Regarding the smoking ban

[thewake]

Originally Posted by mostasteless

Like I said that was a quick search and im sure their have been quite a few more. Also, you are correct not a very large number of businesses will go under in compairison of how many were effected when the laws were enacted but even still it is safe to assume that a large majority of the places that did go under would still be in business if the the laws had never been passed, and if you were the owner/employee of one of the establishments it sure does suck.

First, the cause of these business downturns is not proven to be a smoking ban. Just because there is a ban does not prove it caused the business hardships. Your assumption is also a bad one to make. The hospitality industry is notoriously unstable. Businesses open and close all the time for a myriad of reasons. Yes, being the employee of a failed business is bad, but not the end of the world. I have been there, and for the lamest of reasons too (the owner got married, and decided to get a 'real' job for stability).

Not at all, what I am saying is if their are 2 resteraunts in the immediate area one is smoking and one is not, you can choose to go to the non smoking resteraunt. To be honest I don't do much traveling but from what I have seen in recent years 2 ot of 3 resteraunts/diners are non smoking so options are available.

I don't usually have the local knowledge that this requires, especially after hours and relying on recomendations from people who may not be as sensitive to tobacco smoke as I am, does not help much.

I couldn't agree more, if said establishment is a place that the non-smoker must go (using the word very loosly) and no alternatives are available. A resteraunt, although I just used it in my last response defending my stance, is iffy in my judgement. I can see how you could make the argument that resteraunts could be concitered places a non-smoker may need to go so I would not even be addressing this law if they were the only establishments effected. On that same note going to bars, and clubs on the other hand can not be justified as a necessity so I feel the business owner should have the final say.

I have been to places where after about 8pm there is nothing but bars and fast food available to eat. Sometimes it is even later when I have a chance to grab food. Not all of the country is as metropolitan as the coasts.

Thats cool, I think if we can keep the debate more focused at the very least we will be able to understand where we both are coming from and best case come to some sort of agreement. Although in the scope of things it will do nothing more than allow us both to feel that we have achieved something by spending so much time bantering over the internet

To understand where I am coming from you would have to know what it is like to have a tobacco allergy, which can trigger an athsma attack. At the same time have sinus, watery eyes and headache symtoms from the allergy. I have been working at places where smoking was not allowed indoors, and have had smokers walk by my desk to trigger an athsma attack. As I have aged I have gotten less sensitive, but I still worry about ending up in the hospital again because I am suffocating (separate incident).

I would be happy to see smoking banned from all public spaces, both indoors and out. So I am happy about this ban. I am also not a political activist, so don't look for me at the statehouse or capitol hill.

There is nothing you can do to stop the ban, it is too late. This deal is done. However I think you should go march anyway. It is an important part of the process to let the government know you feel wronged by this.

[DomZ]

I am all for it, I am a non-smoker and it is not fair that I can't go to certain places without being surrounded by disgusting cigarette smoke.....

I don't want to go to bars, pool halls, and even diners at this point because the smoke is so thick. My eyes burn, I smell terrible, and I'm sure my lungs aren't too happy with it. What gives you the right to endanger my health? People sue over that type of stuff. I don't see the freedom to smoke on the Bill of Rights. You still have the right to bear arms and the right to free speech so get over it.....shoot me or scream at me if you gotta get over your niccotine craving in an indoor public place....

[Fourbanger]

Its a touchy subject, those sensitive to smoke are sol in pa. And in my opinion i think they should just start to establish more non-smoking resturants and bars, instead of taking the smoking away. That would make more sense to me at least.

[smoger]

Originally Posted by mostasteless

Everyone is a canidate to get allergies but not everyone will get allergies, just like everone is a canidate to have ill effects from second hand smoke but not everyone will have ill effects.

almost everyone is allergic to something, but noone is allergic to everything. so,.. saying you have a seafood allergy and seafood should be banned is different than banning smoking. if you could do that, it would be illegal to eat anything and illegal to drink anything but completely purified water

But not when it comes to smoking?

tho i suspect you knew what i meant, i will clarify.

bussinesses can set any policy they want ....without overriding the law. the smoking ban is [now] a law, therefore a business cannot override it with their own policies.

Women are obviously more likely to have a baby than a man, pregnancy is expensive to the health care system.

Overweight people are more likely to have health issues than others.

try to fire/refuse to hire these people because of this and it is descrimination.

i think the borgata would disagree. they have strict weight standards for their employees.

