New smoking ban proposed for NOLA (New Orleans, Sun: skateboarding, asbestos, safe)

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by AguaDulce

If business owners are embracing the no smoking model, then why does there need to be a law?

Because business owners initially feared the law. Their fears for the most part have been shown to be unfunded.

Originally Posted by AguaDulce

First of all, my proposal is for a cooperatively owned bar. That is a different business model. Secondly, it is not against the law to open a business that might fail.

Great, so now that they understand it, the law has served its purpose. Do you think that if the law were repealed that many of the businesses would choose to go back to allowing smoking on their premises?

I'm not even talking about repealing, incidentally. I'm talking about providing an exemption for a cooperatively owned private club.

No, I do not think that they would go back to smoking. They would lose far more non-smokers than they would gain smokers.

I already showed you some examples of bars with exemptions did not fare well. Some that allowed smoking gave up the smoking for food sales. What makes you think you could do better? There is a far larger potential customer base for a non-smoking venue. Believe it or not, some smokers would forgo visiting in a smoking bar in order to be with friends and family who do not smoke in a non-smoking place. You guys need to realize that those of you who cannot go two to four hours without a cigarette and whose bar experience is incomplete without a cigarette are in a minority that is shrinking. Why do you feel that your non-smoking friends and family would prefer a smoking bar if you really gave them the choice to go somewhere that does not allow smoking?

Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden

Suzy, may I sprinkle some arsenic on your salad? Doesn't sound very appetizing, does it?

I believe it's also carcinogenic.

But if we removed ALL the arsenic from your body, you'd probably die... it's generally accepted to be a necessary micronutrient for human beings.

And there's the answer to the questions around indoor smoke vs. outdoor smoke, and around smokers chain-smoking in a sealed-up Volkswagon ("The Car That Can Float!") vs. smokers smoking in a well-ventilated bar or restaurant. As Paracelsus is well-known for saying, "The Dose Makes The Poison."

But that's the sort of science that Antismokers don't like. The entire "no safe level" justification for smoking bans hinges on a denial of scientific reality. It moves us into the Wacky World where someone drinking a glass of wine on the other side of Madison Square Garden is going to give you cancer from their alcohol fumes, or where a parent panics because their child has walked past an insufficiently curtained window and been struck by a sunbeam.

People are welcome to believe whatever strange things they might want to believe in life. The problem only arises when they want to use those beliefs as justification for governing the lives and behaviors of others.

It's not up to me to prove there is no safe level of second hand smoke. You cannot prove a negative. It is up to you to prove there is a safe level, which you cannot do. Since there is no need to expose anyone to secondhand smoke for any reason, the safest thing to do is not expose anyone to it. Since smokers cannot seem to keep their smoke away from other folks, bans happened. It's much like what pregnant women are told concerning alcohol: since a safe level of consumption cannot be determined, it is best to abstain from alcohol during pregnancy altogether.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Suzy, you wrote, "It's not up to me to prove there is no safe level of second hand smoke. You cannot prove a negative. It is up to you to prove there is a safe level, which you cannot do. Since there is no need to expose anyone to secondhand smoke for any reason, the safest thing to do is not expose anyone to it. "

I can then very much write exactly the same sort of thing about highly volatile and carcinogenic alcohol and demand a law forcing you to take your after dinner drink out to the dumpster to chug it. After all, why should my pregnant wife and my little children have your fumes forced down their throats. "It's not up to me to prove there is no safe level of (alcohol exposure). You cannot prove a negative. ... Since there is no need to expose anyone to (alcohol fumes) for any reason, the safest thing to do is not expose anyone to it."

Suzy, if you were willing to be consistent enough in your reasoning to get behind banning restaurant alcohol consumption and forcing workers to work under the carcinogenic rays of the sun on patios just so you and others can baste your melanomas while sipping your margueritas, then I'd have more respect for your position. I'd still disagree with it, but I'd respect the consistency and honesty of it.

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

No, I do not think that they would go back to smoking. They would lose far more non-smokers than they would gain smokers.

There's one argument for repealing the ban. Not that I'm advocating a repeal. Just stating a fact.

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

I already showed you some examples of bars with exemptions did not fare well. Some that allowed smoking gave up the smoking for food sales. What makes you think you could do better? There is a far larger potential customer base for a non-smoking venue. Believe it or not, some smokers would forgo visiting in a smoking bar in order to be with friends and family who do not smoke in a non-smoking place. You guys need to realize that those of you who cannot go two to four hours without a cigarette and whose bar experience is incomplete without a cigarette are in a minority that is shrinking. Why do you feel that your non-smoking friends and family would prefer a smoking bar if you really gave them the choice to go somewhere that does not allow smoking?

There are bars that decided to ban smoking even though they were exempt. There are likely many reasons why these smoking bars weren't profitable. But you know what? They made that choice on their own. Not because they had to. The market decides. Free enterprise!

