Xyz

GoMayorB - is there a law preventing bars from banning smoking? i don't recall one. and who are you to say that bars aren't about smoking too? Bloomberg wants to ban cigar bars. They are clearly about smoking but there is no exemption from them in the law. And while the law does exempt cigar shops, his public comments indicate that he would ban smoking there too.

Rather than ban smoking at bars outright, why not propose some solution that allows some bars to have smoking and other not? If your friends choose to go to the smoking bars, then blame your friends. I'm not sure how you would implement something like that but there must be a way. Maybe charge a signif higher licensing fee to bars that allow smoking. They in turn would charge more for drinks or a charge a cover to make up the extra fee; while other bars will go smoke-free and offer cheaper drinks.

Would that work for you or is this a crusade to ban tobacco completely?

al

I've smoked most of my life; on reaching a millstone (sic) birthday, about 2 months ago, I quit. I've been avoiding bars because I know after a couple beers I'll be heading straight for the cigarette machine. But last night for the first time since I quit, I went out to see what would happen. Here's what I learned:

1. It's amazing how BAD it smells in there. When I smoked I couldn't tell.

2. It's amazing how bad my clothes smelled afterwards.

3. I can drink without smoking.

I hate the idea of the government telling its citizens what they can and cannot do. Whatever happened to education and people making their decisions based on it? The cigarettes that I was inhaling last night (from other people) could be hurting me, but you know what? If I don't like it, I don't have to go to the bar, or I can go to a smoke-free bar. I refuse to bellyache or put down people who smoke. I've been there and know what it's like. I refuse to deny them their basic right to hurt themselves, because just about everything, down to too many eggs for breakfast or too much sugar, can hurt you.

My point: Leave things the way they are. All you non-smokers out there - there's a simple solution. Go somewhere else.

Nonsmoker

My drug of choice is fresh air!

GoMayorB

ABC - Here are some links on second-hand smoke. You're right, research is debatable but it's so obvious that it's extremely harmful in numerous ways.

http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/faq-faq/tobacco-tabagisme/8e.html

http://www.lungusa.org/tobacco/secondhand_factsheet99.html

Xyz - Yes, I would ban smoking completely to be perfectly honest. However, that's not my crusade. Alternatives would be nice and the idea of designated smoking and non-smoking bars/restaurants is a good one.

zzz

Thanks, Yeh, for explaining to some of these people who don't understand the difference between public and private areas. The city has every right to regulate what goes on in bars and restaurants, as the vast majority of them are not private. Good for the Mayor for enacting this ban, as well as raising the tax on cigarettes.

Jason

Ok, gotta put in my 2 cents....First of all, Bloomberg is a moron. Using workers' health as an issue is lame because he obviously has a vendetta against the tobacco industry and smoking. When he imposed the most recent tax on cigs, NYers simply went online and bought from Indian reservations of went to Jersey. I say let the INDIVIDUAL BAR OWNERS make the call and see how it affects their business. Bloomberg tries to make himself out to be this saint and help all mankind when he's nothing more than a wealthy man who bought his position.

When you ban smoking inside, all you have is a gathering of people who loiter and congregate in front of the establishment. An eyesore for business owners and the community. Most places I go to have anough ventilation to pull out the smoke and pump in fresh air. That and circulating fans help with the smell. People who are smoke-o-phobic need to accept the fact that smoking has always been part of a social atmosphere before all this paranoia and granola groups putting in their 2 cents.

Non-smoker

Yeh! and ZZZ, as a non-smoker NYer, I don't mind the smoking regs at all. Just as they are written now. You seem to be the people bothered by them because you're trying to change them. The whole debate here seems to be over who has to stay home. There must be a better way.

As for public vs private, its true that the gov't can write laws to regulate "public accomodations" but the goal is to keep them reasonable. At this point in time, no one would consider it reasonable to ban serving steak in "public accomodations" due to the increased health costs borne by the gov't when heavy steak eaters hearts clog up later in life. However, New Jersey once made it illegal to serve eggs over-easy (the yolk had to be cooked through). Only after much protesting was that reversed. And if we study history, we can find more extreme examples. So, the real issue is if the restrictions are reasonable, and it doesn't appear from reading this thread or reading the newspapers, that consensus has formed.