All of these (well maybe not so mch the case with the WWE) can be concitered a conflict of interest and as I said this is a reasonable exception to the rule

well,.. i dont know what to tell you,.. whether you agree with the examples or not.. its still the case.

i just thought of another one... in my job i am on call. now,.. i do not get paid when im not working, but i have to be able to respond to an emergency at any time. this means that my job shapes my actions outside of work. had i refused to accept that policy, i would not have met the requirements for the job and someone else would have been chosen.

You could be right but if the only reason it hasn't happened is the greasing of palms don't you think this is the only issue this is happening with?

actually i think its quite the opposite. i think there are many issues like this. politicians are dirty.

all big business is dangerous to the public. gas industry, drug industry, tobacco industry, entertainment industry. all of them are WAY too involved in our gov'ment IMO.

[smoger]

Originally Posted by Fourbanger

Its a touchy subject, those sensitive to smoke are sol in pa. And in my opinion i think they should just start to establish more non-smoking resturants and bars, instead of taking the smoking away. That would make more sense to me at least.

in that case..

lets have some sidewalks you can drive your car on. if you dont want to get hit by a car, dont go on those sidewalks.

lets have some factories with no paint on overhead hazards, if you dont want to smash your head , work somewhere else

lets have some pools that dont get cleaned. dont want to swim in bacteria? swim somewhere else

see how that works?

its not that people are just annoyed by smoking.. its that people are HARMED by smoking. even if the smoke doesnt bother them, they still have the potential of health issues if they breathe the stuff.

[mostasteless]

Originally Posted by thewake

First, the cause of these business downturns is not proven to be a smoking ban. Just because there is a ban does not prove it caused the business hardships. Your assumption is also a bad one to make. The hospitality industry is notoriously unstable. Businesses open and close all the time for a myriad of reasons. Yes, being the employee of a failed business is bad, but not the end of the world. I have been there, and for the lamest of reasons too (the owner got married, and decided to get a 'real' job for stability).

Businesses go out of business every day but that doesn't mean that many of the businesses going under were not directly related to the ban. Here is a good example I read today (if you want me to cite it let me know and I will search and find it again). Within a year of the smoking ban in CA 40% of the states exotic clubs went under, now I dont know the turnaround on these types of businesses but if it is normally anywhere near that number they would be very few and far between bu now.

Originally Posted by thewake

I don't usually have the local knowledge that this requires, especially after hours and relying on recomendations from people who may not be as sensitive to tobacco smoke as I am, does not help much.

I have been to places where after about 8pm there is nothing but bars and fast food available to eat. Sometimes it is even later when I have a chance to grab food. Not all of the country is as metropolitan as the coasts.

Yes, but we arer not talking about the rest of the country we are talking about NJ where non smoking diners/resteraunts are more common than smoking ones and most are open till atleast 10:00 and plenty are open much later (some even 24)

Originally Posted by thewake

To understand where I am coming from you would have to know what it is like to have a tobacco allergy, which can trigger an athsma attack. At the same time have sinus, watery eyes and headache symtoms from the allergy. I have been working at places where smoking was not allowed indoors, and have had smokers walk by my desk to trigger an athsma attack. As I have aged I have gotten less sensitive, but I still worry about ending up in the hospital again because I am suffocating (separate incident).

You are right I can never truly understand what you have to deal with but I do have simpathy for your situation (and others like you). This however does not change my stance on the issue, in places that people do not have to go to (when I say people I mean the vast majority) should not be forced to not allow people to partake in a legal habit (no matter how unhealthy) in their establishment, now if they choose to good for them. Once again just for clarification my argument is for bars, clubs (private or otherwise).

Originally Posted by thewake

There is nothing you can do to stop the ban, it is too late. This deal is done. However I think you should go march anyway. It is an important part of the process to let the government know you feel wronged by this.

I know, but like you said even though it will not change anything if I don't speak out I might as well be saying that it is OK with me.

[mostasteless]

Originally Posted by smoger

almost everyone is allergic to something, but noone is allergic to everything. so,.. saying you have a seafood allergy and seafood should be banned is different than banning smoking. if you could do that, it would be illegal to eat anything and illegal to drink anything but completely purified water

I may just be dense (wouldn't be the first time I have heard it) but how does this relate to my statement. I did not say someone is allergic to everything nor did I say we should ban everything someone is allergic to. All I was saying is even though everyone can get ill effects from second hand smoke (just like anyone can become allergic to something they come in contact with) the majority of people who come in contact with it (safe to say the majority of people in the country) will not show any ill effects.

Originally Posted by smoger

tho i suspect you knew what i meant, i will clarify.

bussinesses can set any policy they want ....without overriding the law. the smoking ban is [now] a law, therefore a business cannot override it with their own policies.