Meanwhile, there are other bars who are exempt from the ban that are thriving:

BAR AND BOOKS - HUDSON


Yes, I think I could do better.

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

"Dave Ouderkirk, who was the bar's manager at the time and now co-owns its successor, Al's Wine & Whiskey Lounge, said the benefits of the waiver never really materialized.

'People thought we were in a great position, because we were the only place, or one of the only places, you could smoke,' Ouderkirk said. 'But after a couple of years, the business began to drop off.'

Besides, Ouderkirk said, the bar had to spend a lot of money on cleaning and air ventilation. 'We looked at the filters after the cleanings and realized we were shortening our lives in here,' he said.

When Al's Wine & Whiskey reopened, Ouderkirk and co-owner Carl Johnson ditched tobacco and added food. Business since then has come back strong."

Apparently there were other factors:

https://nccnews.expressions.syr.edu/...constructions/

Again, my business model is totally different. I'm advocating for an exemption for PRIVATE CLUBS that are COOPERATIVELY OWNED and OPERATED.

It keeps the smoke in a confined space. Isn't that what the anti-smoking crusaders want?

Why are you against free enterprise?

[AguaDulce]

It is a waste of time to argue about whether or not secondhand smoke is bad. It's bad. Probably nowhere near as bad as you think, especially outside. But Austin is one city that is poised to consider banning smoking on patios as well. How about, in the interest of protecting the rights of private citizens, we work out a compromise?

The point is this. People smoke. It's legal. Much tax revenue is generated from the sale of tobacco products.

You anti-smoking crusaders won. You got what you wanted. No more smoking in businesses that are accessible by the public. That's a huge victory.

A bar that is a cooperatively owned and operated private club, which permits smoking, but only inside, in a confined space, should be allowed to exist. It fulfills all of the demands of the anti-smoking types.

Whether or not a business like this would be profitable is not the issue.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by AguaDulce

Again, my business model is totally different. I'm advocating for an exemption for PRIVATE CLUBS that are COOPERATIVELY OWNED and OPERATED.

It keeps the smoke in a confined space. Isn't that what the anti-smoking crusaders want?

Why are you against free enterprise?

I am not against free enterprise. I just think you are deluded about how many members you would have.

Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden

Suzy, you wrote, "It's not up to me to prove there is no safe level of second hand smoke. You cannot prove a negative. It is up to you to prove there is a safe level, which you cannot do. Since there is no need to expose anyone to secondhand smoke for any reason, the safest thing to do is not expose anyone to it. "

I can then very much write exactly the same sort of thing about highly volatile and carcinogenic alcohol and demand a law forcing you to take your after dinner drink out to the dumpster to chug it. After all, why should my pregnant wife and my little children have your fumes forced down their throats. "It's not up to me to prove there is no safe level of (alcohol exposure). You cannot prove a negative. ... Since there is no need to expose anyone to (alcohol fumes) for any reason, the safest thing to do is not expose anyone to it."

Suzy, if you were willing to be consistent enough in your reasoning to get behind banning restaurant alcohol consumption and forcing workers to work under the carcinogenic rays of the sun on patios just so you and others can baste your melanomas while sipping your margueritas, then I'd have more respect for your position. I'd still disagree with it, but I'd respect the consistency and honesty of it.

However, there are some potential medical benefits to moderate consumption of alcohol, and there is medical benefit to exposure to sunlight.

Moderate alcohol consumption for men is defined as two drinks per day and for women one drink per day. Since your "fumes" are going to be less than that, they are below a defined level of safety. Exposure to sunlight results in production of Vitamin D in the skin, and it is possible to reduce the risk of melanoma by using sunscreen, so your theory about melanoma in restaurant workers collapses as well.

Since a defined safe level of alcohol consumption does not exist for pregnancy, abstinence is recommended. That is the situation most closely analogous to smoking. In addition, alcoholics are advised to abstain because there is no safe level for them.

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

I am not against free enterprise. I just think you are deluded about how many members you would have.

Fine, but that's all on me.

Are you against allowing this exemption?

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by AguaDulce

Fine, but that's all on me.

Are you against allowing this exemption?

Yes, because it is just a bar if you sell booze. It should be subject to the same rules as other bars.

Have a party and enjoy your cigarettes and booze all you want. It accomplishes the same thing without being a business and being subject to all the other rules of a business.

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Yes, because it is just a bar if you sell booze. It should be subject to the same rules as other bars.

Only businesses that are accessible to the public are subject to the smoking ban. My business would not be accessible to the public.

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Have a party and enjoy your cigarettes and booze all you want. It accomplishes the same thing without being a business and being subject to all the other rules of a business.

The problem with this is that I may be exposing children to secondhand smoke. Children aren't allowed in my private club, because it's a bar.

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

I am not against free enterprise.

free enterprise

a system in which private businesses are able to compete with each other with little control by the government




I think you may be against free enterprise.