Maybe they should try that idea posted by Xyz. At least that way they can use the extra money to better educate people and dissuade them from smoking. Then maybe if they ban smoking in the future it won't be an issue because everyone will have stopped by then.

zzz

Use the extra money to better educate people? How much more education do people need about the dangers of smoking? People who are longtime smokers are addicted, and people just starting don't seem to care about the health hazards. In any case, the government already has millions of dollars from settlements with tabacco companies that was supposed to be used for non-smoking education, but now is being used for all sorts of other purposes. What makes you think they would any better use of these extra licensing fees?

suzanne

Like I said earlier...smoke in bars generally doesn't bother me much...

But would it really be THAT difficult for the smokers out there to refrain from smoking for a few hours while out enjoying a drink with friends? If it is, that's pretty sad. If smoking is that addictive (as well as extremely unhealthy) it makes me wonder why people start in the first place. I just don't get it.

Non-smoker

Frankly, I don't. Personally, I don't care. Something is going to kill you and if smoking is what you want, be my guest.

NYC is facing a signif budget shortfall. Use the money for that.

I was just trying to throw a bone to the smoking prohibitionists around here.

Why

People start smoking when they are young and fearless. They know smoking is bad for you if you smoke your whole life but they figure they are young and know more than the adults around them so they'll just quit later if they want. As they get older and start to care, its too late since they are hooked.

You don't see too many people start smoking after high school. By that point, they've figured it out.

James Bond

Bond here, James Bond.

Live and let die.

Wondering

To all of you, especially tobacco smokers, going on and on about how the government doesn't have a right to tell people what to do: in case you've been living on another planet for your entire life, you must be aware that the government not only doesn't permit smoking another drug of choice in restaurants and bars; it does permit smoking this drug at all. In fact, government says that smoking this drug is a crime, that you can't even smoke it in the privacy of your own home.

How many of you, especially tobacco smokers whining about restrictions on your smoking, support this ban? And if you do, and you smoke tobacco, can you explain to the rest of us why you're not a flaming hypocrite for doing so?

Jason

i'm all about the herb.

hiphiphooray

Finally a mayor that understands smoking is a hazard to the employees that work there day in and day out. Our country is supposed to guarantee safe workplaces, and it should be no exception here.

I wonder if smokers would like it if people farted in their faces when they were dining. At least that wouldn't cause cancer, and the smell wouldn't linger for hours.

Jason

how about the fact that these employees know BEFORE that they will be working in an environment where there will be smoking and drinking. It didn't come as a surprise to these employees that people would be smoking at a BAR. There are other positions available if people did not want to deal with smoke while working at a BAR. No one is forcing these people to work at a BAR. Go work at Dennys or something if you cant stand the heat.

hiphiphooray

My Dear Jason,

Just because construction workers knew that asbestos was in their work environment didn't mean that it was okay for them to work there. In fact, a gov't body (the feds and states) decided that asbestos was hazardous to the workers' health, and made buildings remove asbestos.

Smoking is the same - in this case the governing body (NY Mayor and City Council) is making a determination that breathing smoke is dangerous, and are going to ensure that the workers in that environment are free from this hazard.

Jason, get your head out of the sand and smell the roses. But you probably can't do that b/c your sense of smell is deadened from your smoking, and excessive farting.

wow

Have you ever seen smokers' teeth? They are so disgusting - all yellow, etc. Can you imagine what color the rest of their body is inside from trying to process all of that tar?

Lenny

Speaking of work...I do smoke and worked as a bartender for several years. When the law went into affect in California about 4 years ago, the people who complained the most WERE THE EMPLOYEES who smoked themselves! We really don't need any laws to protect us, we have choices of where we will or will not work.

By the way, we did lose a lot of our regulars. Instead, they chose to frequent some of the bars that "ignored" the no smoking ban and seem to allow people to lite up just like the old days. I think NYC should learn from California's mistake and leave things alone. Lenny

Wondering

Jason, using your reasoning, businesses should be able to have working conditions as unsafe as they want, without any government interference, because no employee HAS to work for a business with unsafe working conditions.

hiphiphooray: I'm sure smokers would be furious if some people in a restaurant at a nearby table continuously farted during their dinner. They'd probably be annoyed by the smell and might even complain to the owners, even though farting is perfectly legal.

Still waiting to hear from some tobacco smokers who support the current TOTAL government ban, even in the privacy of your home, on OTHER smokable drugs. Still waiting for you to explain to the rest of us why you're not a flaming hypocrite for doing so?

How many people in Congress who have passed, and support, laws forbidding people to smoke the drug of their choice do you think hypocritically smoke tobacco?