If the NYC smoking club-going contingent is anything like their SF cousins (debatable), this won't be an issue for long.

A few places initially flaunted it, bringing out the ashtrays later in the evening. But I rarely see that now. Of course, I probably don't patronize the hardest of hardcore dives. The climate here is conducive to the al fresco option and that's where most smokers now smoke. Most everyone seems to be ok with that.

My pals at Bottom of the Hill didn't see any impact, pro or con, on their business when the ban kicked in. Actually, with the mass migration to the patio for a smoke in between sets turned out to be a small blessing in disguise. It makes between-set tear down and set up a little easier with less people congested around the stage.

I smoke cigars ever once in awhile. If NY wants to ban smoking then go ahead, but don't stop there. Go after every personal freedom people have left. I have yet to see where a non-smoker has died from a direct result of second hand smoke. As far has the club stabbing. I think those two boys were looking for a fight that night, and it just happened that it was the smoking issue that caused that man's death. look we don't live in a sugar coated candy gumdrop world. Let's stop taking away peoples freedoms every chance we get just because it is "politicaly correct." I saw on Fox 5 where thier are clubs that still let smoking take place. New Yorkers tell the club owners to take a stand and fight for the personal freedoms of everyone, and not just those leaving in Candyland.

I read that article this morning. How sad. The ban makes the service workers' jobs harder, because here's one more thing they have to tell people not to do, which is already fun when someone is drunk or just being antagonistic.

Brad said:
>If NY wants to ban smoking then go ahead, but don't stop there. Go after every personal freedom people have left. I have yet to see where a non-smoker has died from a direct result of second hand smoke.

(oops, guess I hit the wrong button. I was trying to continue to reply as follows):

As a reformed smoker, who even has lapsed in the past, I honestly don't have an agenda on this.

But ten years ago, in 1993, the EPA concluded second-hand smoke caused lung cancer in adult non-smokers and serious respiratory problems in children. Based on the health hazards, the EPA classified second-hand smoke as a Group A carcinogen (known to cause cancer in humans). They also estimated 3000 non-smokers per year die of lung cancer due to second-hand smoke.

We could debate the validity of these studies. Afterall, it is a governmental finding. ;-) But the lobbyists against the study, Big Tobacco, definitely have the bucks and influence to try to get it discredited. Yet it has stood for ten years. That's a circumstantial validation, for sure, but I still tend to think the evidence must be pretty irrefutable, if tobacco lobby money isn't having an impact on the finding.

But if they're wrong, I'll fire up a fatty with ya.

When the smoking bylaws came into effect here in Toronto (the first attempt failed), we heard all the same doom and gloom prophesies. Bars and restaurants would suffer, etc. As far as I can tell, it hasn't happened. Bars and clubs and restaurants are as full as they ever were. Granted, it's not an absolute ban in restaurants; they can designate a smoking area which has to be a certain % of floorspace or something. But I think an establishment has to designate itself a bar or a restaurant. Bars are smoke-free.

But I haven't seen one establishment close due to lack of smoking patrons. I have heard lots of people who used to complain about bars being too smoky. If I may hazard a guess, I'll bet those people are actually going out more.

It's nice going to a club and not smelling like an ashtray the next day. Why should my clothes stink because someone else decides to put smoke in their lungs? For that matter, why should I have to breathe smoke because someone else wants to put smoke in their lungs? For godsakes, you're inhaling smoke! How can that be good for you? Any kind of smoke. That's why firefighters wear masks.

I dunno. It seems pretty simple to me. A right exists as a right, only until it infringes upon someone else's rights. Just as I don't have a right to blow a loud air-horn in someone's ear, they don't have a right to put smoke in my lungs.

50 years from now, people will shake their heads and wonder why people "back then" used to actually sit—voluntarily—in smoke-filled rooms.

Values are changing. Fewer people are smoking. It's a good thing.

I think it's interesting that people bring up smoker's rights with this issue. Yes, I am one person who may consider going out more often if I know I won't come home smelling like an ashtray. But back to the rights thing... I assume you're basing this on the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. I am certainly no Constitutional scholar, but let's look at the historical context in which the Constitution was written.

It was written by men who were predominantly tobacco smokers. However, these men only smoked under certain conditions. They did not consider it "their right" to smoke whenever and wherever they wanted. They observed rules of conduct while in public and recognized that certain things were not appropriate behavior in public.

They also didn't have the irrefutable scientific evidence we have that smoking is hazardous to both the health of the smoker and those around the smoker. (Thanks for the info Deano.) Are you so certain that men who didn't smoke in public simply because it was polite would defend your right to do so knowing that it is life-threatening?

Of course, most of those same men were also slave owners and womenizers, so who are they to look up to?

On the flip side, however, I know many people who would refrain from hanging out in bars or clubs because of the cigarette smoking who are excited about now being able to do so and to stay out late enjoying it. And who knows? If it gets people to quit, fantastic.

