Smoking Ban [Archive]

ExLS

04-05-2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by anthony2
Danielle-
I don't smoke so the ban really didnt bother me. However, I agree with HappyHooker - everytime I leave a bar or a club I allways end up smelling like an ashtray(so the ban will help me out in that aspect). As far as the club being slow - that probably has a lot to do with our economy. Alot of people are getting laid off - and they don't have the money to spend in a strip club. Guys will continue to go to stribclubs, but probably not as frequently.
Which is why girls are turning tricks in clubs. Also, I went to a strip club on Long Island and saw a bouncer dealing drugs right in the establishment. I was there only two hours and he brought 8 people in the corner. Then, everyone went to the bathroom and came out cleaning their nose. Just a drug bust waiting to happen. Stay away from the Western part of the South Shore in Suffolk County.

Duckman

04-05-2003, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Danielle
my hair doesn't reek like an ashtray right now.

I wasn't thrilled when the ban was first announced. Thought it was a bit autocratic of the mayor. But I don't miss the stink. And I smoke only a few times during the year (cigars).

Happy Hooker

04-06-2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by steinbuster
I am the one with the sweet innocent smile. You cant miss me. I look like I dont belong there..

HH that makes two of us!!

Will you be there sunday?

No, Sunday is a holy day for me. I shop on Sundays, and go to the movies ( hey a girl needs to be normal at least once a week right?)

Stein, I am sure you have seen me, you just didn't bother to take notice.

You are surrounded by 50-60 thin, small tittied girls. How could you possible notice a big tittied, plump, exotic, intoxicating beauty like myself? :rolleyes:

spanky123

04-06-2003, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Happy Hooker
How could you miss me?

I am the one with the sweet innocent smile. You cant miss me. I look like I dont belong there..

Uh oh HH, stein probably thinks you're a demure petite little asian girl. Now i've never been there stein, but if you're looking for her....i would imagine just to look for the non-stripper chick who has all the guys groveling at her feet ;)

busted

04-06-2003, 06:03 PM

Never judge a book by its cover and never turn away a provider based on her weight, for its the romantic end of an escort that brings out her beauty!!

My two atf are Lisa in Florida and Blaze (AKA Mary) in Myrtle Beach.

Lisa is a 35 year old 170 lbs 42DD sweetheart that I look forward to seeing when in Florida and Mary is a 150lbs 40D hard working woman in Myrtle Beach, who also owns a catering business during the day. Her attention to us hobbyists are a main source for her catering habit.

There I've bared my soul, oh and by the way, my lovely wife is 185lbs, who when we married almost 30 years ago was 110 lbs. I wouldn't trade her in for the world.

Its not what is in the eye, its what is in the mind, and mine is always open.

Happy Hooker

04-06-2003, 06:12 PM

Spanky, the only time a man will be groveling at my feet at Ass C is if he dropped the 20 bucks he had for a stripper in front of me.

Stein, no offense but do you really believe that crap?

busted

04-07-2003, 03:10 AM

HH,

One man's crap is another man's religion.

If you are having a good time, I'm sure your man is too.

I've said my peace.

Or in the words of Dennis Miller, "That's my opinion, I could be wrong!"

justme

04-07-2003, 01:41 PM

New York takes a step towards Cali.

(I can't imagine not smoking at a bar/ club/ pool hall/ coffee shop/ Strip club)

((Not that I blame the non smoking increasing majority. I smoke and I hate the smell of smoke on my clothing))

justlooking

04-07-2003, 01:44 PM

I was sitting in a bar last week, and I found the lack of smoke completely bizarre.

It was funny. I could see everything so clearly. It was like if they took the vaseline off the lens in a late Doris Day movie.

Geezy Muldoon

04-07-2003, 01:56 PM

Now I've got absolutely no reason at all to go into any type of bar - tittie or non-tittie. I still smoke. The idea of having to just sit there and not smoke un-nerves me.

Sldghmmr

04-07-2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by steinbuster
Well here's the twist, I never worried about the smell of perfume since, just like Danielle said, I came home smelling like an ashtray. Now I'll have to keep a watch out for those evil-smelling perfume-wearing strippers.

It's horrible and I don't even smoke, I came home the other night from "meeting some friends at the pub" and my wife asked what perfume I was wearing. Usually she just complains that I smell like smoke. I came up with some lame ass excuse that it was crowded and there was a gaggle of overly made up women right next to me at the bar who kept squeezing past us. Don't think she bought it. Now I just have to take up smoking in the car on the way home with the windows closed.

justme

04-07-2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by justlooking
It was funny. I could see everything so clearly. It was like if they took the vaseline off the lens in a late Doris Day movie.

I can't imagine anything worse than moving towards 'ugly light' strip club vision.

justlooking

04-07-2003, 08:19 PM

This wasn't a strip club.

h. von bingen

04-07-2003, 08:39 PM

PARIS! but nota bene, the eeu ain't what it used to be, even in italy, it's vietate fumare all over. thank god marcello didn't live to see this.

it does make the old people at high ends all look like ron and nancy reagan, their shrouds have lifted.

marlboro box, 4* a day,
hvb

*cigs not boxes

Psychosis

04-07-2003, 10:45 PM

I'm probably in the minority when I say this but I love the smoking ban. Its great to walk into a restuarant and not smell the stench of a cigar or cigarette. I know they had seperate smoking and non smoking sections but that really wasnt much help when usually all that seperated the two was one booth. Also now I dont come out of a place with my clothes smelling like I smoked three packs while I was inside.

Danielle

04-07-2003, 11:04 PM

It's funny what JL was saying about being able to see things more clearly. It's really disgusting to think that the air could have actually been that smoky before the ban. But I have to agree with a lot of people here that it is un-nerving to not be able to have the occassional ciggarette with a cocktail. The ban has actually brought about some new problems for me.
1) Since customers now have to go outside to smoke, the transition from hanging out/dancing and going into the champagne room has become disjointed. Not that I even go into the champagne room all that often, but even just in general the cigarrette break thing has gotten a bit annoying. I never know how long a guy's gonna be, if it's worth waiting around for him, or if he's even coming back at all.
2) The dancers have begun smoking in the back hallway that leads up to the dressing room. It's like a closet with no ventilation that I have to walk through several times a night in order to go upstairs and freshen up. And here the smoking ban was meant to protect the health of employees!

imaginess

04-08-2003, 03:13 AM

First of all everyone is exagerating about smelling like a carton of cigarettes when you leave a strip club. I woneder if underground clubs are enforcing the ban as well.

For all my fellow smokers and any bar owners that do not know. Smoking outside the bar is not enough. If you are smoking within 15 feet of the establishment you or the bar can still be ticketed.

genius

04-08-2003, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by imaginess
First of all everyone is exagerating about smelling like a carton of cigarettes when you leave a strip club. I woneder if underground clubs are enforcing the ban as well. Actually everyone (I assume by everyone you mean non-smokers) is not exagerating. When I come home from a place where there (used to be) was smoking I would hang my coat outside to air out because if I hung it in the coat closet it would stink up all the rest of the stuff there. I am not joking or trying to be mean to anyone by saying this. Even after a day in the fresh air it still smelled a little of smoke. Smokers have no idea how much they stink of smoke and how much the stink settles into their hair, clothing, furniture, car seats etc.

Psychosis

04-08-2003, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by imaginess
First of all everyone is exagerating about smelling like a carton of cigarettes when you leave a strip club. I woneder if underground clubs are enforcing the ban as well.

For all my fellow smokers and any bar owners that do not know. Smoking outside the bar is not enough. If you are smoking within 15 feet of the establishment you or the bar can still be ticketed.

No its no exageration. I could not stand the smell my clothes had when I left a club or restaurant. You can not notice it because since you smoke you are immune to the smell. Its all around you so it is normal to you. For those that do not smoke the smell is very prominent.

Psychosis

04-08-2003, 03:47 AM

Originally posted by genius
Actually everyone (I assume by everyone you mean non-smokers) is not exagerating. When I come home from a place where there (used to be) was smoking I would hang my coat outside to air out because if I hung it in the coat closet it would stink up all the rest of the stuff there. I am not joking or trying to be mean to anyone by saying this. Even after a day in the fresh air it still smelled a little of smoke. Smokers have no idea how much they stink of smoke and how much the stink settles into their hair, clothing, furniture, car seats etc.

Very true. I would do the same. I would leave my coat outside and throw my clothes into a seperate bin then wash them in the morning as soon as possible.

Dondee

04-08-2003, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by Happy Hooker
No, Sunday is a holy day for me. I shop on Sundays, and go to the movies

How soon they forget!

"But never, never on a Sunday, a Sunday, a Sunday, cause that's my day of rest!"

And don't forget your vitamins.

justlooking

04-08-2003, 06:11 AM

You mentioned how annoying/frustrating it is to you now when customers have to run out for a smoke break.

Here's something I've been wondering in all my years of going to strip clubs.

Often, when you're sitting and chatting, a stripper will excuse herself and say she has to run to the bathroom. This even happens with some frequency during "bottles".

What's up with this?

Up until last week, it couldn't be that they needed a smoke. Do they just need a break from you? Do they take a quick hit of some drug? If it's on the club's main floor, is it because they saw some regular come in and they want to run over to tell him to sit tight until they're free to join him? But then, why would they do it during a "bottle"?

It can't possibly be that they're telling the truth, and they really need to use the bathroom? Can it?

Slinky Bender

04-08-2003, 08:46 AM

I wonder how often some guy "calls" them on it and asks for GS?

justlooking

04-08-2003, 08:53 AM

There was a girl who used to work at the Paradise Club. Apparently she was full of anger toward customers. And the way she would express that anger would be to piss on them, unbidden, during "bottles".

She did it a first time. The guy got outraged. A bouncer had to come down to pull him off her. She was fired immediately.

As anyone who's worked there knows, however, one thing about the Paradise Club is that they'll rehire just about anybody. So about three weeks later, this woman was back.