I never said they could, I am saying the law (as it is written) is unfair to business owners and I think it should be reconcitered.

Originally Posted by smoger

i think the borgata would disagree. they have strict weight standards for their employees.

But as this law has shown, casinos are exempt from the law

Originally Posted by smoger

well,.. i dont know what to tell you,.. whether you agree with the examples or not.. its still the case.

i just thought of another one... in my job i am on call. now,.. i do not get paid when im not working, but i have to be able to respond to an emergency at any time. this means that my job shapes my actions outside of work. had i refused to accept that policy, i would not have met the requirements for the job and someone else would have been chosen.

But by being on call your action outside of work could directly effect you actions at work if you were to be called in at a "bad time". Please explain to me how me having a beer and a smoke after work will directly effect my action while at work.

Originally Posted by smoger

actually i think its quite the opposite. i think there are many issues like this. politicians are dirty.

all big business is dangerous to the public. gas industry, drug industry, tobacco industry, entertainment industry. all of them are WAY too involved in our gov'ment IMO.

Well atleast we agree on one thing

[mostasteless]

Originally Posted by smoger

its not that people are just annoyed by smoking.. its that people are HARMED by smoking. even if the smoke doesnt bother them, they still have the potential of health issues if they breathe the stuff.

And seeing that everyone is educated about this (if you disagree, push for more education on its health risks and I will be there right with you). you know the risks, no one is twisting your arm to enter the bar, if you don't like it don't go.

[Matt2.8NJ]

People and businesses will adapt. Businesses will continue to survive long term...in the short term there may be some casualties.

Back when I was at college in DE, the state imposed the same ban.

People adjusted.

[thewake]

Originally Posted by mostasteless

Businesses go out of business every day but that doesn't mean that many of the businesses going under were not directly related to the ban. Here is a good example I read today (if you want me to cite it let me know and I will search and find it again). Within a year of the smoking ban in CA 40% of the states exotic clubs went under, now I dont know the turnaround on these types of businesses but if it is normally anywhere near that number they would be very few and far between bu now.

In industries with an unstable business model, they usually have a large number of start ups. No study I have found has shown that the failures were directly related to the smoking ban. They usually just state how many failures occured immidiately after the ban. There are no customer counts, or comparisons to prior years. Just an ergo hoc, propter hoc argument that does not prove anything.

Yes, but we arer not talking about the rest of the country we are talking about NJ where non smoking diners/resteraunts are more common than smoking ones and most are open till atleast 10:00 and plenty are open much later (some even 24)

The problem is still the same for anyone who travels into NJ.

You are right I can never truly understand what you have to deal with but I do have simpathy for your situation (and others like you). This however does not change my stance on the issue, in places that people do not have to go to (when I say people I mean the vast majority) should not be forced to not allow people to partake in a legal habit (no matter how unhealthy) in their establishment, now if they choose to good for them. Once again just for clarification my argument is for bars, clubs (private or otherwise).

You can still go out to these same places, only now you must smoke outside it is still not a great burden on you.

[smoger]

Originally Posted by mostasteless

But by being on call your action outside of work could directly effect you actions at work if you were to be called in at a "bad time". Please explain to me how me having a beer and a smoke after work will directly effect my action while at work.

its all in health care costs man. costs more money to insure smokers. business decision. if they arent in desperate need of employees, of course they want the ones that have the potential for the company to make the most money. its their right and in their best interest.

[smoger]

Originally Posted by mostasteless

And seeing that everyone is educated about this (if you disagree, push for more education on its health risks and I will be there right with you). you know the risks, no one is twisting your arm to enter the bar, if you don't like it don't go.

yeah it makes perfect sense that business owners should be allowed to ignore a public health risk, while forcing non smokers to tippytoe around and carry maps of "safe zones" with them, while banning smoking simply makes you have to take a step outside. in the latter case, everyone gets to be in peace and in a healthy environment.

noone in their right mind who wants to keep out of the smoke is going to drive around for hours looking for a non smoking establishment, nor should they have to.

lol, imagine if you went into a restaurant and they had silverware thats not cleaned properly . "oh it would hurt us financially to properly clean them, but if you look around the area you might find a place that does clean it"

[mostasteless]

Originally Posted by thewake

No study I have found has shown that the failures were directly related to the smoking ban. They usually just state how many failures occured immidiately after the ban. There are no customer counts, or comparisons to prior years. Just an ergo hoc, propter hoc argument that does not prove anything.

I will try to find some info on the the closure rate of prior years, and although it would only give you a rough idea, it should be enough to prove their is an effect.

Originally Posted by thewake

The problem is still the same for anyone who travels into NJ.