I see we have hit another hot button topic. Thank you Mike. You know how to bring debate to life, but then again you always could. I am not just talking smoker's right. I am talking about basic freedoms. Smoke, don't smoke I don't care, but make a law that doesn't infringe on other people's right to be free. That law has done nothing but open Pandora's box on all kind of laws. What's next a ban on serving alcholic beverages b/c too many people are getting drunk and acting stupid. I know that sounds extreme, but so did banning smoking 10 years ago. As far as that study goes I do remeber it now. Thank you deano. We are fighting for peoples freedom half way across the world while in this country we have certain lawmakers taking a liberal idea and distorting it into something awful. I stand in the middle of the politics road, but why don't we try making a better law that will help people not take away freedom.

"They also estimated 3000 non-smokers per year die of lung cancer due to second-hand smoke."
That statistic is based on a EPA study which has been discredited by most of the medical community and by a federal court. But even if it were true, that's less people than die getting hit by lightning every year - and one hopes that New Yorkers are willing to enjoy a little risk in their lives.

Here's the thing. New Yorker Luis Armstrong died of a smoking related illness. He also sounded like he did because he smoked. It’s a strange balance between doing what you enjoy and the odds of death.

But if drinking and listening to music without smoke in the air appeals to you, I suspect we would never wind up in the same places anyway. Why not just keep it that way? Non-smokers are welcome to stay away from my bars. I encourage it.
A

I dunno Brad. I don't buy the slippery slope argument. But I don't know what's happening in NYC. Are you saying that the smoking ban actually has spawned a bunch of other laws, or just that you fear it will? What other freedoms are you worried about losing exactly?

In any case, smoking is not a basic freedom if it harms others. People are free to smoke in their own homes; they're not free to do so in public places where it harms other people—people who would like to exercise their freedom to breathe smoke-free air.

At the very least, it's a case of competing rights. And in such a case, the ones causing harm forfeit their right.

(Incidentally, most smokers I know who are parents, don't smoke at home around their kids. Strangers in bars are fair game, I suppose.)

And the alcohol analogy doesn't hold water. Nobody's gonna ban alcohol. It's been tried. Besides, the 2 activities don't compare. Alcohol's effect is a matter of degree. In moderation, it's not a problem. If you get drunk and stupid and bother people, you get tossed out of the bar, or, taken to extremes in public, you get arrested for being drunk and disorderly. If you have 100 people in a bar each having one or two beers, no prob. 100 smokers puffing away, you got air pollution.

And Alex, I'm sure if you offered people who have lost a loved one to lung cancer, that they could have that person back alive again, but they'd have to give up their Satchmo CDs... I think there'd be a pile of discs on the curb pretty damn quick.

People, and even jazz singers, are free to do what they enjoy, even if it's dangerous. Skateboarding, car racing, extreme skiing, whatever. Knock yerself out. Just don't knock me out in the process. Once it becomes dangerous to others, they shouldn't be free to do it. People are free to ride their bikes as fast as they want, but not on the sidewalk and not through a shopping mall.

As for lightning, people generally aren't very well educated about the dangers of lightning. We don't have that excuse when it comes to smoking. Studies schmudies. Everyone knows smoking is deadly. Does anyone honestly think it's not harmful? So compared to lightning, and lots of other things. smoking deaths are vastly more preventable.

How many people can you name who have been killed by lightning? How many by smoking-related cancer deaths?

Besides, the lightning stat is misleading. Everyone knows the lightning industry has cooked those numbers for years.

I have lost 3 loved ones to lung cancer and have another in treatment now for throat cancer. I have known firefighters that lost there life to lung cancer. I don't smoke and can't stand smoke but I do not agree with the law. Brad is not allowed to smoke in the house and I do not take our son to places where there is likely to be a smoke.
To me the point is that we are supposed to be grown ups here. I don't want the goverment (be it state or federal) telling me what to do. They already tell me what to do way too much! If they wanted to create a non-smoking section then that is fine but baning it all together seems to me to be going a bit too far.

Public health is the reason for the anti-smoking ban in NYC's bars and restaurants. Employees who are protected by other health and safety regulations are also entitled to smoke-free workplaces, even if that workplace happens to be a place where people go for leisurely purposes. Smokers are free to smoke; that doesn't mean they're entitled to smoke wherever, whenever they want, when it's their habit that imposes a health risk on other people.

I just thought I'd point out that according to the
National Center for Health Statistics 1318 deaths were attributed to lightning in the United States between 1980 and 1995. That's about 80 a year.

Bamboozled by the lightning rod industry again.

I'm a former smoker, and I watched my grandmother suffer for many years with emphysema. Any blow we can strike against Big Tobacco is just fine with me.

This is a public health issue that the government needs to be involved in. It's not an issue of personal freedom.