She got a customer to buy a "bottle". They went down into a room. As soon as he sat down, she pissed all over him.

Here's a report of the exchange that occurred after a Paradise Club stripper told me that story:

ME: That's about the best metaphor for life in general I've ever heard. When guys want a stripper to piss on them, they can't get one to do it. . . . What was her stage name, by the way? Incontinentia?

HER: No. Urethra.

Casper

04-08-2003, 01:02 PM

I can usually see things more clearly when she's completly naked. But that's just me.

imaginess

04-08-2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Psychosis
No its no exageration. I could not stand the smell my clothes had when I left a club or restaurant. You can not notice it because since you smoke you are immune to the smell. Its all around you so it is normal to you. For those that do not smoke the smell is very prominent.

Yes it is an exageration. Yes your coat may have smelled of smoke. But I guarantee that my coat smells worse. For your coat to smell like a "carton" of cigartettes you would need to have me sit directly with you and blow every breath on you. Even then you would smell like no more than a pack.

Psychosis

04-09-2003, 12:18 AM

Whether It smells like a carton or a pack does not matter. What matters is that I dont like the smell on my clothes at all. A non-smokers nose is more sensitive to smoke than a smoker so thats why it is more noticable to me. It does not matter anyway I love the smoking ban!

Danielle

04-09-2003, 02:04 AM

JL -
All of your assumptions are correct. When I was on bottles at Paradise, sometimes the only relief I could get (don't you love double meanings!?) was to excuse myself for a bathroom break. This wasn't the case with all customers, off course. But most of the time I just ran out of things to do in order to entertain the guy after about half an hour. Running out for five minutes not only meant that I had to spend five minutes less with the guy but it also broke up the session so it didn't feel as long. Also, it gave me an opportunity to run into the makeup room and call the manager to see how much longer I had to endure the unbearable agony of a particularly bad bottle.(again, I didn't feel this way about all bottles, just the really bad ones where the guy wouldn't take no for an answer) Very rarely did I actually have to pee, but sometimes I did.
However, when I'm at work at my new club, I generally have to pee all the time 'cause I'm drinking. Especially during bottles. So most of the time I'm not just making an excuse to get away from someone. Although sometimes I do need to check on other things and the bathroom excuse usually goes over better than "I have to go say hello to this other customer because he might be more willing to spend money on me than your cheap ass."

genius

04-09-2003, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by imaginess
Yes it is an exageration. Yes your coat may have smelled of smoke. But I guarantee that my coat smells worse. For your coat to smell like a "carton" of cigartettes you would need to have me sit directly with you and blow every breath on you. Even then you would smell like no more than a pack. Many smokers are really something with their denial and rudeness. Here are the facts: I go do a bar for an enjoyable night out. I do not smoke. My not smoking inconveniences NOBODY. When I come home I stink of smoke. If I leave my coat in my coat closet the rest of the stuff in there also stinks of smoke. It is not a pleasant smell to me. I did nothing to cause it. YOU caused it. YOUR smoking inconveniences others around you. Whether or not your clothes hair, car, etc stink worse than mine is irrelevant. Whether you stink like a carton and I only stink like a pack is irrelevant. Your statements are what is known as a red herring - you know what a red herring is dont you - its a fish that stinks so much it diverts people's attention from the real issue.

You want to "enjoy" your habit with all its known negatives - knock yourself out and smoke all you want. Just do it where you do not infringe on my right to breathe clean air.

Cloud Nine

04-09-2003, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by justme
New York takes a step towards Cali.

(I can't imagine not smoking at a bar/ club/ pool hall/ coffee shop/ Strip club)

((Not that I blame the non smoking increasing majority. I smoke and I hate the smell of smoke on my clothing))

The more I read your posts, the more I start to wonder if I have a long lost twin living in Houston. (maybe we can switch places for a time so I can get a re-taste of single life.)

I should point out that when I was in Vancouver in November the strip club I went was the only place that I was allowed to smoke indoors in the whole city. (They flagrantly broke the rules.)

justme

04-09-2003, 07:23 AM

When I went to Vancouver two years ago, I went to San Francisco first. Strangely, my hotel was less than two blocks away from one of the only smoking allowed bars in San Francisco (it was owned and completely staffed by a husband wife team that both smoked, an allowable exception to the rule.)

genius - But no one forces you to go to whatever club or bar that allows smoking. You have the choice to go to that venue, and places where people don't have a choice about going (office buildings, government buildings, etc.) generally already have no smoking bans. Bars & clubs don't allow for smoking because they have to, they allow for smoking because they want to. They want to attract the smoking customers that may not go to a non-smoking event. Your argument isn't with smokers, it's with the club owners who have always been free to make their establishments non-smoking. And ultimately, you have to take responsibility for choosing to go to an establishment that doesn't provide an environment that you like.

There's a few clubs in Houston that set their house PA too loud. It causes distortion and worse, worsens the hearing of all the patrons. But this is the level that the club wants to play music at. Most of the patrons like the level that loud. Just because this makes me uncomfortable and ruins my health (hearing), I have no right to tell the club not to set the volume to 11.

Perfume and cologne are generally known to be migraine triggers. Anyone who suffers from chronic migraines can tell you they can be debilitatingly painful and can cause nausia. Every time I enter a room where someone has put on too much scent, I have to constantly worry about whether or not this will lead me into blinding pain. Should we ban perfume and cologne from all public places just because it affects my health and I find it creates an unpleasant environment?

The arguments for smoking bans have less legitimacy in the complaints of patrons than they do with complaints of workers. Danielle has to deal with the second hand smoke on a daily basis, which has been shown to be possibly detrimental to her long term health. She has little choice if she wants to keep her career. So I can see where the employees of smoking allowed establishments have a legitimate argument for asking for a smoking ban.

Right to breathe clean air? Which ammendment was that?

Cloud Nine

04-09-2003, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by justme
, I have no right to tell the club not to set the volume to 11.

It's one louder than 10.

Slinky Bender

04-09-2003, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by justme
, I have no right to tell the club not to set the volume to 11.

May be a bad example. Lots of places do have regulations on that type of thing.

Slinky Bender

04-09-2003, 09:05 AM

Also, there are a good number of restaurant owners who welcomed the ban (quietly; at least the previous one) because before, they didn't really want smoking, but had a hard time having a no smoking resaurant without a law to back it up. The ban was just the excuse they needed to do exactly what they wanted to anyway.

justme

04-09-2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by slinkybender
May be a bad example. Lots of places do have regulations on that type of thing.

Aren't those noise levels measured from the street? I thought that this was seen as more of an issue for nieghbors than customers.

justme

04-09-2003, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by slinkybender
Also, there are a good number of restaurant owners who welcomed the ban (quietly; at least the previous one) because before, they didn't really want smoking, but had a hard time having a no smoking resaurant without a law to back it up. The ban was just the excuse they needed to do exactly what they wanted to anyway.

I don't doubt it, what the ban does is elininate smoking as a competitive marketing tool. Now you can have no smoking without worrying that all your smoking customers will walk accross the street.

The businesses we're talking about are generally low margin. Even a slight drop in sales tends to drop them below their break even point.

genius

04-09-2003, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by justme
....genius - But no one forces you to go to whatever club or bar that allows smoking. You have the choice to go to that venue, and places where people don't have a choice about going (office buildings, government buildings, etc.) generally already have no smoking bans. Bars & clubs don't allow for smoking because they have to, they allow for smoking because they want to. They want to attract the smoking customers that may not go to a non-smoking event. Your argument isn't with smokers, it's with the club owners who have always been free to make their establishments non-smoking. And ultimately, you have to take responsibility for choosing to go to an establishment that doesn't provide an environment that you like.

Perfume and cologne are generally known to be migraine triggers. Anyone who suffers from chronic migraines can tell you they can be debilitatingly painful and can cause nausia. Every time I enter a room where someone has put on too much scent, I have to constantly worry about whether or not this will lead me into blinding pain. Should we ban perfume and cologne from all public places just because it affects my health and I find it creates an unpleasant environment?

The arguments for smoking bans have less legitimacy in the complaints of patrons than they do with complaints of workers.

Right to breathe clean air? Which ammendment was that?
It isnt that the club owners are creating an environment I dont like - they are allowing an environment that is unhealthy to everyone in there - not just the 1 in a 100 (I guess - dont know the #)that gets migraines from perfume. The owners run a place open to the public (as opposed to a private residence) are licensed by multiple agencies (liquior, fire, food, building) and thus have an obligation to provide an environment that is not unhealthy and is safe. Thats why there are rules about preparing and storing food (sames rules apply even if the patrons that dont like it they are free to go somewhere else), safety issues about sprinklers and fire doors (same rules apply even if the patrons that dont like it they are free to go somewhere else), laws about serving alcohol (sames rule apply even if the patrons that dont like it they are free to go somewhere else) safety practices such as rules on use of pyrotechnics (sames rule apply even if the patrons that dont like it they are free to go somewhere else) and safety of the building's structure (sames rule apply even if the patrons that dont like it they are free to go somewhere else). Similar rules exist for who can give haircuts, tattoos and drill your teeth (sames rule apply even if the patrons that dont like it they are free to go somewhere else). And now we have rules on smoking( (sames rule apply even if the patrons that dont like it they are free to go somewhere else).
We even have rules that say you have to clean up after your dog when he craps in front of my house (gee I guess if I didnt like it I could have always checked up out before I bought my house as I am free to live somewhere else)

As far as which ammendment - its the same one used for all the other health and safety issues.

justme

04-09-2003, 09:27 AM

If you're going to delegate me to a dismissable minority for my migraines, than I'll have to delegate you to the same for being in a group whose health will be measurably adversely affected by occasional second hand smoke inhalation.

The health risks associated with poorly prepared food, a building on fire, unhealthy needles, etc. are orders of magnitude greater than those associated with a few hours a week of second hand smoke inhalation.

