beet1e: No lie, Miko. The facts are all over the web.
I live in New York City. I work in New York City. I frequently go the the restaurants in New York City. I know what I see and what I smell and I know english well anough to understand "Smoking or non-smoking" when I enter.
I also know what kind of commotion the New York City Smoke-Free Air Act of 2002 created here, no comparison with what happened in 1995 - even though according to you it was totally useless because all smoking was elimnated in 95. I must be an idiot who does not get around much but so must be Mayor Bloomberg. If only he could talk to you, he would know that there was no need for a hugely controversial act or 2002.
Well, I guess I was going to establishments with more than 35 seats then. And there was definitely no "separately enclosed & ventilated smoking room".
Yes, propbaly you did not go into any one of the 13,000 establishments in which smokers could smoke. Or maybe you went into one and did not even notice the smoking - because it is separated and did not bother anyone.
The act of 2002 was clearly intended to "protect" employees only - not to allow non-smokers enjoy meals unmolested, as ignorants claim here. With less then 25% of seats dedicated to smoking in a separate ventilated area, nobody had to go hungry because of evil smokers in NYC stinking the place up.
What's the problem, Miko? Do you deny that there actually was a 1995 Smoke-Free air Act?
I do not deny that there was such an act. I deny your false assertion that 1995 Act eliminated smoking in the NYC restaurants. It clearly did not. I deny you false assertion that "Their no smoking law had been in existence for some time." It was not a "no smoking" law. It was "smoking restricted to separate area with no more than <25% of seating if more then 35 places" law.
I told you that "What you did enjoy was good ventilation systems and separation of the restaurants into smoking and no-smoking zones." - exactly like it was.
On which you disagreed: "No, I am not confused. But you are obstinate. If I were entering a restaurant in the US in which smoking was allowed, the first two things the maître D would ask me is "For how many" and "Smoking or Non". I distinctly remember not having been asked the second question in New York in 1995 because by then it was a redundant question."
Now you post the quote indicating that it was exactly as I described - "Separately enclosed & ventilated smoking room (<25% of entire seating capacity) ". And maybe there was no smoking allowed in Paz on Broadway near 84th St. but you are making statements about all NYC based on one visit to one place - not 13,000 others.
How could the question have been redundant if in 13,000 restaurants smoking was allowed?
What the 2002 Act appears to have done is to snuff out smoking at those few establishments which were exempted from the 1995 Act.
Yes, just the measly 13,000 of them...
Did I forget to mention that there was smoking allowed in 13,000 of NYC restaurants before the 2002 act?
miko
