a study is, don't you?"

OK, let's start from the beginning...in your original post, you said...
"The 2004 Zagat New York City Restaurant Survey provides additional evidence that New York City’s smoke-free law is not hurting business. The survey of nearly 30,000 New York restaurant-goers..."

I said..."I don't know how their particular poll was conducted (they don't seem to mention it)..."

You said..."You are confusing the Zagat's poll with the study conducted by NYC Dept of Health and Mental Hygiene."

Evidently you don't seem to realize that the Zagat's Survey is what I was referring to. If you want to base your dispute on the fact that I said "poll" instead of "survey," that's the best you're gonna get here.

I then said..."Well actually I was aware of who conducted this poll but your comment does not remotely address what I said. Deciding I confused something by mentioning that no methodology was written about shows me that either you are confused or would prefer not deal with the actual comment."

You said..."No, you are VERY confused. This wasn't a poll. It was a study of NYS Dept of Labor records. Not a poll.

You do know what a poll is, and what a study is, don't you?"

Seeing as I was referring to the Zagat's survey and not the other studies, I still say you are a very confused person because NYS Dept of Labor records had nothing to do with the survey (also known as a poll).


"Either way, no one has any right in the matter (except of course for the business owner) so no rights are being infringed upon then either (except of course for the business owner). If no one is being infringed upon in the first place, what is the point of enacting a law on the subject?

Again, VERY confused.

1) People DO too have rights in the matter. People (in this, the employees) have the right to not be harmed by other people's (the customers) actions (smoke)

2)The business owner has no right to allow his employees to be harmed by smoke."

You know, you calling me confused doesn't seem to have much bite seeing as what you consider confusing anyway.

1) Where did we get this right from? It's amazing how people decide they like the idea of something and that makes it a right. We can go back and forth on this one for hours because neither of us can really prove this as fact...although you seem to think your declaration makes it so.

2) What, is the owner the parent of a bunch of mentally challenged children or something? The business owner has no obligation to protect adults from it in a place they voluntarily go. Choice...what a concept.

Well, hows about the information specific to bars? (see below) Why not separate the data? I'm sure they've collected it (if you answer with your "the critics didn't separate" drivel, see below).

You complained about "cherry-picking" which involves leaving some data out. They didn't leave any data out, so it's not cherry-picking

Your concern is with how it's been aggregated, not cherry-picking.

Actually many of critics HAVE indeed said that bars would have been affected more so than restaurants and I happen to be one of them so don't base your answers on what you think I might believe. I would be very interested in seeing that data.

So what if you're not one of them. If you want to claim that bars are being hurt, then you should back that claim up with some evidence. So far, I've seen none.

And no, I don't need to provide a thing to you. YOU are the one claimed this post was proof

I said this article showed that "bar and restaurants" as a whole aren't being hurt by the ban as some of the ban's critics had claimed it would.

Evidently you don't seem to realize that the Zagat's Survey is what I was referring to. If you want to base your dispute on the fact that I said "poll" instead of "survey," that's the best you're gonna get here.

In that case, you're the one who is cherry picking. The main substance of the article is based on the study of NYS DoL numbers, and NOT the Zagat survey.

Where did we get this right from?

The Constitution. That's why no one is allowed to kill you.

2) What, is the owner the parent of a bunch of mentally challenged children or something? The business owner has no obligation to protect adults from it in a place they voluntarily go. Choice...what a concept.

Wrong again. Bar owners, amusement park owners, and any other business owner has an obligation to not only protect their employees, but also their customers. Bar owners have been sued for selling alcohol to customers who drive drunk

Hmmm?
Me, I don't care. I don't smoke, but I don't care if you do. If I don't wanna smell smoke, I'll stay home.

