So, a “compromise” has been reached and it’s reported that the bill will be voted on and passed. As of April of next year, smoking will no longer be allowed in bars or restaurants in NYC, or basically anywhere that has employees. Apparently the “process of public input” is still open but the impression given is that the ban will go through.
This is from a press release from the mayor’s office:
Quote:The bill, Intro. 256-A, would prohibit smoking in all public places and places of employment in New York
City, with the following exemptions:
Sidewalk cafés, backyard gardens, and rooftop gardens of restaurants and bars may permit smoking in
no more than 25% of the square footage of the area.
ok, so at most places if they’re lucky to have a handful of tables outside, they’ll be able to have a teensy smoking section that will get over crowded and create a nice big cloud for everyone to walk through on their way in and out of the establishment.
Quote:Small, owner operated bars, where there are no employees and all duties are performed by the principal owners of the establishment, may permit smoking.
well, here’s a possible loophole, all employees could be made partial owners, but of course that could make things very complicated.
Quote:All residential healthcare facilities, including nursing homes and assisted living residences, and day
treatment programs for substance abuse may offer a room where smoking is permitted.
that’s all well and good. But these aren’t places that rely on people coming in to relax and have a cigarette for their business.
Quote:Private clubs that are member operated and have no employees, such as some Veterans of Foreign
Wars clubs, may permit smoking.
when they first brought up the idea of banning smoking, I thought this might be a way around it. You could make the place a “private club” by just charging, for example, a membership fee for a buck, and only allowing members and their “guests” but I guess it doesn’t work. Back to that old employee technicality.
Quote:Only existing cigar bars may continue to permit smoking.
woo hoo. I guess that’s the “compromise” they were talking about. Originally they were going to ban smoking in the cigar bars too. I don’t think I need to expand on that to point out its ridiculousness. But it says existing, I guess there won’t be any new ones opening any time soon.
Quote:Bars may construct a separate, negatively-pressurized “smoking room.” No employees will be
permitted to serve food or beverages in the room or enter the room to clean until after the room is
vacated. This provision will sunset after 36 months of the bill’s enactment in order to allow the
Administration and the Council to evaluate its effect on the quality of life in the City.
yes, a room where no employees are allowed to enter. That sounds like a plan. And do they really expect all these small business owners, who are already struggling with the economy being in the shitter, to construct specialty rooms just so in 3 years they can take them down again when the government decides to interfere some more.
So, that pretty much sums it up. There’s more info
here
What do you think? Does anyone feel it’s a good idea, because I’d love to hear your point of view. The way i see it, bar and restaurant employees will have to police people and you know how much smokers like to have a cigarette with their beer. As one of the employees that bloomberg is claiming to want to protect, i feel i'd rather deal with the second hand smoke than deal with a beligerent drunk who insists on lighting up.
What about those of you who live outside of the city. Will this affect your going out plans? If there’s no smoking in the city will you still come in to hang out? Or will you go somewhere local that hasn’t been violated.
1. Why raise the cigarette tax if you can't smoke them anywhere?
2. This bill will force drunk people to stand outside bars and clubs smoking at 4 am. GREAT IDEA!
even dinkins could do a better job than this moron
We've been smoke free here in California for about 10 years. When the bars and restaurants first went smoke free, there was a huge backlash. People were continuing to smoke inside...until the owner of the establishments were fined. It took awhile for everyone to get used to going outside to smoke, but now most people don't even give it a second thought anymore. And being a (mostly) non-smoking person, it's nice to enjoy a meal without someone's cigarette smoke wafting in my face. Not everyone is a considerate smoker.
When the law was first passed, bar owners were saying their business was going to drop drastically or they would have to close their establishments. But everyone has to comply with the law...it's not like they could go to a different bar down the street and smoke. Also, most bars/restaurants have provided an area outside for people to smoke with benches and ashtrays. It's just a way of life now.
On a side note, when I was back east last month, I was asked if I wanted "smoking or non-smoking". I hadn't been asked that question in so long, I forgot the answer!!!
Anyone who knows me thinks that I personally think smoking is terrible waste of money, as wealth as taxing on your health, but I have never, EVER condemmed anyone for smoking, I made my choice, you make yours.....Which is what really bothers me about this, because it is just about as unamerican as you can get....Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, unless someone is offended, unless a few groups complain about it, unless unless unless.
I love this country, but we are going down the shitter faster than Rosie O'Donnell goes through a box of Ho-Hos. We had a perfect compromise going, smoking and non-smoking sections, why wasn't that good enough? We are no longer stopping illegal activities, we have resorted to banning LEGAL substances, what the Hell is wrong with this country? Why are people sitting idly by while civil liberties are being violated left and right? Because all of us have the same mentality, a little bit of my liberty gone for my own personal fucking safety. What's next, do we plan on banning fatty meats because they are unhealthy? You laugh, but if you traveled back in time and told someone from the 20s or 50s that one day smoking would be banned in certain areas, they would laugh and have you declared insane.
Now the second part of this that worries me, in a country where people are struggling left and right to keep a job, pay their bills etc, etc, etc we have now passed something that WILL probablly affect buisnesses. Why go out if you aren't allowed to smoke in a bar, why go out for that nice meal if you can't enjoy a cigarette afterwards? For a society that is worried more and more about kids and adults staying home rather than socialise, we sure are doing alot to make sure people stay at home.
But after saying all that, I forsee this being repealed in a few years, because they will see that it is not cost-effective, and in the end this country still bows down to the allmighty dollar bill.
the difference kindred is that in california its not in the 20's and 30's outside for 3 months out of the year.
