Restaurant Smoking Ban

[tommy]

There have been few, i'd say no, studies that have proven that your drinking affects the woman across the bar from you...

I wouldn't say that. I've been told on very good authority that it makes them prettier.

LOL!!!

ah, now that's much better.

[Fat Guy]

Tommy, do you believe the manufacture and sale of cigarettes should be illegal?

[Felonius]

I'm throwing my vote in with Glenn and Adam Smith. The government controls too much of my life already (hell I work six months a year for the government, just to pay my taxes).

Does anyone have a link or information on one of these second-hand smoke studies? Has there been evidence that a non-smoker bartender or cocktail waitress has come down with a second-hand smoke induced medical condition? Everyone seems to take this for granted, but I have never heard of a non-smoker who was admitted to the hospital with emphysema or other smoking related conditions. I find it hard to believe that a well-ventilated bar poses a credible health threat. I suspect the air pollution on an average day in NYC is as much or more of a threat. And if there is a real health issue with second-hand smoke, why not pass a law requiring bars to have non-smoking areas and/or to install some sort air filter or ventilation?

[glenn]

This may not be pc, but I don't think government should stick their big fat noses in regulating smoking. That applies to smoking anywhere except for public places (and where it might pose a fire hazard), not just bars or restaurants. If IBM wants to allow smoking, more power to 'em. I firmly believe if government hadn't stuck their big butts in and starting regulating where people could smoke, society would have taken care of it for better or worse. And just to make it clear, there is no personal agenda here as I am a non smoker and I try to avoid those restaurants that allow smoking, though i do work in a restaurant, but i am only a lowly clock puncher (and watcher).

Edit a totally unclear assertion: By public places I mean governmental facilities such as transportation facilities, libraries, etc. vs. privately owned businesses.

[jordyn]

Felonious:

Do a Google search. The EPA, WHO, American Lung Association and other groups have shown that secondhand smoke leads to lung cancer; lung diseases such as bronchitis and asthma; heart disease; and other ailments. I'm not familiar with any studies that look specifically at bartenders, but since levels of secondhand smoke are much higher in many bars than in a typical workplace where the studies were conducted, I can't imagine how you'd argue that the results were magically not applicable.

I also can't possibly imagine that absent some sort of short-lived calamity that the level of particulates and poisons in the air in New York City ever gets within a thousand times that which you see in a smoky New York bar.

Glenn:

If people were running around spraying Anthrax on other people "just for fun", would you see no governmental interest there, either?

[Fat Guy]

It would be easier to convince me that smoking should be banned on the public streets of New York City than in a bar or other private place of business. And I agree that society takes care of these things in due course: That there is support for these smoking bans indicates that there is also support for all the private action that would be necessary to bring smoking in restaurants, etc., into line with what consumers are willing to accept.

[Beachfan]

I happily play both sides of the issue

We need a last refuge of sin.

If you can't smoke in a bar, then where?

vs.

Why should non-smokers be prevented from working in bars by the nature of working conditions.

This same type of law has been in effect in California for a few years, and life is much more pleasant for me and all my friends.

And the reality of my ambivalence:

1) I support the concept (after initially opposing it in California)

2) I own Phillip Morris stock

[Rail Paul]

Does anyone have a link or information on one of these second-hand smoke studies?  Has there been evidence that a non-smoker bartender or cocktail waitress has come down with a second-hand smoke induced medical condition?  ?

There was considerable evidence introduced in the flight attendant cases about the impact of second hand smoke on persons required to work in smoky environments (aircraft, etc) for sustained periods of time. I don't think it's a far jump to bar tenders, waitresses and others who have similar exposure over severa years. Settlements in the first two cases were in the two billion range, IIRC.

We're not talking about customers who drop in for a snort (whoops, drink) after work. There are folks who work 40 hours in smoky, potentially dangerous situations, week in and out.

(Of course an even greater liabiility is the crew which delivers pesticides to lawns. I've seen these guys soaked in stuff which has more x's on the warning label than some porno videos. You couldn't get me to buy a dime of stock in these guys or their insurers.)