Outlaw tobacco first, then you have a point to make.

smoking in public. There are three things the human being needs to sustain life. Water Air and Food. There are currently many laws on the books about clean water and about polluting water also about food. It is against the law for me to dump an amount of arsenic (the same amount that is in a cigarette) into the public water system of into ones food supply. Why is it allowed in our air? Not just arsenic but over 25 known carcinogens. Why is it allowed in our air but not our water? If you wish to sprinkle your own food with poisons so be it. I have no problem with that. The same goes for smoking. If you wish to do it in privacy I say fine. You should have that right. I should have some rights also. Let me piss in your water and I'll let you fill my air with tobacco smoke. Fair trade?

You're opposed to smoking in public, but not to the outright banning of tobacco.

I told myself when I stopped smoking that I would NOT become one of those insufferable people who hack and wave their hands when they see someone light-up UPWIND. And I'm sticking to that. IMO, the 2 biggest pains in the ass in this world are reformed smokers and reformed DRUNKS.

You say "If you wish to do it in privacy I say fine. You should have that right" Well, shit, did you know that you're in the minority. Most of your fellow anti-smokers aren't as generous. I've heard a lot of crap and whining about the smokers who live upwind, and what about the pets, and gawd forbid if the people smoking "in the privacy of their own home" have kids at home....

I'll re-state my position, if the product is so dangerous, then outlaw it. stop with this namby-pamby "Make a law making it a pain-in-the-ass to use it" bullshit.

I really feel sorry for smokers. I know how addictive the shit is, and to see all of them huddled outside on the sidewalk "off premises" or the prescribed 35 feet "from any entrance or air intake", being treated like pariahs and second-class citizens...

And i'll tell ya another thing, since I don't smoke anymore, you can piss in my water if i can squat on your face and rip-off one of these medication-induced paint-remover farts I make now. Fair Trade?

That doesn't mean I want masturbation to be made illegal. What you do in the privacy of your home is none of my business but what you do in public may just effect me so I have a concern. I'm sorry if you feel that makes no sense.

In some counties in New York, they are allowing bars and restaurants to apply for "Smoking Permits" if they have experienced at least a 15% dropoff in business. Plus there is a tavern group that is planning to take the ban to the State Supreme Court. So, New York might not be smoke-free forever.

we are that close to saying smoking is abuse to children. at that point have we gone far enough

i grew up in a home of smokers and they didnt ventilate. their friends smoked and didnt ventilate

i have never bought into the second hand smoke agenda bs. in my experience of life i have not seen these statistics bare out. in a lifetime i dont get colds, dont have asthma nor have cancer. my two brothers are healthy too.

and nieces and nephews that are around the smokers in this generation. the only thing i see smoking does in effecting children i believe is the odds of the children smoking when they are older, goes up

isnt there a law, no smoking anywhere in boulder colorado

it is the pc silliness of the left........comparable to the right wing fundie extremism on what is happening in peoples bedroom.

I know they're running out of arguments when they adopt the "baby-grabbing" arguments, which are just as hysterical as the gun-grabbing arguments of the 2nd Amendment kooks.

whole towns banning smoking, your right, i am exaggerating. thy would never constitute smoke in a home grounds for abuse of children

They have a filthy stinking habit that threatens the health of themselves and more importantly others. They throw huge amounts of money at corrupt corporations. They stink up everything around them. And all because they're a bunch of wimps with no self control.

:hi:

bwah ha ha ha........ya right

Nope, no extremism. A little hysteria, from you, but no extremism

wink

but i didnt hear any more from it so i am assuming the courts didnt win

..that while Bush* has rolled back every evironmental regulation, obstructed justice in the investigation of 9-11 and lied this nation into war...YOUR top concern is smoking and profits in bars and restaurants.

- Priorities?

that you think you can know my top concern based on one thread

I was amazed that it did, and that people really do adjust. Doing it wholesale, across a whole state is the way. I am sure that opponents of the measure in CA made the same arguments. I am curious whether there is any data to indicate whether it has helped or hurt restaurant/bar business in CA since the ban, or no effect.

