PDA

View Full Version : Smokers, Business Owners Unite Against NY Smoking Ban



johnnymk
07-25-2003, 06:08 AM
By Jeff McKay
CNSNews.com Correspondent
July 25, 2003

New York City (CNSNews.com) - Smokers are fighting back against New York's stringent, new smoking ban, which takes effect Thursday, by launching two lawsuits in an attempt to reduce to ashes the ban critics call unconstitutional and discriminatory against smokers.

In March, Republican Gov. George Pataki signed into law a smoking ban that mirrored New York City's prohibition on smoking in public places, including restaurants and bars. The new law would place New York alongside California and Delaware as states with the nation's toughest anti-smoking laws.

Pataki signed the bill into law after the measure was approved by the GOP-led Senate 57-4 and the Democrat-dominated Assembly 96-44.

Now, the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association, which claims that 85 percent of its restaurant and bar patrons smoke, has filed suit seeking a temporary injunction against a law.

Among their arguments is the claim that the Occupational Safety and Health Act currently regulates a worker's exposure to components in secondhand smoke, meaning the New York law would supersede federal law.

The New York City Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (NYC CLASH) has also filed suit, claiming the law is discriminatory in nature.

"This law obviously discriminates against smokers," said Audrey Silk, founder of NYC CLASH. "The people who smoke seem to have been forgotten, and this lawsuit is a chance for the people to be heard."

Under the new statewide law, smoking is prohibited in all places of employment and commerce, including restaurants, bars, public transportation centers, taxis, state-owned vehicles, schools and school grounds, indoor arenas and bingo facilities other than those located on Indian reservations.

Employers would also not be allowed to provide workers smoking break rooms since that would violate the indoor ban.

Penalties for violations by bar and restaurant owners along with commerce establishments would begin at $1,000 per violation, per day.

Smoking will continue to be allowed in privately owned cars, private homes, outdoor stadiums in designated areas only and designated hotel and motel rooms.

Outdoor areas of restaurants where there is no roof can set aside 25 percent of their outdoor space for smokers, and cigar bars established before Jan. 1 where tobacco products account for at least 10 percent of sales may have a smoking area.

Proponents of the ban believe it will protect patrons and employees of establishments from secondhand smoke.

Since Pataki first signed the bill, business owners have shown displeasure with a law they claim with drive customers from their establishments. Recently, storeowners who have lottery machines turned their machines off in a coordinated show of unity against the smoking ban.

Lottery officials report that the "Quick Draw" protests, named after the lottery game, cost the state over $1 million in lottery ticket sales.

In upstate New York, where bingo is popular, critics expect bingo halls will lose 20 to 30 percent of their business when the ban goes into effect.

Anti-smoking activists dismissed the arguments of smokers and their lawsuit. "Their (Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association) suit is groundless. The law will stand. If anything, this is simply a public relations exercise," said Russell Sciandra of the Center for a Tobacco Free New York.

Manhattan Assemblyman Alexander Grannis, who sponsored the law, was unavailable for comment.

In Manhattan, where the ban is already in place, reaction is mixed to a statewide ban.

"It really doesn't bother me. I have no problem with smoking outside here or anywhere else," said Christine Lassiter of Manhattan. "I can understand that nonsmokers don't like the smoke. I smoke because I like to."

"I don't go out as much as I used to. If I can't smoke where I spend my money, then why should I go there," asked Alex Maldonado. "I think the ban is wrong. Telling us where we can and cannot smoke is wrong. This is not what our country's about. What's next...no smoking in your own bedroom?"

nickel
07-25-2003, 06:10 AM
my mother and my sister smoke, but not around me. i HATE the smell of cig smoke. i will be going out tonight and hitting every bar around to CELEBRATE the fresh air.


"I don't go out as much as I used to. If I can't smoke where I spend my money, then why should I go there," asked Alex Maldonado. "I think the ban is wrong. Telling us where we can and cannot smoke is wrong. This is not what our country's about. What's next...no smoking in your own bedroom?"

what kind of mentality is that? smoking in your own bedroom isn't the issue. smoking around people who don't want to breath in your carcinogens is.

cheapie
07-25-2003, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by nickelback
what kind of mentality is that? smoking in your own bedroom isn't the issue. smoking around people who don't want to breath in your carcinogens is.


i'm not sure what i think about this.

i think that if indeed people really are concerned with breathing smoke, they would voice their complaints to the restaurant mgmt. and if enough people did so, mgmt. would make the decision themselves to disallow smoking. my opinion is that this should not be something that is legislated. if you don't want to breathe smoke, go to a smoke-free facility.