And let's be intellectually honest here. Your beef with smoking establishments has much more to do with your discomfort of the environment that smoking creates (you don't like the smell) than with any perception you might have about its affect on your health.

Who's using a red herring, now?

(But as I said above, I understand your discomfort, and honestly I can't blame non-smokers for approving of the ban. I myself feel ambivolent to the idea.)

justlooking

04-09-2003, 09:28 AM

I'm a non-smoker and I HATE the ban.

Slinky Bender

04-09-2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by justme
Aren't those noise levels measured from the street? I thought that this was seen as more of an issue for nieghbors than customers.

a) Unless you are in a free standing building (which, if you are in Manahttan, is very rare) is also an issue with smoking.

b) Not always. There are also regs on max volume in spaces (even OSHA stuff).

Slinky Bender

04-09-2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by justme
The businesses we're talking about are generally low margin. Even a slight drop in sales tends to drop them below their break even point.

I don't think this statement is correct, at least not here in NYC, depending on what restaurant or exact location you are talking about. Most are very high margin. What's the average food cost to menu price ratio where you are? Here it tends to be 1:3 to 1:5.

genius

04-09-2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by justme
If you're going to delegate me to a dismissable minority for my migraines, than I'll have to delegate you to the same for being in a group whose health will be measurably adversely affected by occasional second hand smoke inhalation.

The health risks associated with poorly prepared food, a building on fire, unhealthy needles, etc. are orders of magnitude greater than those associated with a few hours a week of second hand smoke inhalation.

And let's be intellectually honest here. Your beef with smoking establishments has much more to do with your discomfort of the environment that smoking creates (you don't like the smell) than with any perception you might have about its affect on your health.

Who's using a red herring, now?

There are other minorities whose problems are also dismissed and are a lot more serious than your migraines e.g. a small minority can die if they eat a small amount of food containing peanuts (do we pass laws requiring peanut tests for those few?) also a small minority can die if they receive a bee sting (do we require all public places to insure no bees can get in?). The answer is no - we do the best we can as practical for the vast majority.

Second hand smoke is unhealthy. The degree of its effect is a function of the amount of exposure. The production of second hand smoke is voluntary. The producers of the smoke voluntarily produce a substance that has unheathy effects on others in a public place - your argument is - well maybe only a little bad for you if you are only there for a few hours.

The true statement of my discomfort of the environment that smoking creates doesnt negate the previous paragraph.

justme

04-09-2003, 12:15 PM

My argument isn't that it's a little bad.

My argument is that immeasurably bad.

(Again, I think the health issue is a red herring)

((Looking back, I introduced it before you did))

genius

04-09-2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by justme
My argument isn't that it's a little bad.

My argument is that immeasurably bad.

(Again, I think the health issue is a red herring)

((Looking back, I introduced it before you did)) My argument is that immeasurably bad. {So is smoking 1 cigarette}
(Again, I think the health issue is a red herring){I will give you that - but doesnt affect the fact that second hand smoke is unhealthy}
((Looking back, I introduced it before you did)){?}

justme

04-09-2003, 01:22 PM

I thought about this at lunch and realized that I had absolutely no desire to argue about the justification for a statute in a city that I don't frequent with a stranger when my own feeling on the subject are fairly ambivolent.

justlooking

04-09-2003, 01:35 PM

More thinking like that, and internet discussion boards all die.

imaginess

04-09-2003, 01:49 PM

If you truly want to breath fresh air, sign up for the next Biosphere project. There are enough polutants in the air we breath, from car exhaust, to the asbestos they are currently cleaning out of the subway which I currently take daily. You are not worried about your health. You are worried about the way your Jacket smells. Or perhaps you are glad that the stripper you are getting your dance from now doesnt have cigarette breath because of the ban.

genius

04-09-2003, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by justme
I thought about this at lunch and realized that I had absolutely no desire to argue about the justification for a statute in a city that I don't frequent with a stranger when my own feeling on the subject are fairly ambivolent. ok. BTW - it is going to be statewide shortly. Do you frequent NYS?
ps. ambivalent

genius

04-09-2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by imaginess
You are not worried about your health. You are worried about the way your Jacket smells. Or perhaps you are glad that the stripper you are getting your dance from now doesnt have cigarette breath because of the ban.
To each sentence:
1. Yes I am.
2. Yes I am.
3. Yes I am.

argleby

04-09-2003, 05:09 PM

I'm an ex-smoker and I'm against the smoking ban for a number of reasons.

1. To be honest, I like to sneak a few cigarettes on nights out. It's a guilty pleasure but I enjoy it.

2. It will *really* hurt business here in New York City. Tourism is the number 1 industry in the city and the tourists from Europe and Japan will stay away in droves if they can't smoke. And I don't blame them.

3. Equally important, it's a victory by a small band of fanatic missionaries using lies to force people to live the way they (the missionaries) think they (the smokers) should. It's government for your own good whether you like it or not.

4. The ban is ridiculous and extreme. Smoking is only allowed in 25% of outdoor seating? No smoking within 15 feet of the entrance to a bar? Give me a break. And Bloomberg has the nerve to claim the ban is not about punishing smokers?

5. And, most emotionally for me, I did not move to New York for the clean living. I like the big bad city where an adult can do what he or she wants, including things that many prudish people might not approve of. Like staying out to four in the morning getting drunk and smoking a pack of cigarettes in the process. And while it's true that the first two are still possible, we all know there are people out there that would love to cut those back too.

Not to sound like Chicken Little here, but as the philosopher David Hume once wrote, "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."

I fully sympathize with people who don't like smoke. I've had experiences with rude smokers that I haven't enjoyed. But I can't believe that a way can't be found to accommodate both groups.

Sorry if that was too long. But that's my 2 cents.

cst

04-09-2003, 06:48 PM

From the business perspective:

I have 2 bars/lounges in lower Manhattan. For the first week, business was off 43% week to week. I can't compare to last year as I haven't been open that long. Right now, it is easy to blame the smoking ban as the cause for my drop in revenue because it is the new factor in the equation. But it could be the war. It could be the return of old man winter. I don't know.

The upcoming warm weather will make things more palatable. People will be able to take a break and have their smoke outside. But I'm worried about the fall and winter. Maybe people will be used to the ban by then and it won't affect business, but if it does, it will put people like me out of business.

And for the record, I don't smoke and I hate it when I smell like smoke, but these are the realities of doing business.

Slinky Bender

04-09-2003, 07:54 PM

You know, the old law wasn't that much "wrose" than the new one. But I think one of the reasons for the new one is that very few people followed the old one, which was "more fair". Perhaps if the old one had not been so flagrantly ignored.................

Danielle

04-09-2003, 11:49 PM

I agree. It would have been totally agreeable for everyone if people had observed the smoking/no smoking designated areas in restaurants and clubs. But unfortunately it didn't happen that way. Smokers seem to feel so damn entitled to bother other people with their nasty habit. It is a nasty habit, and it's sad that I realize this and yet still enjoy the occassional cigarette myself.
I've often thought of possible solutions to this smoking ban problem that could be implemented at my club. What if they had a separate smoking lounge? I think that the lounge would become so overly crowded and smokey that it would be unbearable to enter into to. And all of the non smoking patrons would probably be all jealous of the action going on in the smoking lounge. After all, this is where the majority of people would probably want to sit. I guess there's no easy answer.

Cloud Nine

04-10-2003, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by Danielle
And all of the non smoking patrons would probably be all jealous of the action going on in the smoking lounge.

So I take it that you'd be working in the non-smoking lounge.

Psychosis

04-10-2003, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by argleby
I'm an ex-smoker and I'm against the smoking ban for a number of reasons.

1. To be honest, I like to sneak a few cigarettes on nights out. It's a guilty pleasure but I enjoy it.

So really you are not an ex smoker. You are an occasional smoker.

justlooking

04-10-2003, 06:15 AM

The state-wide anti-smoking law, which will kick in in a couple of months and effectively supercede the city ban, will expressly remove the exception now permitting separate smoking "lounges."

genius

04-10-2003, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Psychosis
So really you are not an ex smoker. You are an occasional smoker. I never met a smoker who wasn't in some form of denial.

justlooking

04-10-2003, 06:18 AM

Not unlike mainstream strippers.

imaginess

04-10-2003, 07:30 AM

Genius,
It sounds to me that you abhor smokers more than you the smoke itself.

Slinky Bender

04-10-2003, 07:31 AM

Smokers are such hypocrites anyway: I once got booked late on a flight where the only seat available were in he smoking section. there was a constant parade of people who insisted on being in the no smoking section who were coming back to smoke. Even when the stewardess told them they couldn't just come back there and smoke if he weren't seated, they complained that there weren't any seats available, and despite her protestations lit up in the aisle. I guess they fealt that they were entitled to 2 seats: the one in the non-smoking section where they wanted to be because they didn't want to be around other smokers, and the one in the smoking section for when they wanted to smoke.

Recently at a party in a bar I heard a few smokers complaining about the new ban, and were angry at the bar owner for trying to enforce it. They both wanted him to ignore the new rules, and somehow create a solution for them (of course he had created the soltuion - obey the law and go outside).

But a question for you smokers - how would ou feal if some minority of patrons decided to eat some tremendous amount of beans and become extremely flatulent, and insist on sitting around you at some bar/restaurant/stripclub/whatever. Even if it isn't a health issue, do they have some "right" to make your visit unbearable due to the odor they produce? I mean, you don't have to be there, you could just leave. ( and yes, if this became the same "level" of problem as smoking, I wouldn't oppose some statutory "relief").

genius

04-10-2003, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by imaginess
Genius,
It sounds to me that you abhor smokers more than you the smoke itself. How do you come to that conclusion because I dont. My statement about denial is just an observation I have made over the years.
Surely every nonsmoker has heard a smoker say "Yeah, yeah, the health issue is a bunch of crap - I have an uncle who smoked 3 packs a day his whole life and lived to 93".