It is, but from my experience and im sure yours as well it is much easier to find a non-smoking eatery than it is to find one that allows smoking. Your arguement was some places it is harder/impossible to find one.

[mostasteless]

Originally Posted by smoger

lol, imagine if you went into a restaurant and they had silverware thats not cleaned properly . "oh it would hurt us financially to properly clean them, but if you look around the area you might find a place that does clean it"

If I find an establishment to be unsanitary yes, I will go somewhere else.

[smoger]

Originally Posted by mostasteless

If I find an establishment to be unsanitary yes, I will go somewhere else.

..but the question is should they be ALLOWED to keep their silverware in that condition?

[smoger]

Originally Posted by mostasteless

It is, but from my experience and im sure yours as well it is much easier to find a non-smoking eatery than it is to find one that allows smoking. Your arguement was some places it is harder/impossible to find one.

thats a ludicrous statement. there are very few places that do not allow smoking, save for fast food.

[mostasteless]

This will be my final post on this topic( other than finding the info I promised thewake) because I see it is pointless to continue but I have one more example I would like you to ponder.

Prolonged exposure to noise above 85dB has been shown to cause hearing loss (a health problem). In most bars and clubs that play music the dB level is closer to 100dB (and sometimes exceed 110dB). At 100dB the maximum exposure without protection reccomendation is 2 hours. Knowing this do you think laws should be passed to prohibit these places from being louder than say 90dB(8 hours per day reccomended maximum exposure (protects 90% of people) ) or would you say "if its too loud go outside".

Keep in mind if you choose to prohibit, it is safe to say you will never see another concert (they almost always exceed 110dB). Or is it OK because it is something you enjoy.

Maybe I'm odd but even after experiencing hearin loss (mild to moderate depending on frequency) I still feel that if I have a problem with the volume level I can leave (and many times do)

[smoger]

Originally Posted by mostasteless

This will be my final post on this topic( other than finding the info I promised thewake) because I see it is pointless to continue but I have one more example I would like you to ponder.

Prolonged exposure to noise above 85dB has been shown to cause hearing loss (a health problem). In most bars and clubs that play music the dB level is closer to 100dB (and sometimes exceed 110dB). At 100dB the maximum exposure without protection reccomendation is 2 hours. Knowing this do you think laws should be passed to prohibit these places from being louder than say 90dB(8 hours per day reccomended maximum exposure (protects 90% of people) ) or would you say "if its too loud go outside".

Keep in mind if you choose to prohibit, it is safe to say you will never see another concert (they almost always exceed 110dB). Or is it OK because it is something you enjoy.

Maybe I'm odd but even after experiencing hearin loss (mild to moderate depending on frequency) I still feel that if I have a problem with the volume level I can leave (and many times do)

close but no cigar.

the danger with sound levels is in prolonged exposure for consecutive periods of time. just like too much alcohol can harm your body, so can too much sound. in other words, it is not a health hazard for a bar to play loud music or serve alcohol.. it becomes a health hazard when you decide to partake in too much of it.

besides,... anyone who is concerned about the effects of loud music can simply wear earplugs(which many people do). there is no way to protect yourself from smoke, unless you expect people to walk around in painting masks , which obviously is unreasonable and impossible if they are eating.

[mostasteless]

Sorry I said I wasn't going to post but I'm addicted

Originally Posted by smoger

close but no cigar.

the danger with sound levels is in prolonged exposure for consecutive periods of time.

Find me one piece of literature that says short term non consecutive exposure to second hand smoke will cause unreversable (as in your body won't heal itself) ill effects. All I hear is how even for a 20 year, pack a day smoker (a hell of a lot more carcinogens that you would get hanging out in a bar a couple hours a day a few days a week) within 10 years you chances of seeing ill effects from your habit drops to 10% of a smokers (and continues to drop for the rest of your life. Is it safe to assume someone exposed to signi***antly less smoke for a signifigantly less period of time will recover signi***antly faster(I really dont know, I have not seen any studies even touching on this issue)? I'm sure you know this but I want to point it out anyway, unlike damage to your lungs, hearing loss is not reversable.

Originally Posted by smoger

just like too much alcohol can harm your body, so can too much sound. in other words, it is not a health hazard for a bar to play loud music or serve alcohol.. it becomes a health hazard when you decide to partake in too much of it.

By deciding to go to noisy bars/clubs? short term exposure has little/no ill effect for most people, it is long term that you can expect to see a problem? Sounds like you are using the same reasoning for this issue as I am for smoking.

[JoeScooby]

waste, im going to smoke anyway..