but i don't have a dog in this fight so whatever....

whitak24
07-25-2003, 06:59 AM
i guess i find this whole virulent anti-smoking thing to be somewhat odd.

a substance like alcohol does a hell of a lot more damage to lives and health every year than tobacco, yet i don't see people pressing to stop restaurants from serving alcohol.

moreover, while i enjoy smoke free restuarants/bars (i'm not fan of tobacco smoke myself), i think it's unreasonable to say that smokers shouldn't be able to go out for drinks and have a smoke.

nickel
07-25-2003, 07:10 AM
whitak, kinda surprised at your reasoning. if i am standing near someone drinking i don't ingest their alcohol. if i am standing near someone smoking i inhale their smoke. see the difference?

i don't hate smokers. in fact i have a great friend who smokes. that is his call. i still love him, but i don't love to breath in the smoke.

johnnymk
07-25-2003, 07:52 AM
If a guy barfs on me in the restaurant or bar from being totally drunk, then maybe alcohol would have a direct IMMEDIATE effect on me.But that rarely happens.

I can go home from a place where smokers were and my clothes and my hair smell from the very fine particulates from tobacco smoke.
In addition, it takes a day or two for my sinuses and lungs to clear out from that secondary smoke.

The statistics that the Tavern Association gave are very confusing: 85% of the restaurant and bar patrons smoke.
Really? Smokers average 25% of the population. Does that mean that when I go to the Macaroni Grille to eat that only about 3% of the patrons are non-smokers? I doubt it.

In either case, I hope another large State like Pennsylvania is next to adopt this law.

cheapie
07-25-2003, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by johnnymk
If a guy barfs on me in the restaurant or bar from being totally drunk, then maybe alcohol would have a direct IMMEDIATE effect on me.But that rarely happens.

I can go home from a place where smokers were and my clothes and my hair smell from the very fine particulates from tobacco smoke.
In addition, it takes a day or two for my sinuses and lungs to clear out from that secondary smoke.

The statistics that the Tavern Association gave are very confusing: 85% of the restaurant and bar patrons smoke.
Really? Smokers average 25% of the population. Does that mean that when I go to the Macaroni Grille to eat that only about 3% of the patrons are non-smokers? I doubt it.

In either case, I hope another large State like Pennsylvania is next to adopt this law.

i'm guessing that smokers are far more likely to go to a bar than a macoroni grill.

Jeffbx
07-25-2003, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by johnnymk
Now, the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association, which claims that 85 percent of its restaurant and bar patrons smoke, has filed suit seeking a temporary injunction against a law.

I also find it hard to believe that 85% of resturant & bar patrons smoke... I'd be interested to see where he got that number.



Since Pataki first signed the bill, business owners have shown displeasure with a law they claim with drive customers from their establishments.

How will it drive customers away? There's no alternatives. It's not like they're banning smoking in some resturants & not others. Not allowing smoking isn't going to make people stop eating in resturants.

Like others have said, I really don't give a rip if people choose to smoke (or drink, or inhale glue, or whatever). However, when I have to smell someone's secondhand smoke while I'm eating, that ruins my whole meal. I hope they pass this law in every state.

whitak24
07-25-2003, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by nickelback
whitak, kinda surprised at your reasoning. if i am standing near someone drinking i don't ingest their alcohol. if i am standing near someone smoking i inhale their smoke. see the difference?

i don't hate smokers. in fact i have a great friend who smokes. that is his call. i still love him, but i don't love to breath in the smoke.
you raise valid points

i guess i was more referring to the overall agenda of organizations like the Center for a Tobacco-Free New York. i think it's pretty clear that banning smoking in restaurants/bars is only the first step for an organization advocating a "tobacco-free" new york.

while tobacco smoke may have a more visible impact on other people (particularly when a rude smoker is blowing their smoke in your face :angry: ), i would argue that alcohol has a much deeper and more negative impact on the population as a whole. when you look at the percent of domestic violence/abuse that occurs when the abuser is intoxicated, the percent of violent crimes committed by people who are drunk, not to mention the many people who die of cirrosis of the liver, heart disease, drunk driving, etc i think alcohol has at least as negative a societal impact as tobacco in both economic and quality-of-life concerns.

while i am no fan of tobacco smoke (and have a particular aversion to smoking because of the family members who have died due to smoking-related illnesses), i view it as more of an annoyance than a danger to me (unless i was working around it all the time, and my understanding is that there are OSHA regulations governing exposure to second-hand smoke already in place).