I really miss this (among many other things) since moving out here to Dallas. Dallas City Council recently passed a really half assed smoking ban. Problem is, it's only the city and the city is zoned in such a weird way that there's a lot of adjacent stuff not affected, and to make matters even more piecemeal they made an exception where if you exceeded a certain % revenue from alcohol vs. food you could be classified as a "bar" and not a "restaurant" and hence were exempted from the rule. Thus giving any restaurants that were even close to this % an incentive to fall under the "bar" category.

The whole thing seemed very half hearted--a good idea with poor, piecemeal implementation and hence doomed to failure.

BTW I don't like ciggie smoke but my wife is exquisitely sensitive to it. So we would gladly preferrentially patronize any decent restaurant or bar that is no smoking.

Now everyone can go drink, meet a stranger, and drive them home with them. Therefore, everybody is so much safer and healthier now.

one year later opponents blamed several bar closures on the ban. maybe they're right, but all i know is i make it a point to go to tempe to eat and party because it is so nice not to have to breathe that foul air.

i think it was george carlin who said "having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool!"

if people won't drive their cars anymore and factories won't empty any contaminates into the air anymore.

"I'll stop if they stop first"

can't we get a more 'objective' source? i know 2 owners here in MA and its KILLING both of them.

one is about to shut down

based on records from NYS Dept of Labor.

how about a study from Restauranteur or something. not disputing the numbers just would like to hear it from the businesses themselves

Am I reading you right?

BTW, the numbers come from NYS's Dept of Labor, which gets it's numbers from the businesses

oh, that is right. The DOH is a PROPONENT of smoking! :eyes:

or is it possible that their "bias" is the result of their understanding the facts?

their 'fact' that Bars in NY are enjoying huge profits due to the ban?

:eyes:

Bias suggests that their opinions are based on or influenced by their emotions and feeling, not on reason and logic.

I knew that the Resturants woulds benefit from it but I have to admit that I am surprised about bars revenues going up. I would have thought that it would go down because people tend to smoke more while they are drinking.

:eyes:

:eyes:

:eyes:

you come across as a RABID anti-smoker and you are starting to treat people rudely (not me but this particular post)

there are PLENTY of smokers on this site as well who i am sure are tired of being persecuted every day of their life

just an FYI

If you think someone's "feelings" are an issue, I think you have an awfully shallow concern wrt this issue.

And if you think you have been "persecuted", you have an awfully thin skin. If you want to hear about real persecution, let me know. My saying things you don't like is NOT persecution and I have little patience for those who think every little bit of unpleasantness is "persecution"

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You're one who "listens" well, and would never use offensive personal phrases like "asinine", "stupid", and "juvenile"

disagree if you must but do it as an adult. you what. TWELVE?

OK, the next time I'll try to be all mature like you.

What are you, THIRTEEN?

in a discussion of "offensive personal phrases", could we add the word "disingenuous" to "asinine", "stupid", and "juvenile"?

Please?

you found one word, while in JUST ONE of matcom's posts, I found several.

Since you seem to be keeping a count of offensive phrases in other peoples' posts, I think it fair to tally a few phrases that have appear on this thread that some might consider to be offensive.

"Who cares what you think?" -- post #51.

"If you were honest about this," -- post #51

"How many times will it take to get through to you?" -- post #68

"No wonder you make so much stuff up" -- post #43

"You seem to have a really hard time keeping a single idea in your head. " -- post #129

"Aside from you and those who know you, who cares what you like?" -- post #86

"The Repukes agree, and they use the EXACT same language when they do so." -- post #86

"No, you are VERY confused....You do know what a poll is, and what a study is, don't you?" -- post #87

"Oh-h-h-h! Hold me mommy, I'm scared! I know they're running out of arguments when they adopt the "baby-grabbing" arguments" -- post #56

"Nope, no extremism. A little hysteria, from you, but no extremism" -- post #59

"Aw-w-w! Did we hurt your feelings?" -- post #108

"What are you, THIRTEEN?" -- post #147

"Individual bar owners s/b allowed to kill babies!!...Probably most employees of "real" bars are baby-killers too..Why not have businesses that cater to both the baby-killing and non-baby-killing drinkers?" -- post #145.