[foodgeek]

I'm not gonna jump into that debate.....but I do want to say that if the ban ever sticks...there are some places that I would love to eat/drink at that I can't now (since smoke gets me sick.) Places that come to mind are N~ and a small cafe in Queens (that has great coffee).

[SobaAddict70]

I don't expect this issue to become law for several years.

In fact, I expect a class-action lawsuit any day now, from some obscure angle in the City Charter to cause the courts to block passage of the bill on constitutional grounds, or soon after the bill is passed.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

SA

[Wilfrid]

Rail Paul, I'm not sure you're right about awards to air stewards. A class action brought in Florida a few years back established, in that state anyway, that ETS on aircraft could be a hazard to air cabin attendants. Individual members of cabin crew then needed to bring individual proceedings to establish their own entitlement to damages. I heard that one or two had won awards - which is not that many - but I didn't think the sums were so great.

There have been relatively few successful law suits brought by workers claiming to have been made sick by tobacco smoke in the workplace. The main reason is probably that they need to demonstrate they have a condition caused (a) by tobacco smoke and (b) by tobacco smoke at work, not at home or someplace else.

Which is not to say that people - even the relatively small number of non-smoking bartenders - shouldn't get protection unless they can bring a successful law suit.

Even as a non smoker, I support good ventilation rather than a ban. I've been to San Francisco, and the spectacle of smokers hopping in and out of the bar door to take a drag was silly and annoying. If so many people really don't like smoking in bars, you'd think no-smoking bars would be numerous and popular. Why aren't they?

Edit: I checked on the flight attendants. The first award wasmade in June this year - $5.5 million. Of course, who knows if there'll be more?

[Stone]

In California, it's been illegal to smoke in bars or restaurants since 1998 (or 1999, can't remember). The prophesized death of the drinking establishment has yet to occur. Of course, in CA, it's rarely too hot or too cold for the smokers to stand outside and indulge their habit, err, addiction.

Although I hate smoking, at first I was against the ban in bars. But now, I have to admit that I enjoy the smoke free environment, and I definitely notice more than ever how much my clothes, hair, etc., smells like smoke after a few hours at a bar in NY.

Yes, someday cigarettes will be illegal. When we have a government that is willing to accept the fact that its not right to trade off health in order to reap the tax dollars from the cigarette industry (and not piss off voters in North Carolina, Tennesse, etc.). (This is only one of many reasons.)

By the way, remember when an official of the Bush I administration testified before Congress that smoking saves healthcare costs because by dying younger of cancer, heart disease, etc., people save the exorbinant long-term health care costs of growing old?

[Wilfrid]

And of course, it's not just tax dollars. Most of the states are now pledged vast sums by the tobacco manufacturers going forwards as a result of the litigation settlement several years ago. This, of course, is an incentive for the states to ensure that the companies remain profitable, so I don't see the noses coming out of the troughs in the too near future.

[Stone]

I just saw a news report about one state, I think one of the Carolinas but I'm not sure, that has not spent a dime of the tens of millions it has received from the tobacco settlement on anti-smoking campaigns. Instead, it has spent the money on commercial projects, including a tobacco museum and the construction of a tobacco processing plant. No kidding.

[Bux]

If so many people really don't like smoking in bars, you'd think no-smoking bars would be numerous and popular.  Why aren't they?

That seems such an obvious question that even I had to think twice. I remember when the current ban on smoking in restaurant was being proposed a similar question about no-smoking restaurants was asked. What I recall was that maybe with an exception or two, no one had the nerve to try, but the response of the restaurant industry was that restaurants in NYC would die if the proposed ban was passed as law. Guess what, it didn't happen. The industry thrived, until now, but it's the economy that drives restaurants not smoking.

The only point I'd make is that there are popular bars that people don't seem to avoid that are non-smoking, but they are upscale bars. Any of Danny Meyer's restaurant bars come to mind.

