Smoking Laws in NY and NJ

I hate kissing a smoker...

Then dump him.


Sorry! :Flush:

Ok now we need a one drink per hour limit thats one beer, or one glass of wine, or 1oz achol. Druken driven kills thousands of people each year and alot of the drivers are coming home from bars or Resturants. This will reduce accidents, deaths, save on health insurance, medicade because of injuries in accidents. The less exposure society has from drunkin drivers the lower incidence of accidents and other harmful things drinking does.

Well in case you hadn't noticed, drunken driving is illegal too. DUI laws say you can drink, you just have to find a ride home. The smoking law says you can smoke, just not in this enclosed space.

It's simple. Go outside to smoke, and find an alternative ride home when you're drunk. Nothing needs to be banned completely, that would be taking it way too far. There are ways to reconcile between personal freedoms and respect for the health of others. I honestly wouldn't mind if they tried to make tobacco illegal, but I realize this is totally unrealistic and runs contrary to the freedoms this country stands for. There's a way we can all exercise our freedoms and still protect the health of others around us. You should be allowed to get wasted if you want, as long as you plan to arrange another ride home so you don't hurt people. And you should be allowed to smoke if you want, as long as you smoke outside so you don't hurt people.

PS I work as a financial analyst for Temple University Health System in Philly. We get a grant from the state every year (and so do many other city hospitals) to help cover the costs of treating uninsured patients for illnesses due to smoking. We don't get any such thing to cover the costs of alcohol related illnesses. The state recognizes the financial impact smoking has on hospitals. The financial impact is nowhere close from that of drinking, hence no alcohol grant from the state. Treating lung cancer is A LOT more costly (radiation therapy, chemotherapy, biopsies, lung transplants, lung volume reduction surgery, and surgical removal of tumors) than treating trauma-related injuries from DUI accidents.

No one forces anybody to work in a smoking bar or restaurant. Just like no one is forced to work in a coal mine or join the police or fire departments. I used to work in the restaurant business. There are ALWAYS jobs available for waiters, servers and bartenders. The turnover rate is like nothing you've ever seen in that field. If there are absolutely no restaurants that non-smoking employees can stand, then move to a place where there are non-smoking restaurants. If you can’t find any, THEN FIND A NEW LINE OF WORK.

Oh sure, Beem. Go ahead and tell everyone who is subjected to smoky environments that if they don't like it, find another job. If you were running for office with that stance, you'd lose in a landslide. People don't want to hear a leader say, "if you don't like it, tough sh*t, deal with it."

I know you're not a politician, but your stance is not realistic from a politics point of view. There are too many votes there to just brush off the problem.

Lets say smoking was banned and everyone stopped smoking tomorrow... obviously in the long run the average age of the population is going to increase and probably result in an increase in health care costs anyway.

I wonder how much of a tradeoff it would be... killing people off early vs. people living longer.

By the way. Have any of you seen "Thank You For Smoking"? It's actually a pretty entertaining movie, though it has a bit of a lull about 3/4ths in but it starts and ends strong.

I go back to Malcolm's point: What's easier?

A) The smokers walk outside, catch a smoke, come back in.
B) Non-Smokers search far and wide for the one of the very few bars and restaurants that don't allow smoking, many driving a great distance to get there because such a business is rare.

Lets say smoking was banned and everyone stopped smoking tomorrow... obviously in the long run the average age of the population is going to increase and probably result in an increase in health care costs anyway.

I wonder how much of a tradeoff it would be... killing people off early vs. people living longer.

But when people live longer and healthier lives, they contribute to society by working longer.

If you're assuming the average retirement age stays exactly where it is now, then I agree with you. But it won't. As the country's life expectancy rises, many will continue working well into their 60s and 70s (especially amongst the working class population who don't have the wherewithall to build large retirement savings accounts).

I know I'm doing my rapid-fire post thing again, where I pretty much talk to myself. But I felt the need to point out one more thing.

There is a subset of the population that views bars as a necessary part of life. Many single people rely on bars to meet people and socialize. Let's face it, they are the single biggest central location for dating and meeting members of the opposite sex. Yes, there are other ways to meet people, and bars may not be the best bet to meet your future wife. But to find a date, for many, that's the place to go.

So in a way, when you say "if you don't like smoke, go somewhere else", you're in effect limiting the freedoms of the non-smokers. Because smokers are allowed to exercise their freedom to smoke in a bar, you're asking the non-smokers to make a choice between their health and a social life to some extent.

It's easier if the smoker just walks outside to catch his smoke.

.



It's easier if the smoker just walks outside to catch his smoke.yeah, we are talking like 5 min. its not like we want to banish all smokers to one place but rather just ask them to smoke their poison in private so we dont have to smell that shit!

Well in case you hadn't noticed, drunken driving is illegal too. DUI laws say you can drink, you just have to find a ride home. The smoking law says you can smoke, just not in this enclosed space.

It's simple. Go outside to smoke, and find an alternative ride home when you're drunk. Nothing needs to be banned completely, that would be taking it way too far. There are ways to reconcile between personal freedoms and respect for the health of others. I honestly wouldn't mind if they tried to make tobacco illegal, but I realize this is totally unrealistic and runs contrary to the freedoms this country stands for. There's a way we can all exercise our freedoms and still protect the health of others around us. You should be allowed to get wasted if you want, as long as you plan to arrange another ride home so you don't hurt people. And you should be allowed to smoke if you want, as long as you smoke outside so you don't hurt people.

PS I work as a financial analyst for Temple University Health System in Philly. We get a grant from the state every year (and so do many other city hospitals) to help cover the costs of treating uninsured patients for illnesses due to smoking. We don't get any such thing to cover the costs of alcohol related illnesses. The state recognizes the financial impact smoking has on hospitals. The financial impact is nowhere close from that of drinking, hence no alcohol grant from the state. Treating lung cancer is A LOT more costly (radiation therapy, chemotherapy, biopsies, lung transplants, lung volume reduction surgery, and surgical removal of tumors) than treating trauma-related injuries from DUI accidents.I no driving and drinking is illegal but rest. and bars still serve drunk people that they know are going to be driving. So by passing this law you would be looking out for the good of everyone.