Cloud Nine

04-10-2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by slinkybender
But a question for you smokers - how would ou feal if some minority of patrons decided to eat some tremendous amount of beans and become extremely flatulent, and insist on sitting around you at some bar/restaurant/stripclub/whatever.

But that's the reason why I smoke in public places. Its the only thing I found that hides the smell.

BTW- How fucking old is that plane story? Its been close to a decade or more since they allowed smoking on flights.

I'm so used to going outside to smoke since I started when they were already treating smokers as lepers. That bans dont bother me as I'm so used to it. I dont even smoke in my own house or car.

Slinky Bender

04-10-2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Cloud Nine
BTW- How fucking old is that plane story? Its been close to a decade or more since they allowed smoking on flights.

I didn't say it was lasy week. But I don't think people have changed much.

Originally posted by Cloud Nine
I dont even smoke in my own house or car.

Was this intentional to illustrate my point above?

genius

04-10-2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Cloud Nine
..... they were already treating smokers as lepers. A classic case of denial. No one is treating you as a leper. Its not about you - its about the smoke.

And here is the proof:
If you used chewing tobacco, say the equivalent amount of 2 packs a day - would you be forced to go outside everytime you wanted a tobacco hit? The answer is no, you would spit the digusting mess into a little paper cup and nobody would give a shit. Its all about the smoke

Waist Product

04-10-2003, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by genius
If you used chewing tobacco, say the equivalent amount of 2 packs a day - would you be forced to go outside everytime you wanted a tobacco hit? The answer is no, you would spit the digusting mess into a little paper cup and nobody would give a shit. ITS ALL ABOUT THE SMOKE.

Have yoyu ever evne dippd or chewed in public?>/

L O T S ofpeople give a shit/ theyh say Thats discusting! There a bunch of self righcheous assholles!//

genius

04-10-2003, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Waist Product
Have yoyu ever evne dippd or chewed in public?>/

L O T S ofpeople give a shit/ theyh say Thats discusting! There a bunch of self righcheous assholles!// By give a shit I mean care enough about it to regulate it by statute. I can not see how that can be done. People can chew in public all they want. There are laws about spitting in public. Thats not about chewing. It's about spitting.

THere are people in my company's shop that chew. And yes its pretty distasteful to watch them spit into a cup from time to time.

imaginess

04-10-2003, 11:09 AM

It is about the smokers and not the smoke when people walk by me while I am smoking outside and give me a dirty look, produce a fake cough, or even go so far as to say "I hate smokers".

To comply with the Law, and accommodate their smoking customers, bar and resturant owners will have to set up a well defined smoking area outside their establishment. If you dont have an ash tray available, you stand the risk of being fined for having 40-50 cigarette buts outside. If you have a large ammount of smoking customers, you may want to invest in an overhead heating lamp. Most places I went to in LA had them.

As for the flatulence statement, I dont think you would go up to a complete stranger and tell him to stop farting.

justlooking

04-10-2003, 11:17 AM

Wimp.

genius

04-10-2003, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by imaginess
It is about the smokers and not the smoke when people walk by me while I am smoking outside and give me a dirty look, produce a fake cough, or even go so far as to say "I hate smokers".
Yes the world has a lot of rude people on both sides of the issue (actually on every issue e.g. some people throw paint on people wearing fur coats ).

I like to think I'm not one of them and that they are the exception.

Slinky Bender

04-10-2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by imaginess
As for the flatulence statement, I dont think you would go up to a complete stranger and tell him to stop farting.

Maybe because farters tend to be less obnoxious about their emissions than smokers? They don't as often purposely blow their farts at non-farters. They don't loudly procalim their "right to fart in closed in spaces". They don't tell non-farters that if they don't like it that they just shouldn't patronize whatever establishment they are in. They don't tell non-farters, when they complain "I went home smelling like a cesspool" to stop whining because they "only went home smelling like a few turds". Farters don't calim that if you ban farting that you will lose tons of business because French people won't come to NY anymore ...........................

JackT

04-10-2003, 12:49 PM

The farting analogy really stinks.

Some people go to bars for the express purpose of hanging out, drinking and smoking in public. IF it is technologically possible (feasible) to segregate non-smokers from smoke (different sections, or different BARS for that matter), then this new law takes that CHOICE away from people who want to do that. It's sad to me that smoking is slowly being taken out of NYC nightlife... but then again I was saddened when 42nd Street turned Disney.

If you don't want to see naked boobs, stay out of stripclubs.
If you don't want to smell (and smell like) smoke, stay out of a bar where there will be smoking!

Consumer demand for smoke-free bars should have done this, not new legislation!

genius

04-10-2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by JackT
The farting analogy really stinks.

If you don't want to smell (and smell like) smoke, stay out of a bar where there will be smoking!

Consumer demand for smoke-free bars should have done this, not new legislation! And without legislation (prior to this one) using your thinking if they dont like smoke those pussy nonsmokiers should also stay out of:
movie theaters, busses, trains, airplanes, elevators, waiting rooms, barbershops, libraries, resturants etc.

Was the pun in your 1st sentence intentional?

JackT

04-10-2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by genius
And without legislation (prior to this one) using your thinking
Well it's a really good thing they didn't use my thinking when there was no smoking legislation on the books! However, I wasn't talking about that situation though. (I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I was, since I prefaced my remarks with the "hanging out, drinking and smoking in public" bars comment). I was talking about here and now. A city where, until recently, the New York City Smoke-Free Air Act of 1995 and the Clean Indoor Air Act of 1988 were the laws of the land.

Originally posted by genius
Was the pun in your 1st sentence intentional?
ummmm.... maybe.

Slinky Bender

04-10-2003, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by JackT
A city where, until recently, the New York City Smoke-Free Air Act of 1995 and the Clean Indoor Air Act of 1988 were the laws of the land.

As stated previously, if these wouldn't have been so widely ignored, the new law may never have been enacted (I very unfortunately have had way too much experience with this).

JackT

04-10-2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by slinkybender
As stated previously, if these wouldn't have been so widely ignored, the new law may never have been enacted .....

Just my personal opinion, but with regard to bars and pubs, I didn't see this wide ignoring as such bad thing.

Slinky Bender

04-10-2003, 02:15 PM

Then don't complain about what some would consider as the "obvious next step" which resulted.

Cloud Nine

04-10-2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by slinkybender
Maybe because farters tend to be less obnoxious about their emissions than smokers?

You obviously havent met BillFurniture in persson.

Casper

04-10-2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by justlooking
I'm a non-smoker and I HATE the ban.

Fuckin ey !

Casper

04-10-2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by slinkybender
But a question for you smokers - how would ou feal if some minority of patrons decided to eat some tremendous amount of beans and become extremely flatulent, and insist on sitting around you at some bar/restaurant/stripclub/whatever. Even if it isn't a health issue, do they have some "right" to make your visit unbearable due to the odor they produce? I mean, you don't have to be there, you could just leave. ( and yes, if this became the same "level" of problem as smoking, I wouldn't oppose some statutory "relief").

Could we make this the next poll question?

Slinky Bender

04-10-2003, 07:08 PM

And what would the answers be?

Casper

04-10-2003, 07:17 PM

Would you rather have someone smoking or farting ?

Slinky Bender

04-10-2003, 07:49 PM

How about lighting farts?

Casper

04-10-2003, 09:12 PM

That might just be a bit much.

On second thought it it was from a totally hot chick, I don't think many would object.

Danielle

04-10-2003, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by JackT
The farting analogy really stinks.

Some people go to bars for the express purpose of hanging out, drinking and smoking in public. IF it is technologically possible (feasible) to segregate non-smokers from smoke (different sections, or different BARS for that matter), then this new law takes that CHOICE away from people who want to do that. It's sad to me that smoking is slowly being taken out of NYC nightlife... but then again I was saddened when 42nd Street turned Disney.

If you don't want to see naked boobs, stay out of stripclubs.
If you don't want to smell (and smell like) smoke, stay out of a bar where there will be smoking!

Consumer demand for smoke-free bars should have done this, not new legislation!

Man, I am in total agreeement with much of what you've just said. While I don't think non-smokers should be subjected to second hand smoke against their will, I'm annoyed that I can't go out and enjoy the occassional naughty ciggarrette with my glass of wine on a night out.
And I am also saddened by 42nd street turning Disney. Family oriented. phhhhttt.

genius

04-11-2003, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by Casper
Would you rather have someone smoking or farting ? Neither

justme

04-11-2003, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by genius
ok. BTW - it is going to be statewide shortly. Do you frequent NYS?
ps. ambivalent

Why the hell would I be in NYS unless I was in, going to, or leaving NYC?

Buffalo? Saratoga? Canajeherie?

Thanks for the spelling tip (I've often mentioned that my spelling is poor). If you have a chance, correct that last town.

genius

04-12-2003, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by justme
Why the hell would I be in NYS unless I was in, going to, or leaving NYC?

Buffalo? Saratoga? Canajeherie?

Thanks for the spelling tip (I've often mentioned that my spelling is poor). If you have a chance, correct that last town. Well, lots of nice places in NYS so I just assumed. Canajoharie is an easy one for me - used to vacation there as a kid. Absolutely beautiful country. If you get bored with that you can tour the chewing gum factory (I forget which major brand) and if you get bored with that cooperstown is a short drive away. I dont recall if there are any AMPs in the area though. Glad to be of help.

Danielle

04-13-2003, 11:04 PM

I've had like three different people in the last week tell me I look like Erin Gray from the Buck Rodgers show. Is that a compliment? I have no idea who they're talking about.

Slinky Bender

04-13-2003, 11:11 PM

Apparently a bouncer at Guernica in the East Village was stabbed to death last night for trying to enforce the smoking ban.

Danielle

04-14-2003, 01:42 AM

that's insane. I wonder what mayor Bloomberg thinks about that.