Anyway, the intent of the current proposal is not to provide a smoke free environment for people to drink in, but to provide a smoke free working environment and that's what the arguments will have to address.

[Rail Paul]

Rail Paul, I'm not sure you're right about awards to air stewards.  A class action brought in Florida a few years back established, in that state anyway, that ETS on aircraft could be a hazard to air cabin attendants.  Individual members of cabin crew then needed to bring individual proceedings to establish their own entitlement to damages.  I heard that one or two had won awards - which is not that many - but I didn't think the sums were so great.

There have been relatively few successful law suits brought by workers claiming to have been made sick by tobacco smoke in the workplace.  The main reason is probably that they need to demonstrate they have a condition caused (a) by tobacco smoke and (b) by tobacco smoke at work, not at home or someplace else.

Which is not to say that people - even the relatively small number of non-smoking bartenders - shouldn't get protection unless they can bring a successful law suit.

Even as a non smoker, I support good ventilation rather than a ban.  I've been to San Francisco, and the spectacle of smokers hopping in and out of the bar door to take a drag was silly and annoying.  If so many people really don't like smoking in bars, you'd think no-smoking bars would be numerous and popular.  Why aren't they?

Edit:  I checked on the flight attendants.  The first award wasmade in June this year - $5.5 million.  Of course, who knows if there'll be more?

Bux -

I think you put your finger on the issue. Good ventilation will dramatically improve the air quality for people who work in bars and other areas where smoking is allowed. It already works wonders in grain elevators, sawmills, chemical plants, etc.

Wilfrid -

There are cases, however, as you note.

One was a 1997 $350mn judgement against Phillip Morris, et al, which established the legal standard the industry must prove that second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, emphysema, etc in cabin attendants. The industry chose not to appeal that verdict, which is known as "Broin." The flight attendants now file their own suits and litigate based on their personal situations.

Rosenblatt, in Miami, was lead counsel, and he recently (June, 2002) won the first Broin flight attendant individual case. Lynn French was awarded $5.5mn (she had asked for one million). "French" will likely be a template for subsequent litigation. in Florida, California, New York, and elsewhere. The industry is appealing.

Flight attendants for NorthWest litigated separately and won a nine figure judgement, as well. I'll find that one.

[=Mark]

FG, I don't know if that argument is so different than suing a company, i.e., fast food chain, for serving fatty food.  Do we really need more laws?

Aaaaahhh! They're gonna outlaw pizza! Nina, grab your avatar and head for the hills!

[LaNiña]

Earlier in this thread I said something about hurrying up and eating chicken fat before it's criminalized...

[Wilfrid]

Wilfrid -

There are cases, however, as you note.

One was a 1997 $350mn judgement against Phillip Morris, et al, which established the legal standard the industry must prove that second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, emphysema, etc in cabin attendants. The industry chose not to appeal that verdict, which is known as "Broin." The flight attendants now file their own suits and litigate based on their personal situations.

Rosenblatt, in Miami, was lead counsel, and he recently (June, 2002) won the first Broin flight attendant individual case. Lynn French was awarded $5.5mn (she had asked for one million). "French" will likely be a template for subsequent litigation. in Florida, California, New York, and elsewhere. The industry is appealing.

Flight attendants for NorthWest litigated separately and won a nine figure judgement, as well. I'll find that one.

Sorry to be pedantic, but there was no verdict in Broin. It was an out of court settlement - so of course the defendants didn't challenge it - and it essentially gave money to a lawyer rather than to flight attendants. The first case brought in Florida as a result of the Broin settlement - by an attendant named Ms Fontana - didn't succeed. The jury found for the defendants. The French verdict went the other way, and as you point out is under appeal. So it's early days to be talking about a template.

I'd be interested in learning about the NW attendants verdict.

[Wilfrid]

Anyway, the intent of the current proposal is not to provide a smoke free environment for people to drink in, but to provide a smoke free working environment and that's what the arguments will have to address.