nickel
07-25-2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by whitak24
while i am no fan of tobacco smoke (and have a particular aversion to smoking because of the family members who have died due to smoking-related illnesses), i view it as more of an annoyance than a danger to me (unless i was working around it all the time, and my understanding is that there are OSHA regulations governing exposure to second-hand smoke already in place).
i do believe that was one of the focal points of enacting this law. it was to protect restaurant/bar workers from enduring constant second hand smoke. there were no OSHA laws to protect them.

whitak24
07-25-2003, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by nickelback

i do believe that was one of the focal points of enacting this law. it was to protect restaurant/bar workers from enduring constant second hand smoke. there were no OSHA laws to protect them.
well, according to the story, the pro-smokers group believes that OSHA regulates second-hand smoke.

after reading it more carefully, it sounds like maybe what they're saying is that while OSHA doesn't specifically regulate tobacco smoke, it regulates some of the substances found in tobacco smoke.

of course, i don't think OSHA is currently enforcing these regulations, nor do bars, etc appear to be following them. and if an outright ban on smoking is bad, it seems like OSHA regulation might be worse for a lot of small business owners as far as paperwork, compliance activities, legal penalities/liabilities for failure to properly implement the regulations, etc. :shrug:

Nija
07-25-2003, 09:15 PM
I go to the bar. a lot. they allow smoking. they have the best air conditioner I've ever seen :)

I hate people smoking in resturants. That, I can understand outlawing. However, I can't see outlawing smoking, everywhere. It think it should be up to the owners of the bar. You don't like going to a bar were smoker's congregate? That's all well and good, don't go there. But smoker's are people too, and they want to go out and have fun like the rest of us. No one should take that away from them through legislation.

/me huffs his inhaler

ufcrusher
07-25-2003, 10:19 PM
I personally hate all this anti-smoking mumbo jumbo. I think they are trouncing on the rights of those who chose to smoke and they are trying to push their morals on everyone else.

If you want to go to a bar without smoke, then go to a smokeless bar. They are everywhere right? Right? Oh, wait....they really arent everywhere. Hmmm,I wonder why that is. Could it be because a core of most bars clientelle actually smoke? Are there some non-smokers there...of course. Are there probably more non-smokers there than smokers......not in my experience. So you make it that people cant smoke at the bar to appease the non-smokers, but piss of all the smokers. Not exactly sound business practices.

As for those people who claim that it wont have that much of an impact on the sales at the bar, ask yourself this: If you couldnt do what you wanted to do at a bar and you could do what you want to do at home with your friends who you would normally go to a bar with AND you save money, which would you do? Now I am going to be captain obvious and say that you cant really pick up women that you dont know at your house, so if that is your primary goal you are still going to go out to a bar.

Now on the other end of the spectrum...when I went back to Pennsylvania and smelled smoke at a bar, it was a weird thing. I also hated having someone smoking near us while we were eating. So I can understand how non-smokers feel, but I identify with the smokers as well.

I just dont feel its right to completely outlaw smoking indoors at bars and restaurants. If they wanted to "fix" the problem they should allow smoking but require that the restaurants buy expensive air filtering equipment or choose to be non-smoking. That would give the bars the choice and in the end create both environments.

molecularfire
07-26-2003, 11:52 AM
Why don't they just come up with something to put at the end of a cigarette to filter out the smoke. Something kinda like a souped up catalytic converter.

nickel
07-26-2003, 11:55 AM
great, but what about the smoke the smoker actually exhales and puts out there?

molecularfire
07-26-2003, 12:23 PM
Ok... how about a smoking mask. One that covers the nose and mouth... and any other orifice that smoke can come from. :P

nickel
07-26-2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by molecularfire
Ok... how about a smoking mask. One that covers the nose and mouth... and any other orifice that smoke can come from. :P

what other orifice? altho some people have been known to "smoke" after sex :P

molecularfire
07-26-2003, 12:32 PM
Yeah, but that is just heat from the friction. Some KY should fix that problem right up. If you want, we can run some experiments. :P

InfiniteNothing
07-26-2003, 12:46 PM
how about making buisness owners seal off the smokers with a requirement of a certain percentage of nonsmoking area?

molecularfire
07-26-2003, 03:03 PM
They would literally have to seal up the smokers for that to work, because as is, non-smoking sections really don't work. I've sat at plenty of non-smoking sections that were completely filled with smoke (and that's even when I don't order the burritos). I'm not sure how feasible for them to put the smokers in a negative pressure room.

InfiniteNothing
07-26-2003, 03:52 PM
Hey if it makes the buisness owners enough dough ... they'd figure out how to do it.

molecularfire
07-27-2003, 02:18 PM
true.