Cloud Nine

04-14-2003, 03:10 AM

justme

04-14-2003, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by Danielle
I've had like three different people in the last week tell me I look like Erin Gray from the Buck Rodgers show. Is that a compliment? I have no idea who they're talking about.

I think she also played the love interest in Silver Spoons.

(I think it's a compliment. I think a lot of guys that were kids while that show aired feel similarly to the guys that were young when Princess Leia was chained to Jabba)

genius

04-14-2003, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by Danielle
that's insane. I wonder what mayor Bloomberg thinks about that. Probably the same way if a bouncer was killed trying to enforce under_age drinking or closing time law - lock the murderer up.

Cloud Nine

04-14-2003, 10:17 AM

Copying this and posting it on a PMB makes me feel like Aristotle. I'm gonna have to take an extra long shower tonight.

NYC Bouncer Killed in Smoking Ban Brawl
Sun Apr 13, 8:11 PM ET Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!

By ERIN McCLAM, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - A bouncer at a Manhattan nightclub died Sunday after he was stabbed in a brawl that police said began when he tried to enforce the city's new ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.

Dana Blake, 32, died about 11 hours after the late-night fight in an East Village nightclub.

Police arrested two brothers, Johnathan and Ching Chan, shortly after the fight and charged them with assault. Prosecutors had not decided Sunday whether to upgrade the charges because of Blake's death.

Blake approached the men about 2:30 a.m. to tell them they could not smoke in the bar, police spokesman Michael O'Looney said. It was unclear whether one or both men were smoking, he said.

Harsh words were exchanged and the brawl began when Blake tried to eject Johnathan Chan for disorderly behavior, witnesses told police. Blake was stabbed in the fight, but it was unclear who stabbed him or with what, O'Looney said.

The smoking ban took effect late last month.

It could not immediately be determined if the brothers had lawyers.

Blake's older brother, Tony Blake, said Sunday he blamed the death on the smoking ban. "I'm very bitter," he said. "It's a senseless murder because of this stupid cigarette law. That's the reason this guy was killed."

Ed Skyler, spokesman for Mayor Michael Bloomberg, said the mayor was pleased suspects were quickly arrested and that "his thoughts are with the family of the victim."

Dondee

04-14-2003, 10:50 AM

Mr. Sinatra

04-14-2003, 10:50 AM

justlooking

04-14-2003, 02:21 PM

Am I missing something, or is this a more audacious thread hijack than even HH usually has the nerve to try?

Danielle

04-15-2003, 01:19 AM

Yeah, sorry bout that. It's just that I didn't want to start a whole new thread about Erin Gray and I didn't really know where else to put my question. Ok. Back to the smoking ban now. Thanks guys.

I can't believe that bouncer's brother was quoted as saying he blames his brother's death on the "stupid ciggarrette law". What an idiot.

Danielle

04-15-2003, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by Dondee
Danielle,

Try the following link.

http://www.aahceleb.com/pics/gray_e~1.html

Ewww, yuck. I hope they were joking. she's so severe looking. I think I'm way cuter.

Cloud Nine

04-15-2003, 03:24 AM

Whoops, it's Twiki, not Twiggy.

pswope

04-15-2003, 04:07 AM

Originally posted by Danielle

I can't believe that bouncer's brother was quoted as saying he blames his brother's death on the "stupid ciggarrette law". What an idiot.

Clearly not a fan of Benjamin Cardozo

The risk to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed(I think it's something like that . Palsgraff vs LonguylandRR

(a joke for the multitude of lawyers and thus not violative of t he insider joke ban)

Dondee

04-15-2003, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by Cloud Nine
Whoops, it's Twiki, not Twiggy.

http://www.jeffbots.com/twiki.html

h. von bingen

04-16-2003, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by slinkybender
Apparently a bouncer at Guernica in the East Village was stabbed to death last night for trying to enforce the smoking ban.

the smoking ban applies to the east village too?

genius

04-16-2003, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by h. von bingen
the smoking ban applies to the east village too? Only for tobacco products.

Sinful7

04-23-2003, 11:52 PM

I guess I agree with most of you that the smoking ban is crazy.
But if the can regulate the strip clubs in NYC and change the
whole sex industry, the laws of the land is just that. I guess
the majority of smoker don't vote or maybe we didn't petition
hard enough. The thing that bothers me the most is that
the simplest civil liberties are being taken away from common
people. If they can ban somking what is next?

I guess that government thinks that since they told us smoking
is a killer to you and people around you they are going to regulate
our health themselves, (which is funny because if you try to get
health insurance without a job that supplies it your up the creek
with no paddle; unless you can pay 500 hundred dollars a
month with a thousand dollar deductable) I stopped smoking
after this whole ban thing because I can't afford lung cancer.

I guess this meanings I am going to slow down on 7-11 coffee
because coffee and a cigarette is like cookies and milk. I guess
I am going to have to change my personal habits because I
know I smoked because I have a oral fixation. I going to
have to suck more dick (SMILE)

Slinky Bender

04-24-2003, 09:57 AM

Just thought of an intersting parellel:

In NYC, gay sex is not illegal - one guy can suck another guys dick any time he wants to. Same for men and women. But with the outbreak of AIDS, sex in sex clubs became regulated, and not because of the "morality" of it, but because of the "public health" aspect.

Now, if you can stop someone from sucking someone else's dick in a club (where there isn't any "second hand sperm", and the only two people effected are the two engaged), why can't you regulate smoking, where there's no way to contain the "by-product" of the conduct so that it doesn't effect others?

JackT

04-24-2003, 10:04 AM

I would never argue that they CAN'T regulate it...only that they shouldn't.

(I disagree with the dick sucking ban too, FWiiW)

jseah

04-24-2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Sinful7
I guess this meanings I am going to slow down on 7-11 coffee
because coffee and a cigarette is like cookies and milk. I guess
I am going to have to change my personal habits because I
know I smoked because I have a oral fixation. I going to
have to suck more dick (SMILE)

Having a beer in one hand and a lit cig in another goes together like bacon and eggs. I suppose I am lucky since California had instituted a total ban on smoking in public years ago (can't even stand outside and smoke if you are within 20 feet of a public entrance) I had gotten used to it before moving back here. Much easier to wean myself off this time.

I suppose the ones I feel bad for is the dancers.......as it is a little difficult for them to walk outside and light up while they "are in costume".

jseah

04-24-2003, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by slinkybender
..."second hand sperm"...

I think I sat in some yesterday.........

Sinful7

04-25-2003, 05:53 AM

I was just making a little joke about if I can't smoke I will
transfer my oral fixation, you guys take things literally.
But because of the smoking ban I did by the patch to help
me quit smoking.....and it turned out to be much easier
than the lock jaw from all the cock (LOL)

turboman2002

05-05-2003, 02:25 PM

'Dropped by Private Eyes the other night, sat down and ordered a beer. Booze and nicotine go hand in hand of course, but I realized I may not smoke. I held out as long as I could, and was going to stand outside a have a smoke - but I thought I am sure as hell not standing outside a strip joint in midtown smoking a cigarette! (As opposed to a "regular" bar.) So, instead of going back in to Private Eyes, I left. Had I been able to smoke inside I would have dropped at least $100 instead of the $10 i did spend. Anyone else experience this?

Sinful7

05-05-2003, 03:05 PM

I am going to look up the statics of bars and their incomes
since the smoking ban, I wonder if they have lost money
because of this. May 10th the girls from the "dish" are going in the city to party and hopefully the patch will get me through the night. I am really tring to stop but it is hard the ban suppose
to reach Suffolk in 2006 the last I heard.

justlooking

05-05-2003, 03:08 PM

I think turbo made a really good point about how this would hurt strip clubs more than bars.

genius

05-08-2003, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by Sinful7
I am really tring to stop but it is hard the ban suppose
to reach Suffolk in 2006 the last I heard. Maybe much sooner if NYS preempts the county with its own law.

Slinky Bender

05-08-2003, 09:02 AM

If?

genius

05-09-2003, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by slinkybender
If? It's not in effect yet. A lot can happen between now and the end of July.

alterego

05-09-2003, 04:31 AM

At least when I'm in L.A. I know where I can go and have a smoke on a patio. And in S.F. I know a few places where I can go to the back of the bar and they turn a blind eye.

But these New York laws... from what I've read they make the California laws look positively laid back.

It'll be funny when New York smokers on vacation in L.A. sit on a patio and tell the Californian smokers how lucky they are to have the right to smoke in some segregated outdoor patios and only pay 200% taxes on their cigarettes instead of 400%.

Then if California wants to one up New York in anti-smoking laws, they'll have raise the price of cigarettes to 16$ a pack, and fine people for smoking on the sidewalks.

Then New York can counter by raising the prices to 30$ a pack and arresting people for smoking anywhere but free standing private homes no more than 5,000 feet from any school or library.

Then California can counter by declaring the entire state 100% tobacco free and deporting anyone found smoking to Nevada.

Then New York can counter by...

genius

05-09-2003, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by alterego

But these New York laws... from what I've read they make the California laws look positively laid back.

Then if California wants to one up New York .... they'll have ... fine people for smoking on the sidewalks. What? Do you mean they still allow people to smoke on a public sidewalk in CA?

alterego

05-09-2003, 04:46 AM

But they are failing to ban obscene movies like 'It's a Wonderful Life' where people are shown indulging in filthy tobacco! And children might view this movie! And it's shown at Christmas!

Quick! Get Mayor Bloomberg!

alterego

05-09-2003, 06:16 AM

No offense meant to all of you who support the ban. When I'm in NYC I'll respect it and won't smoke in your bars. But I know from the experience of living on the West Coast when all this went down the first time that I won't be hanging out much in your bars either now, just because I don't really care much for drinking if I can't have a smoke. I can tell you that the west coast bans didn't really affect my smoking much, but they sure did help cut down on how much money I spent drinking. If people want to go crazy with the anti-smoking ordinances then hey, that's democracy. But there's no law that says I have to go hang out and spend my money in non-smoking bars, strip clubs and casinos. All of which I think are kind of silly, to be honest. When the laws came down out west, I stopped going to strip clubs and casinos entirely, and cut way back on drinking in bars. I'm always happy to support other people's right to party and enjoy themselves and indulge in their own bad habits... as long as I feel they are being reasonable about mine.