I don't smoke either, but I agree that the law is pretty dumb.
BTW, cigarettes in maryland are $3.50 a pack.
I smoke. I quit smoking a few years ago, I started back up. When I quit, I never had a problem with other people smoking around me. Ever. When I go to a restaurant and they ask me "smoking or non-smoking", I always say "first available". I like the idea of having a choice (Mrs. Goat thinks I quit a while ago, which I did, I just fall off the wagon a lot - heh). Anyway, when we go to eat, she prefers non-smoking, but most times she'll take the smoking section, especially if the wait for non-smoking is long.
My point is options are a good thing. I don't light up to annoy people around me, and if I'm in a situation where i feel I might do that, I'll take it someplace else or I won't light up. To ban it totally is ludicrous. It will affect a lot of businesses, and people will become dejected about going out to places - if anything, they'll look for places that don't enforce it, or keep it very low-key, which will drive customers away. I don't like having my choices made for me.
And as Kindred said, I'm sure eventually people will adjust to it, but I don't think we should have to. As taxpayers, we give this city way too much of our income as it is, let alone the fleecing that goes on that most people don't even know about (example - I have to pay the city a "transfer tax" because I sold a house, and I have to pay the city a "mortgage tax" because i bought a house! I forget the percentage, but I believe they're both either 1% or 2% of the sale and purchase price - and in this market, thats a Hell of a lot of cash to pay just to relocate).
Ever since 9/11, the city has been trying to keep people here - residents and businesses alike. Every day, it's getting a little more expensive to live here, and salaries/wages are not climbing fast enough to maintain a comfortable level for most of us. To make life that much harder for people by telling them they essentially can't smoke anywhere save for the privacy of their own home is just the wrong move to make right now, IMO. This mayor apparently feels he doesn't need to try and win the people onto his way of thinking, and he's just gonna make decisions he feels comfortable with (meaning, whatever he feels will roll in the cash).
And Silera makes a good point that I have yet to understand :
Quote:Why raise the cigarette tax if you can't smoke them anywhere?
This makes absolutely NO SENSE to me. He raises the tax because he knows there are millions of people who smoke, and it would bring in a Hell of a lot of cash to the city. Now he shoots himself in the foot by saying you can't smoke anywhere. if this was his attempt to get NY'ers to quit smoking, he should've just banned it and made smokes illegal.
Bloomy is really fucking things up, and we've got a ways to go with him still. If he wants to raise the quality of life, why doesn't he put some money into cleaning up run-down areas and streets? He wants to rebuild lower Manhattan because that'll keep big business in town, but the rest of the city can go to shit - unbelievable.
I've never smoked but I agree that this is yet another violation of our liberties as US citizens. I've never really been bothered by second hand smoke, and I question how much it really affects people, especially when you have the choice of a smoking or non-smoking section most times. Bottom line, if you're gonna condemn smoking so much, just make it illegal rather than tease smokers with huge taxes and bans in just about all private venues.
Just plain short sighted and dumb.
First, by raising the tax on cigs Bloomberg was looking to close a budget shortfall. All you do is drive more money into the underground economy. Real smart Billionaire Bungling Fool. No money for YOU!
This is one of the worst cases of over reaching government. When are people going to say enough is enough and start shooting these bastards?
ok, so how much does a pack of smokes cost in the tri-state area?
i remember when i started smoking they cost less than 2 bucks a pack. i was a bad kid and started early, really early.
i quit cold turkey for real(similar to goat & mrs. goat) and have saved soooo much money.
if all goes well, i'll be getting 3 cartons for 41 bucks soon.
mokey: they were 1.75 when i started, but that was in florida, now i'm lucky if i find them for 6.50, mostly 7 or more in the city...
whew, i'm really glad i quit.
I can remember buying (for my Mom at the time) butts for .65 a pack at 7 or 8.
I started at about $1 a pack and quit cold turkey when they reach $1.50 hardest and best thing I've ever done.
I kinda see this law as being similar to the seatbelt law. The government knows not wearing a seatbelt is dangerous and punishes you for endangering yourself by writing tickets, etc. Similiarly, we know cigarettes are bad for you, and second hand smoke is bad as well, so the government is stepping in and protecting people. The only difference here is the fact that all cars are equipped with seatbelts and there is no extra cost involved in putting one on, however, if you want smoking to be allowed in your establishment, you have to build little vacuum sealed rooms, etc. which seems to be an unfair cost for bar owners to have to take on. The city should at least subsidize the needed renovations, etc. for bars that wish to have smoking areas, etc.
Quote:We've been smoke free here in California for about 10 years.
every bar i went into in LA, i smoked. nobody said a word and to get around the law they put out glasses of water instead of ashtrays. i guess that way they could say they werent condoning it.
You're such a rebel
Both sides have good arguments, but I personally still feel that the argument for banning smoking is unamerican. We have seperate areas in restaurants, and you don't have to go into a bar to drink, so you CAN avoid second hand smoke, so the only risk taken is by the people smoking, and they've all accepted it.
Edited By LyricalGomez on 1039877170
I forsee riots pillaging the streets very soon, the only thing smoking will be buildings.
i don't wanna get murdered by an angry customer :-(
Picture some dude who is at the brink already cause life is stressful enough as it is. He has to sit through some wicked traffic with 3 smelly strangers he picked up to make it through the city, he has to pay 30 bucks to park his car. All he wants is a drink and walks into a bar and then can't light up...
From that point just picture Michael Douglas in Falling Down.