Finally!

lurch70 said:
NYC really .. Long ISland ... cigs are still $3

Where?!

New York State has the same ridiculous taxation that NYC does; perhaps NYC has an additional city tax I'm unaware of, but I've been as far as Syracuse & Buffalo, and it's damned expensive up there too.
 
MadeInNewJersey said:
I don't think you've been to very many places in Long Island. I used to go there quite a bit, and cigs are always $5+/pack.

hmmm .. i am there quite often ... and i am not talking about the Indian Reservations far east either
 
MadeInNewJersey said:
First point: to me, it's simple. A smoker can go outside and still have a cigarette, then continue on with their night in the bar or whatever. A non-smoker CANNOT escape smoking in that same bar, i.e. they can't go outside and have their beer, etc.
Two points:

1. Mandate that bars have a non-smoking section, and that they have smoke removal equipment throughout the bar, if they wish to allow smoking. The place I referenced earlier (Pete's) has such equipment. The first time I went there, I had no idea that the five people at the table behind me were smoking cigarettes until my wife pointed it out to me.

2. As it applies to cigar smokers, of which I am an avid one, I can't go smoke outside at a cigar bar. It kind of defeats the point. And before you say it, no, they are not be grandfathered.

MadeInNewJersey said:
Second point: I don't know anything about documented studies, though I'm fairly certain the necessary info could be found if I had the time or energy to do so.
If you do, you might consider fowarding it over to the anti-smoking lobby folks. I'm certain they'd love to have some actual facts to work with.

MadeInNewJersey said:
UT, what more proof needs to be provided other than people who have developed lung cancer, emphysemia (sp?) or other smoking-related illnesses and yet they themselves do not smoke? It's not really a leap in logic to draw the necessary conclusion, is it?
Well, if the only carcinogens they were ever exposed to came from second-hand smoke, you'd have a point. However, living in NJ, second-hand smoke is the least of your worries.

MadeInNewJersey said:
I sense your issue is with the government stepping in at all, and not so much with it specifically being about smoking. I'm fairly apolitical, so I can't really debate you on the pros/cons, I just know that it doesn't bother me, and I welcome the smoking ban.
All I'm saying is, I think it's a bad idea to welcome government bans, just because you happen to agree with the the one currently open for discussion.

I've now beat my points to death, and will refrain from belaboring them any further. The final words is yours...

Zo
 
Nate The Great said:
I love how the tobacco companies have commercials trying to help people quit smoking. What's up with that?

After phillip morris got the pants sued off them, they were required to provide and promote anti-smoking information according to there settlement with the govt.