Slinky Bender

05-09-2003, 07:02 AM

Wow, so smoking bans really cut down on vice altogether. I sure hope no "right wing morality" groups are reading this, because they'll use it to "prove" that smoking leads to other vices, and that strict anti-smoking laws are the cure for everything that ails the US.

Sinful7

05-09-2003, 07:04 AM

The thing with the smoking ban that pissed me off the most
that people aren't addressing is that slowly too many of
the Sinful things are being regulated, sex and smoking.
The law has cut me with a double edge sword, with the club
zoning stuff and the smoking, everyone was like they will never do that this is New York...and look at the results. (I would be able deal with it if they legalize marijuana you know give and
take.) But they are slowly taking things away... what next
everyone has to be in the house at a curfew.

justme

05-09-2003, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Sinful7
But they are slowly taking things away... what next
everyone has to be in the house at a curfew.

Trust me, smoking bans are by far not the only, or indeed best, indicator of this truth.

alterego

05-09-2003, 09:00 AM

things are becoming really conservative all over the place.

On the upside though... I was down in Louisville last weekend for the Derby, and I can tell you that drinking, smoking, gambling, and girls taking of their tops with mardi gras beads being thrown at them is still permitted in the Churchill Downs infield. Not to mention goofy hats!

bulldoggy7565

05-09-2003, 09:10 AM

I am against this smoking ban. It is unfair to take away rights from people who chose to do something that is completely legal. A majority of the restaurants/bars i go to, the employees smoke. Sitting in the smoking section of a diner, you would ALWAYS see the waitresses smoking. Now they have to go outside because some non smokers complained. That is unfair to them.

I myself smoke and i try to be respectful about it. Even outside i will step off a long line to smoke and do things like that so that i dont bother the non smokers. But COME ON, a bar, A fucking bar without smoking? What is that. That is the true definition of irony.

It may smell up your clothes a little. Okay, no denying that. But so do people who wear too much perfume and thats not illegal. Does anyone here watch Penn & Tellers Bullshit? (Great show) Basically, they go around and uncover false information. They showed that there is not one single piece of factual evidence that shows second hand smoke leads to cancer. Not one.

But its not bad. Here in Nassau County, there are still a few bars we can smoke in. (You always gotta befriend those bouncers) So it sucks but its not intolerable. Oh well, no use arguing though. Non smokers have a tendency to hate smokers as it is. My P. O. V. will not dissuade them.

But this ban is PROHIBITION FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM

alterego

05-09-2003, 09:16 AM

This is the new prohibition. Might as well call it what it really is.

And judging by how successful prohibition was last time around...

Sinful7

05-10-2003, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by alterego
This is the new prohibition. Might as well call it what it really is.

And judging by how successful prohibition was last time around...

When I was writing before about this I was thinking about the
whole prohibition thing, I am in your mind.
The fucked up shit is that I am not one of those people that don't
vote and complain, but I vote and right now I feel like it is just
a drop in the bucket.
I already pay for water next I'll be paying for air, things are
changing fast I guess soon freedom in America will be a
state of mind, instead a state of democracy.

alterego

05-10-2003, 10:02 AM

I'm not quite as cynical about democracy as you, partly because I've worked in some political movements that actually achieved things, but people really need to do more than just vote every few years to make a democracy really work. As in, people would have to actually *get involved* to do something like repeal the stupid smoking ban. And if no one bothers to get involved (which is a lot of work) then we're just stuck between the choices of the professional lobbyists. Which at this point as far as smoking goes is prohibitionist vs. even more prohibitionist. Tobacco lobby money is drying up. And cigarette taxes are paying directly for the prohibition lobby in most places. The days of Phillip Morris defending the rights of smokers is pretty much finished. So if we want the right to smoke in bars again, we'll actually have to do some real work, not just vote. Yikes.

On the upside though, Sinful, if you want to do the work, and get invovled, and run for office, I'll come out every couple of years and vote for you!

(Actually I'm just kidding here; I would do more than just vote for you. I know myself well enough that I wouldn't stay out of a good fight against prudish moralists. I really would try to get invovled if I were in NYC right now.)

Danielle

05-12-2003, 01:04 AM

The smoking ban obviously has a lot of people up in arms. I myself feel somewhat on the fence where this issue is concerned. Before the ban went into effect there where some busy nights (especially Saturdays when the younger crowd came in) when I was absolutely miserable because of the smoke. I mean, the room literally looked hazy, you could see all of the heavy second hand smoke just floating around in the beams of light from the stage. My eyes would burn, I would sometimes have trouble breathing, feeling like I couldn't get enough oxygen into my lungs (I am totally not exagerating), sometimes my throat would start catching when I was talking to a customer and I would gag (and not just from the boring conversation!). The club I work at is relatively small, and when it was jam-packed with people and half of them were smoking at any given time the atmosphere became really unbearable. The problem might have been solved if the cheap ass club owners had installed a proper ventilation system to suck out most of the lingering smoke. (I'm sure these types of systems exist, right?) One of the worst things about it was the way my hair would stink when I went home at night. I had to choose between stinking up my pillow case and trying to sleep with a wet head.

I consider myself a very light smoker. I enjoy the occasional ciggarette while out at a bar or perhaps the cliche after sex smoke. I'll agree that's it's very annoying and unfair to not be able to smoke while out at a stripclub, and it has adversely effected our bussiness. I guess it's hard to say what the right answer is, or even if there is one. I wish people could have just smoked in moderation while they were out so that conditions wouldn't have been so bad to incite the mayor to ban smoking all together. But obviously I know that it would have been impossible to monitor how many cigs a person had while they were inside an establishment, or whether or not it even would have mattered to Bloomberg if people were only smoking "a little bit".

And as for the comment about Penn & Teller's show about the effects (or non-effects) of second hand smoke, I call BULLSHIT.
One of my favorite childhood pets died an untimely death due to lung cancer. She was a six year old cat who we'd adopted after the old lady she lived with (who was a chain smoker most of her life) passed away. Coincidence? I think not.

jaydevice

05-12-2003, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by Sinful7
If they can ban somking what is next?

I guess that government thinks that since they told us smoking
is a killer to you and people around you they are going to regulate
our health themselves, (which is funny because if you try to get
health insurance without a job that supplies it your up the creek
with no paddle

god, this is true. if they're so concerned about public health, give us some medical social services. oh, that costs tax dollars.

the smoking ban, and the increase of cig prices, which I see as tax profiling of a demographic engaged in a legal activity, are just steps towards greater control, gov. paternalism.

have been surprised there's not more of a "fuck you, you can't tell us what to do attitude on this board."

have read that the next movement in sway is to heavily tax junk food as a measure to battle our obescity problem. don't know if this is true or or not. do think that the more we allow ourselves to be controlled, the harder it'll be to get out from under a gov. thumb. I see this ban and the previous tax increase as bad legal precendents.

alterego

05-12-2003, 05:57 AM

if I really believed what the anti-tobacco people were saying about the dangers of second hand smoke. But I don't. Their numbers just don't make any sense, and they're getting worse.

For example, in today's NY Times there's a piece on the smoking ban in Connecticut where the public health official pushing the total ban claims that second hand smoke kills 35,000 people per year in America. I think that number is exaggerated by at least a factor of ten, if not more.

Here's my reasoning. There are approximately 50 million adult smokers in America (~25% of the population), with ages ranging from 18-80. Smokers have a life expectancy which is approximately one year less than non-smokers, (and that in itself should tell you how exaggerated the anti-tobacco propaganda is - being 20 pounds overweight reduces your life expectancy even more). So if the average smoker lives 75 years, and starts smoking at an average age of 15 (this is approximately true) that means that of those 50 million smokers, 800,000 will die in any given year of all causes combined.

Yet the figure which is generally given by the anti-tobacco people for how many people are killed by smoking each year is 440,000. If this number were true (and I don't believe it is) it would mean that over half of all smokers have to die from smoking. This is pretty astounding, given that lung cancer, which is the disease with by far the strongest correlation with smoking, kills 6-7% of life-long pack-a-day-or-more smokers (from the CDC's own statistics). Which is around 60,000 per year. That, I think, is closer to the real number of total smoking related deaths.

How they got the 440,000 number is as follows; they added up all the deaths of smokers from any disease ever connected by any study to smoking (which is almost everything at this point). But they never subtracted out the amount of smokers who would have died anyhow from heart disease, stroke, etc. even had they not smoked. And thus ended up with this ridiculously exaggerated 440,000 figure. (I'm guessing the real number is a factor 5 lower.)

The 35,000 figure is even more dubious. There are ~100,000 lung cancer deaths per year in America. ~60,000 of them are smokers themselves. If the 35,000 figure is true, it means that essentially EVERY SINGLE non-smoker lung cancer death in America would have to be caused by second hand smoke. As opposed to diesel exhaust, coal dust, asbestos, natural smoke (forest fires), other caricogens, etc. etc. Which I do not believe for a minute. Here's how they get the 35,000; almost every non-smoker who dies of lung cancer is at some point in their lives exposed to second hand smoke. Thus they all must have been killed by it!
Once again, they don't subtract out the people who would have been killed by lung cancer anyhow, from other causes. If they did, the real number of non-smokers killed by second hand smoke would drop to the order of a couple of thousands, if not less. And the majority of these are not bar workers; don't forget that we have non-smokers now dying of lung cancer who were exposed in the days when people smoked EVERYWHERE; hospitals, airplanes, laundromats, everyone's homes, etc. etc. If you could somehow measure how many people died from secondhand smoke exposure in adult only establishments (bars/strip clubs/casinos/bingo halls, etc.) the number would drop to a couple of hundred per year, if even that.