Please understand that I do not mean this as a personal attack -- How could it be? I am merely posting here what you yourself have said.

but it's too bad that I don't claim to post without giving offense.

According to my online Encarta Dictionary: English (North America):

dis.in.gen.u.ous (adjective)
1. witholding information - withholding or not taking account of known information
2. not genuinely sincere - giving a false impression of sincerity or simplicity

How exactly is this an "offensive personal phrase"? It doesn't seem to really compare with "asinine", "stupid", and "juvenile"...

Consider the source :)

nuff said

too bad laws can't be passed for keg parties. nothing i hate more than that disgusting smell all over my clothes when i get back.

that a smoking ban was responsible for the increase in business. One could argue that it didn't HURT business but how many other factors are at play here?

see its like this....

TobaccoFreeKids parsed a Department of Health 'study' that bars are doing just fine!

See, according to TobaccoFreeKids, taking away rights is actually GOOD for business.

See, they (TobaccoFreeKids) cares alot for the bar owners and....

oh surely you get it :)

Could you show me where in the Constitution it says you have a right to pollute the air someone else breathes? Can you show me where in the Constitution it says business owners have a "right" to allow their customers to smoke?

See, they (TobaccoFreeKids) cares alot for the bar owners and....

And if you cared about the bar owners, you'd make an effort to show the harm that a smoking ban does to their business.

Good luck.

BUT food and tobacco are legal, so the obvious "solution" is to "allow" the business owners to decide..

That was all that the bar owners here in CA wanted, but the "do-gooders" would have none of it.

I am not a bar devotee, but friends of mine who ARE, and who do smoke, just have their friends over now..

and lots of bars "look the other way"..

We all know that smoking is bad for you, but isn't the REAL solution to yank the TAX PAYER subsidies away from the REPUBLICAN tobacco farmers and cigarette companies??? That is where the energies should be concentrated...

Individual bar owners should be allowed to be "smoking" or "non-smoking".. They PAID for their business, they PAY taxes and wages.. Probably most employees of "real" bars are smokers too.. Employees sign all kinds of paperwork when they are hired.. Why not one more piece of paper that says.."I know that smoking is allowed here, and I will not sue my employer later".

Why not have businesses that cater to BOTH??

I am still looking for the "no-screaming-food throwing-toddlers" restaurants :)

They PAID for their businesses, they PAY taxes and wages.. Probably most employees of "real" bars are baby-killers too..Employees sign all kinds of paperwork when they are hired..Why not one more piece of paper that says "I know that baby-killing is allowed here, and I will not sue my employer later"

Why not have businesses that cater to both the baby-killing and non-baby-killing drinkers?

It seems to me that you must have a pretty low opinion of any bar owner who would allow people the opportunity to smoke in his or her bar.

But, really, to suggest that bar owners are "baby killers"?

And to suggest that there are some people who patronize bars who are also "baby-killers"?

This, I think, is a real insult to bar-owners and there patrons.

FYI - Swift's "Modest Proposal" was satire.

Canadienne by any chance, are you?

From Toronto, perhaps?

A lawyer -- or barrister, or whatever it is they call people who practice law in the Great White North?

.

:silly:

Abortion is a whole other can of mixeed nuts :hi:

Bars and lounges. That's a fact. When you lump restaurants in with the numbers, yes, they come out positive...

Nothing was stopping anyone opening a no-smoking bar and making money.

if they don't like the smoking ban

.. to create a whole class of criminals where none existed before? Here's a radical idea for you, why not open your own non-smoking restaurant if there's such a demand for it, surely you'd turn a tidy profit? Or do you prefer to sit on your arse and do nothing but cheer on as the State sorts out all your problems for you?