Smoking Laws in NY and NJ

No doubt it hurts him. But I'd bet my life that if you showed me his books, he's still turning a profit.

If he is it's very minimal. He's been closing early weeknights and not opening on sundays because it's just not worth it.

The smoking bans hurt the small guys more than anyone.

If I knew I was loosing the 65% of the non smokers to a non smoking bar do to the smokers I would become a non smoking bar. Then word would get around and the 65% going to anothr smoking bar may come to my bar.

Why would I go to the non-smoking bar? The chicks who put out the easiest are going to be at the smoking bar.

Seriously, if non-smoking bars and restuarants were good for business, there wouldn't need to be a law.

On top of that, while it goes against the conventional wisdom, the arguement that second hand smoke causes anything more serious than stinky clothes is simply junk science. There causal link between second hand smoke and cancer or any lung disease has not been established nor is it likely to exist. There simply isn't enough concentration of any hazardous substance in even the most smoke filled dive to do any damage.

By way of antedotal evidence....

How many non-smokers spend significant time in heavy smoking environments yet never smoke themselves? Quite a few, right?

Well, far more powerful than the cancer causing agents smoking are the addictive properties of nicotine. If second hand smoke was a problem, just walking into a bar would get people addicted.

Nicotine causes addiction, not cancer like the tar from the smoke that is in the air.

But yup, if she smokes, she pokes. ;)

On top of that, while it goes against the conventional wisdom, the arguement that second hand smoke causes anything more serious than stinky clothes is simply junk science. There causal link between second hand smoke and cancer or any lung disease has not been established nor is it likely to exist. There simply isn't enough concentration of any hazardous substance in even the most smoke filled dive to do any damage.

Not even anywhere REMOTELY close to the truth.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Environmental_Tobacco_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp



Secondhand smoke can be harmful in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:
An estimated 35,000 to 40,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are not current smokers
About 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmoking adults
Other respiratory problems in nonsmokers, including coughing, phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations
Increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million asthmatic children.Canada agrees:
http://www.bchealthguide.org/healthfiles/hfile30a.stm


People who do not smoke, and who are exposed to the toxic chemicals in second-hand smoke on a regular basis, can suffer serious and life-threatening health problems.

In the long term, people exposed to second-hand smoke have a greater risk of suffering from lung cancer, nasal sinus cancer, heart disease, stroke, and breathing problems, including increased coughing, wheezing, pneumonia, bronchitis, and asthma.

People who live with someone who smokes and are exposed to tobacco smoke on a regular basis have a 30 per cent increased risk of developing lung cancer and heart disease.

People who do not smoke will suffer from the effects of breathing second-hand smoke right away. Even as little as 8 to 20 minutes can cause physical reactions linked to heart disease and stroke, such as increased heart rate, less oxygen to the heart, and constricted blood vessels that increases blood pressure and makes the heart work harder.

Pregnant women exposed to second-hand smoke can have a greater risk of miscarriages and babies with low birth weight.


I've got LOTS more where that came from.

On top of that, while it goes against the conventional wisdom, the arguement that second hand smoke causes anything more serious than stinky clothes is simply junk science. There causal link between second hand smoke and cancer or any lung disease has not been established nor is it likely to exist. There simply isn't enough concentration of any hazardous substance in even the most smoke filled dive to do any damage.

Riggo, do you have any science to back up this absurd statement? If you're going to pull things out of your a$$, I hope you have someone backing you up.

WebMD:

Is Second-Hand Smoke Harmful to a Person with Asthma?

Second-hand smoke is the combination of smoke from a burning cigar or cigarette and smoke exhaled by a smoker.

Inhaling second-hand smoke, also called "passive smoke" or "environmental tobacco smoke," may be even more harmful than actually smoking. That's because the smoke that burns off the end of a cigar or cigarette contains more harmful substances (tar, carbon monoxide, nicotine, and others) than the smoke inhaled by the smoker.

Second-hand smoke is especially harmful to people who already have asthma. When a person with asthma is exposed to second-hand smoke, he or she is more likely to experience the wheezing, coughing and shortness of breath associated with asthma.

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/45/1660_51090.htm

As a retired smoker, I had mixed feelings when Delaware banned smoking in public buildings - including all businesses. I'm not one of those "holier than thou" types (Actually, I probably am holier than thou, but it has nothing to do with smoking. I'm just very holy. Nothing personal.), so I didn't think the decision on smoking should be made by anyone but the business themselves. If a restaurant chose to cater to a smoking clientelle, then so be it.

In Delaware, it's a cash fine to the business if someone is smoking in their establishment - the smoker faces no penalty. That's garbage to begin with - but it gets worse. In addition to the fine, a business faces suspension of their liquor license. Since only restaurants and bars can face that portion of the punishment, it's a horrible application of the law.

I have to tell you though, when I go out to a bar, it's very nice not to smell like smoke when I get home.

They're very different. One rule denies people the opportunity to eat food anywhere. The other denies people the opportunity to smoke IN CERTAIN PLACES. I don't see what's so hard to understand here. One is an all out ban, the other simply designates areas as off-limits.

I'm not talking about an all-out ban, Schneed. I never said anything about a ban on all fried, fatty, unhealthy foods EVERYWHERE. I'm talking restaurants only. In this scenario, I'm assuming that you can eat whatever you want if you go elsewhere, or decide to eat at home -- just like you can with smoking -- if you don't like it, you can stay home and eat or find another restaurant.

If the government can ban smoking in restaurants to protect the health of the patrons, why can't they do the same with the food that restaurant serves?

speaking of smoking....

Today, of course, is April 20 so Happy 420 Day!

:cool-smil

puff...puff...pass

speaking of smoking....

Today, of course, is April 20 so Happy 420 Day!

:cool-smil

puff...puff...pass

I was just about to post a 4/20 day thread.

I think it's worthy of it's own thread, :cool-smil:cool-smil:cool-smil:cool-smil:cool-smil

Just wish I was going to be celebrating it in true 4/20 fashion, unfortunately I'm all dried up. :(