Which is still a terrible thing, but it's on the order of how many people are killed by lightning strikes. And it's FAR lower than the number of farmers killed each year from cancer related to pesticide use, or the rate of construction workers killed per year on a site, or pretty much any other work related hazard.

It's certainly nothing to legislate an entire set of freedoms away for. Unless, of course, that is the POINT of the exercise, and the public health aspect is just a cover, which I suspect it is.

Slinky Bender

05-12-2003, 06:29 AM

Smokers have a life expectancy which is approximately one year less than non-smokers,

http://www.dinkytown.net/java/LifeTime.html

http://www.healthcentral.com/healthview/lifeexpectancy.cfm?CFID=8766578&CFTOKEN=542451&2&

http://www.forces.org/evidence/carol/carol8.htm

http://www.hatton.ca/lifeexpectancies.htm

JackT

05-12-2003, 06:33 AM

Oh yeah, alterego? What about Danielle's CAT???

(for YEARS didn't researchers attempt, and fail, to induce lung cancer in all sorts of animals by direct and "second-hand" smoke inhalation?)

alterego

05-12-2003, 07:29 AM

I plugged my stats into the life-expectancy calculator you posted above.

Here's what I got:

Male:
Age 33
5'5"
145 lbs.
Never smoked

Life expectancy 79 years.

When I switched 'never smoked' to 'current smoker' the life expectancy calculator gave me 77 years.
(Try it with your own age/height/weight)

That's consistant with what I've seen from life insurance tables where insurance companies charge tobacco users premiums as though they were 1-2 years older than non-smokers.

I'm not saying that smoking isn't bad for you, and that we should return to the 1950's where cigarettes were promoted everywhere. But smoking is no worse for you than being 20-30 lbs overweight, or being a heavy drinker. And statistically, being single and not being a regular church attender also correlate with life expectancy in a similar way. And if the government passed a law forcing people to go to church, I would be against that too.

Slinky Bender

05-12-2003, 11:04 AM

Try changing the age to 55 ( or any number of other various combinations) and see what happens.

JackT

05-12-2003, 11:27 AM

I got a 2 year difference as well -- smoker vs. non. Hmmmm. Maybe I should become a smoker!! I'm sure ages 80 & 81 aren't much fun anyway.

By the way, HOW are those calculators' calculations made anyway? (and alterego's point about confounding (smokers' lifestyles, social status, diets, etc.) is very well taken, IMO)

genius

05-12-2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by alterego
charge tobacco users premiums as though they were 1-2 years older than non-smokers.

I'm not saying that smoking isn't bad for you, and that we should return to the 1950's where cigarettes were promoted everywhere. But smoking is no worse for you than being 20-30 lbs overweight, or being a heavy drinker. What you are missing is what are the last 5 years of life like. Of the 6 people I personally know who died of smoking related diseases 2 of them spent their last 4 years connected to an oxygen bottle.

alterego

05-12-2003, 12:36 PM

That's true enough. My aunt smoked 2 packs a day for 60-odd years, and now has emphysema, which she developed in her late 70's, which restricts her activity. She also has been grossly overweight her whole life, and eats the fattiest diet of anyone I've ever met, and, not surprisingly, suffers from high blood pressure. She also never married, and hates all religion. And up until recently, drank too much vodka. And never exercised a day in her life. And lives with a tribe of cats in her house (all of whom seemed to survive quite the smoke quite well). She is now getting close to 80, thus defying all the statistical odds.

I'm not saying that smoking is good for you. It's not. It's bad for you. I've had great aunts and uncles die of lung cancer, which was certainly from smoking. They generally died in their mid to late 70's, as opposed to some of the non-smokers who lived into their 80's before dying equally hideous deaths of other diseases.

But if you're going to start legislating people's behaviors, why stop with tobacco? Why not legislate diet too? Ban those cheeseburgers! Obesity is a major cause of heart disease! And how about making alcohol illegal, like it was in the 20's. That would certainly cut down on second-hand alcohol deaths (drunk driving accidents, alcohol related domestic violence, etc.) And how about sugar? Diabetes is a major disease, yet CANDY is AVAILABLE to CHILDREN in EVERY CONVENIENCE STORE IN AMERICA. And how about skin cancer? That's serious stuff, almost as many Americans die from it as lung cancer. If we made patios and sunchairs and outdoor swimming pools and beaches illegal, then there would certainly be fewer skin cancer deaths.

I'm sorry, everything comes with risks. Allowing peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in a school comes with a risk that a child with severe peanut allergies will accidentally pick up the wrong lunch and have a reaction and die. And I absolutely oppose the anti-peanut-butter-in-school
movements that crop up every so often. It's silly. You simply cannot legislate away all risks. Give people reasonable warnings, and try to make a decent compromise between the parties. I think this complete ban on smoking ANYWHERE EVER is just as unreasonable and uncompromising as the 50's-60's situation where smokers were allowed to light up absolutely everywhere.

genius

05-12-2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by alterego

But if you're going to start legislating people's behaviors, why stop with tobacco? Why not legislate diet too? Ban those cheeseburgers! Obesity is a major cause of heart disease! And how about making alcohol illegal We live in a civilized society (more or less) so the question is not should we legislate people's behaviors - the question is which ones.

Surely you agree that it is not just acceptable but requiredto have laws regarding driving a car and alcohol consumption, or speed limits (gee - you are limiting my freedom to drive 90 mph in a residential zone.) or behaviors as mundane as practicing with your rock band at 3am in your backyard.

The sticking point is the extent. If you want to smoke up a storm in your home, get sloppy drunk every night - drown yourself in greasy french (freedom) fries, knock yourself out.

The problem occurs when your behavior affects others.

alterego

05-12-2003, 02:54 PM

Yeah, I agree with that. Behaviors which are dangerous to others should be legislated. But there should be a balance between legislation which genuinely protects the public good, and legislation which simply impinges on people's freedoms without really doing much for the public good.

Speed limits are a perfect example. I think that there should be speed limits on roads. Letting people drive 120 mph on interstates that weren't designed for it is a recipe for some really nasty accidents. (Although the Germans seem to do O.K. on their roads... granted they are better roads). But the old nationally imposed 55 m.p.h. limit on ANY road was, in my opinion, ridiculous. I drive across the country all the time, and I regularly drive at speeds of 70 m.p.h. Gasp! If I really felt I was being dangerous, I wouldn't do that. But I don't. I think that that is a perfectly safe speed on most interstates. The 55 m.p.h. limit was silly. 65-75 m.p.h. limits are much more reasonable, depending on how urban/rural the state is.

My feeling about this New York smoking ban, is that it is the smoking ban equivelant of the 55 m.p.h. limit.; ridiculously excessive, not productive, destined to be ignored, and expensive to enfore.

genius

05-12-2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by alterego
Yeah, I agree with that. Behaviors which are dangerous to others should be legislated. But there should be a balance between legislation which genuinely protects the public good, and legislation which simply impinges on people's freedoms without really doing much for the public good.
Now that we agree on the basics all that has to be determined is what limits do indeed "genuinely protect" and and what limits "simply impinges on people's freedoms".

And there's the rub.

alterego

05-12-2003, 04:04 PM

Sure. Balancing safety and freedom is the difficult part. But usually people will decide for themselves anyhow, no matter what extreme the legislators pick. Raising the drinking age to 21 (another law I think is too conservative) didn't really stop all college kids from drinking. And why shouldn't a 20 year old be able to have a beer anyhow? Prohibition didn't end alcohol consumption in the U.S., it just made some bootleggers very rich. The zero-tolerance war-on-all-drugs is an expensive failure, which state legislatures are only now relaxing and making more reasonable 20 years later. The 55 m.p.h. speed limit is now history in almost all states. And I think that the Bloomberg-type absolutely-no-smoking-anywhere laws will go down in history the same way as prohibition, zero tolerance, and 55 m.p.h.; examples of expensive, over-zealous, extreme and uncompromising legislation that are only going to get rolled back eventually anyhow when society calms down about whatever the panic was to begin with. I'd just wish that people would have learned the lessons of the previous excesses and saved us all the time and energy of fighting a stupid fight when a reasonable compromise could probably have been worked out right from the start.

genius

05-13-2003, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by alterego
Sure. Balancing safety and freedom is the difficult part. But usually people will decide for themselves anyhow, no matter what extreme the legislators pick. Raising the drinking age to 21 (another law I think is too conservative) didn't really stop all college kids from drinking. And why shouldn't a 20 year old be able to have a beer anyhow? Prohibition didn't end alcohol consumption in the U.S., it just made some bootleggers very rich. The zero-tolerance war-on-all-drugs is an expensive failure, which state legislatures are only now relaxing and making more reasonable 20 years later. The 55 m.p.h. speed limit is now history in almost all states. And I think that the Bloomberg-type absolutely-no-smoking-anywhere laws will go down in history the same way as prohibition, zero tolerance, and 55 m.p.h.; examples of expensive, over-zealous, extreme and uncompromising legislation that are only going to get rolled back eventually anyhow when society calms down about whatever the panic was to begin with. saved us all the time and energy of fighting a stupid fight when a reasonable compromise could probably have been worked out right from the start. I agree with you to an extent. However you have picked some bad examples.

The antismoking laws are not the same as prohibition - tobacco is not being banned - just its smoking in public places.

No one for a second thinks the drinking age at 21 would stop all teenage drinking. But it does reduce it.( Just like protections at a bank completely eliminate bank robberies) And the reason a 20 year can't have a beer is because typically they cant have just ONE beer and as a group their accident rate and fatality rate is way out of proportion to their percentage in the population.

As far as the 55 mph being history, yes is is and so is the yearly decline in traffic deaths in the US (its now on the increase even with airbags, antilock breaks etc). But hey, thats what people want and we do live in a democracy (I dont mean that facetiously either - its a trade off I guess people are willing to make).