I understand. But is there a groundswell of demand from non-smoking bar tenders for such a measure? Or are they more worried about their tips. I really don't care much about smoking bartenders in this context - and I repeatedly drink in bars where the bartender's smoke is the main annoyance, not least because they leave their cigarette smouldering while pouring drinks.

[tommy]

Earlier in this thread I said something about hurrying up and eating chicken fat before it's criminalized...

lest we not give credit where credit is due.

[Bux]

Anyway, the intent of the current proposal is not to provide a smoke free environment for people to drink in, but to provide a smoke free working environment and that's what the arguments will have to address.

I understand. But is there a groundswell of demand from non-smoking bar tenders for such a measure? Or are they more worried about their tips. I really don't care much about smoking bartenders in this context - and I repeatedly drink in bars where the bartender's smoke is the main annoyance, not least because they leave their cigarette smouldering while pouring drinks.

That's a good question, if not the question. I'm not aware of any demand from non-smoking bar tenders, although I've heard of some complaints from cocktail waitresses. The other questions that also need to be addressed are whether these employees are free to raise the issue, (financially free rather than actually in slavery) whether the government has the responsibility to act on behalf of their welfare or the health and welfare of future employees. Is there an outcry from child laborers around the world? Should we wait for one? I would enjoy seeing the ban enacted, although I'm not sure it's the right thing to do. It seems to work in California, but I haven't observed that for myself. It may be unfortunate that restaurants fought the smoke ban so heavily. The consequences have not been dire as they predicted and their expressed fears now may seem like they're crying wolf again. The appeals of the smoking population of bar denizens seem to need more attention than most people are paying. I think it's a pity that more bars haven't gone smoke free like Danny Meyer's have without a law.

[Felonius]

This issue does make for some thought provoking debate! I agree that the health issue for employees is the key issue for any ban. If the data supports the case that smoke is a credible threat, then the ban seems logical.

On the other hand, a total ban infringes upon the rights of another group of people (smokers) in that they will no longer be able to go to any public bar and smoke.

It seems logical that the employees' rights should trump those of the smokers, as their right to a safe workplace is perhaps more fundamental than that of someone to pursue a habit (smoking) in a public place.

Despite all this logic, a total ban somehow just doesn't feel right to me. It seems draconian and unreasonable to tell millions of people they can longer stop into a bar, any bar, for a beer and a smoke. This is America after all, and I feel like there ought to be a public place where people could smoke, drink and socialize at the same time if that's what they enjoy.

I wish someone would come up with a compromise instead of an all or nothing ban. What about better ventilation requirements? Or how about designated smoking areas away from employees, where customers could drink and smoke but not order - unless of course there were employees (presumably smokers) who volunteered to serve that section? Or if nothing else, allowing outdoor smoking areas that were still on premises for legal alcohol consumption (as in California at present).

[tommy]

On the other hand, a total ban infringes upon the rights of another group of people (smokers) in that they will no longer be able to go to any public bar and smoke. 

...

Despite all this logic, a total ban somehow just doesn't feel right to me.  It seems draconian and unreasonable to tell millions of people they can longer stop into a bar, any bar, for a beer and a smoke.  This is America after all, and I feel like there ought to be a public place where people could smoke, drink and socialize at the same time if that's what they enjoy.

a total ban? "total" meaning what? it's already outlawed in every single other public place in NYC. where were these arguments then? is it unconstitutional (this is america after all) to not be allowed to go to work, close the door of your office, and enjoy a nice cigar?

[Rail Paul]

Sorry to be pedantic, but there was no verdict in Broin.  It was an out of court settlement - so of course the defendants didn't challenge it -

Wilfrid -

I want to apologize to you.

Upon re-reading my post, I find it has a contentious tone wholly inappropriate to your many generous emendations. I'll be tied up most of Wednesday, but should be able to locate the info Thursday.

It appears we all agree there are several desirable objectives here:

--a place for smokers to enjoy their tobacco

--a safe work place for employees

--respect for the needs of others

The problem is finding an appropriate balance

Paul