As you point out, it is really kind of sad and a waste of energy that perhaps could be put to better use:
"fighting a stupid fight when a reasonable compromise could probably have been worked out right from the start." But because you have people on both sides of the fence not willing to compromise this is what we get.

alterego

05-13-2003, 06:04 AM

Actually I think they're all very good examples of balancing group safety vs. personal liberty. And I think all those were cases where group safety concerns were allowed to far outweigh personal liberty concerns. But I tend towards being a libertarian on most of these types of issues, so I expect always to be on that side of the argument for pretty much every issue.

The thing that amazes me most is that people on this board would ever swing to the other side, given how potentially detrimental a wave of public morality/hysteria/legislation involving sex could be to all of us.

And what is happening to smokers (being kicked out of everywhere and excessively taxed, etc. etc.) is NOTHING compared to what would happen to us (particularly the girls) if the same kind of over-zealous prohibitionist mentality gets turned on sex workers. It's bad enough as it is... I don't want to see anymore of these ridiculous public morality campaigns wasting government resources to punish people for smoking in a bar, or giving/getting a blow job, or whatever stupid minor vice it is that is being targeted today, when there are more than enough REAL problems in the world to solve.

And as for all the doctors and public health officials out there who are running around cheering anti-smoking prohibitions; I'd have alot more sympathy for you if you put 10% as much effort into helping the 60 million Americans without health insurance get some basic affordable coverage as you do harrassing smokers. Because lack of BASIC COVERAGE (which is ENTIRELY the fault of the health industry) is a thousand times bigger public health threat in this country than second hand smoke ever could be.

argleby

05-13-2003, 06:52 AM

Personally, I think these arguments are leaving out an important detail which is that the 1995 EPA report linking secondhand smoke and lung cancer was a demonstrable lie. It was orchestrated and rigged by anti-smoking fanatics to support legislation like NYC's smoking ban.

Here is what I would suggest: any bar that wants to permit smoking should be required to have an excellent ventilation system. For 99.9% of us this would solve all problems.

What doesn't solve problems is a tiny group of fanatics imposing its will on millions of people for their own good whether they like it or not.

Cloud Nine

05-13-2003, 07:20 AM

I need a cigarette...

alterego

05-13-2003, 07:51 AM

C9, are you going to post this same message all day on all the active threads? I guess if it helps your cravings any, then go for it. And, I have to admit, the big red letters in your other post were a nice touch. But for the sake of your own sanity, you might want to just go chew on a couple of sticks of Doublemint and think about blonde twins.

Dondee

05-13-2003, 08:01 AM

Let the poor guy do what he has to to get it licked!

C9 whatever works for you.....

justme

05-14-2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by jaydevice
have read that the next movement in sway is to heavily tax junk food as a measure to battle our obescity problem. don't know if this is true or or not. do think that the more we allow ourselves to be controlled, the harder it'll be to get out from under a gov. thumb. I see this ban and the previous tax increase as bad legal precendents.

Down with Oreos in California! Down with Trans Fats!

(Actually, I'm in support of more public awareness on the dangers and proliferation of trans fats)

justme

05-14-2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by alterego
Raising the drinking age to 21 (another law I think is too conservative) didn't really stop all college kids from drinking. And why shouldn't a 20 year old be able to have a beer anyhow?

There was some study done (and we all know about studies) that supported the notion that raising the drinking age actually encouraged more alcholol related problems in colleges. Seems before, when alcohol was served at official functions, students learned 'how to drink' from faculty and staff (who'd want to be shit faced in front of their department chair), but now students model their drinking behavior after other students which is more of a binge like phenomenon.

pjorourke

05-14-2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by justme
Down with Oreos in California! Down with Trans Fats!

(Actually, I'm in support of more public awareness on the dangers and proliferation of trans fats)

But it is total bullshit to have a legal system where a third party attempts to get rich by suing the maker of a legal product containing these items.

My personal preference is "Fuck the Nanny State". But barring that, the furthest I would go is that gov't should get the health info out for people to do with as they please. Any other role, including this legalized mugging, is crap.

justme

05-14-2003, 09:33 AM

I generally agree with the notion that compensatory and punative damages have gotten out of hand. However, I do think that companies need to be severely punished when they profit by refusing to disclose known health risks associated with their product.

I mean, I think the FDA should exist, and I think it should be proactive in preventing needlessly harmful foods to reach the shelves.

pjorourke

05-14-2003, 09:34 AM

Okay, now square that comment with the asshole that sued McDonald's because eating 8 burgers a day (or whatever absurd number it was) made him fat.

justme

05-14-2003, 09:39 AM

Well, McDonalds has been fairly honest about the health risks associated with their product, the risks are not so large as to make them generally harmful to the population, and the lawsuit was thrown out.

What more do you want?

Dondee

05-14-2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by justme
Well, McDonalds has been fairly honest about the health risks associated with their product, the risks are not so large as to make them generally harmful to the population, and the lawsuit was thrown out.

What more do you want?

FREE FRIES with every burger!

Daddycool

05-14-2003, 09:47 AM

I still think that our drinking age is absurd at 21. AT 18,You can vote, get drafted (die for your country) and drive, but can't go out and get a beer with your friends??

Also I don't know if anyone else has noticed but the places I've been to are NOT following the smoking ban.

alterego

05-14-2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Daddycool
I still think that our drinking age is absurd at 21. AT 18,You can vote, get drafted (die for your country) and drive, but can't go out and get a beer with your friends??

Don't forget getting married. That one stymies me. You can be married for years before you are legally entitled to have a beer.

Dondee

05-14-2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Daddycool
I still think that our drinking age is absurd at 21. AT 18,You can vote, get drafted (die for your country) and drive, but can't go out and get a beer with your friends??

Also I don't know if anyone else has noticed but the places I've been to are NOT following the smoking ban.

When I was in Viet Nam I was not able to vote. The voting age had not yet been lowered to 18! Talk about dying for someone you did not vote for!

Danielle

05-14-2003, 11:42 AM

You guys want to talk about age-ism in this country? How about this absurdity - I can't even rent a car (I have a perfect driving record) without paying an extra hundred dollar surcharge because I'm under 25! Mother fuckers.

jseah

05-14-2003, 11:50 AM

justme

05-14-2003, 12:10 PM

They'll rent to them but they charge them a ridiculous fee.

Since the cost of insuring the rental is fixed, it would be raise the cost to have to reserve for young (more accident prone) drivers. Since these drivers don't represent the core business, it's better for the companies to optimize price for everyone else (and leave them out of the coverage calculations).

The ridiculous fee is basically an insurance premium 'premium' for these young drivers.

Which is why Danielle shouldn't complain. The rental cars companies charging her more is about the same as insurance companies charging her more for auto coverage (or charging her less for health coverage).

alterego

05-14-2003, 12:24 PM

I know you're probably right, but when I was in my early 20's that rule used to piss me off too.

Danielle

05-14-2003, 09:51 PM

Fuck that. It's just totally unfair. I've never been in a car accident in my life. Even a fender bender.

Cloud Nine

05-15-2003, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by Dondee
FREE FRIES with every burger!

That'll never happen, the fries and coke is where they make their money.

pjorourke

05-15-2003, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by Danielle
Fuck that. It's just totally unfair. I've never been in a car accident in my life. Even a fender bender.

Life is inherently unfair. Get used to it.

Slinky Bender

05-15-2003, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by Danielle
Fuck that. It's just totally unfair. I've never been in a car accident in my life. Even a fender bender.

Don't get me started on what's unfair.

Casper

05-15-2003, 07:43 AM

An air lap dance

Daddycool

05-15-2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Danielle
You guys want to talk about age-ism in this country? How about this absurdity - I can't even rent a car (I have a perfect driving record) without paying an extra hundred dollar surcharge because I'm under 25! Mother fuckers.

I do understand your gripe, it is the insurance companies that choose to do this, not your government. Although you could argue that the insurance lobbiest are one of the more powerful lobby groups and lobby to have the age that high. This is also why NJ insurance is a running issue when elections come around but all my rates do are go up for no reason. Every election you hear that NJ insurance is going to be fixed and rates will go down, but some how when the election is over our rates stay the same or go up. And I have No tickets, accidents, not one single claim and the rate sneaks up every year. Explain that.

jseah

05-15-2003, 09:01 AM

pjorourke

05-15-2003, 09:18 AM

And there is also a not insignificant piece of your higher rates that were caused by 9-11. The Easter bunny did not pay those multi-billion in claims. (I've seen estimates of $50 Billion in claims -- about 2 hurricane Andrews.) Casualty insurance prices are largely driven by available capital. When huge claims like that take capital out of the industry, premiums go up everywhere.

Slinky Bender

05-15-2003, 09:52 AM

And don't forget what a falling stock market does to insurance premiums.

pswope

05-15-2003, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Daddycool
I do understand your gripe, it is the insurance companies that choose to do this, not your government. Although you could argue that the insurance lobbiest are one of the more powerful lobby groups and lobby to have the age that high. This is also why NJ insurance is a running issue when elections come around but all my rates do are go up for no reason. Every election you hear that NJ insurance is going to be fixed and rates will go down, but some how when the election is over our rates stay the same or go up. And I have No tickets, accidents, not one single claim and the rate sneaks up every year. Explain that.

A substantial reason NJ auto insurance is so outrgeuous is because the 1st party payments made under NO-Fault. The chiropracters and plaintiff's bar have a formidable lobby. One just has to look at the payment schedules in NY vs NJ for chiros. When I was there 11 years ago, Chiros running PI mills were making over $1MM a year. One practice located in Begen/Union/Essex was getting $21MM a year from my company alone.

Most auto insurers cannot mange their claims in a chas positive way and thus (To Slinky's point) once they cease making money on reserves,they go to the Ins Dept for rate relief.
It's(auto insurance) a confederacy of dunces and corruption.