Restaurant Smoking Ban

[jordyn]

Foodboy:

I think the point is to make them as safe as reasonably possible.

[tommy]

My question, then, is if people are not suggesting that unhealthy work environements should be illegal, then what are they suggesting, when they point out the harmful effects of smoke on bar employees?

the point that the law is making is that people have the right to a smoke-free working environment, not much unlike how they have a right to a smoke free and quiet taxi ride in nyc. accountants and lawyers and mailroom guys also have that right, as the current law proves.

i say that if you can smoke in a bar then make all of the buildings in NYC smoking again (up to the owners of course). then we'll come back here in 1 month and see what everyone has to say on this again.

[foodboy]

Why would we want to ensure that people can work in a smoke-free environment, other than the fact that smoke is unhealthy?

[Wilfrid]

Is it too late to say that I don't think people who don't go to bars should have an opinion? Because I sense that's where a lot of the pressure is coming from.

[tommy]

Is it too late to say that I don't think people who don't go to bars should have an opinion?  Because I sense that's where a lot of the pressure is coming from.

ironically i do go to bars, smoke occasionally, but still wouldn't mind seeing smoking go bye-bye, if only to make the law consistent. if there's one thing i hate it's inconsistency. if there's another thing i hate it's people not recognizing the inconsistency in their arguments, for or against.

[foodboy]

Foodboy:

I think the point is to make them as safe as reasonably possible.

"Reasonably" is the key word here. Is it reasonable that everyone who enjoys smoking in bars must lose that privilege because a much smaller group of people refuses to find work elsewhere?

Again, the answer to this is entirely subjective (as most laws are), and nobody can "prove" it, one way or the other.

For me, one difference between a bar and say, an office building, is that smoking is part of the core activity that defines many bars. Especially cigar bars. Should they be illegal, too?

[foodboy]

.

ironically i do go to bars, smoke occasionally, but still wouldn't mind seeing smoking go bye-bye, if only to make the law consistent. if there's one thing i hate it's inconsistency. if there's another thing i hate it's people not recognizing the inconsistency in their arguments, for or against.

[hollywood]

Is it too late to say that I don't think people who don't go to bars should have an opinion?  Because I sense that's where a lot of the pressure is coming from.

ironically i do go to bars, smoke occasionally, but still wouldn't mind seeing smoking go bye-bye, if only to make the law consistent. if there's one thing i hate it's inconsistency. if there's another thing i hate it's people not recognizing the inconsistency in their arguments, for or against.

So, to be consistent we should bar tobacco smoking everywhere that's public. And if we are going to allow medical marijuana smoking, then we should allow marijuana smoking across the board. So, no more tobacco smoking in public. Pass the dutchie.

[tommy]

So, to be consistent we should bar tobacco smoking everywhere that's public.  And if we are going to allow medical marijuana smoking, then we should allow marijuana smoking across the board.  So, no more tobacco smoking in public.  Pass the dutchie.

i know you're smart enough to see the distinction here. so i'll not even comment.

[glenn]

I dropped out of this discussion to be consistent by not participating in discussions that say the same things over and over ad nauseum. So, does anyone know how many feet the nearest table has to be from the bar to allow smoking at the bar (in new york)? Winner gets a cigar. No peaking at the health code allowed.

[LaNiña]

15 feet?

[jordyn]

Wilfrid: What if you don't go to bars because they are too filled with smoke? I go to bars from time to time, but would probably go more if there was less smoke in them.

Foodboy: It's entirely reasonable. People's right to smoke wherever they want doesn't go very far in this discussion--that's why most of the other comments have focused on the rights of the business to operate as they please. It's pretty weak to say that people should have the right to get their nicotine fix at the expense of other people dying. Is that really why you think we ought not to have a smoking ban?

To answer your follow-up question, I've not advocated the total ban in the Bloomberg plan because there may be a few places where smoking is indeed fundamental to the businesses' operation. Cigar bars strike me as a perfectly obvious example of this. Other places, where the principal activity is drinking alcohol, the logic is much less apparent.

Glenn: Isn't it allowed to have smoking even at tables in the "bar area"?

[LaNiña]

http://www.nycosh.org/NYC_Smoke-Free_Air_Act.htm

[glenn]

Cheeta Nina peaked. The answer is 6'.

Jordyn, the 6' rule applies also to tables in the bar area unless there is no food served at such tables, then it is considered part of the bar.

[Billy D]

What about people who work in private homes? As I wrote in my previous post I smoke and I have a live in house keeper, if the ban is past then should it not extend to protect those who work in private homes, cars, yachts or jets?

[jordyn]

Billy D: There are all sorts of regulations that apply to larger employers that do not apply to private homes, even in cases in which domestic employees are present.

[tommy]

Billy D:  There are all sorts of regulations that apply to larger employers that do not apply to private homes, even in cases in which domestic employees are present.

a lot of tax rules, as well as employer-employee regulations, apply to businesses with ranges like 2-50 employees. most leave off the one employee scenario, presumably to make self-employed and people who employee a nanny for example exempt from rules that were made to benefit or regulate "real" businesses.

so, you can smoke crack around your nanny and that's just dandy. good thing that.

[=Mark]

.

ironically i do go to bars, smoke occasionally, but still wouldn't mind seeing smoking go bye-bye, if only to make the law consistent. if there's one thing i hate it's inconsistency. if there's another thing i hate it's people not recognizing the inconsistency in their arguments, for or against.

Tommy,

I'll be the first to admit that I don't favor a consistent application of the law in this matter. I don't believe consistency is necessarily good. That gets back to the subjectivity of law.

[jordyn]

The laws are inconsistent, but often this is a good thing. Health codes related to food preparation make perfect sense for a commercial restaurant, but would be unreasonable within a private home where fewer people are at risk as a result of your foul-up. It takes a different type of driver's license to drive a big rig than a passenger car, but since they are harder to operate and could cause more damage, this is desirable.

[La Niña]

Well, it looks like the smoking ban is actually going to be a reality. VERY few exceptions will be made...article in today's NY Times...

[foodgeek]

http://www.ny1.com/ny/TopStories/SubTopic/...tentintid=26455 Edited December 12, 2002 by Jayask (log)

[tommy]

“Because of this legislation, it's literally true that something like 1,000 people will not die each year that would have otherwise died from second hand smoking,” said Bloomberg.

that seems like quite a leap of faith.

[stellabella]

i confess to not having read every post in the thread yet, so if i am redundant, pass a law against me.

if you haven't yet, read malcolm gladwell's the tipping point, the final chapter, at least, for what i believe to be the most provocative and compelling explanantion to date for why people smoke.

i grew up with smoking. it's part of my family culture. i don't smoke, but in rare moments of extreme stress i've been known to bum a cigarette, from any one of my sisters, or dad, etc. and i have to say that i love the "act" of smoking; what i don't love is the way smoking makes me feel--i'm made physically ill by tobacco. and gladwell would suggest that i'm lucky--i'm part of the segment of the population who is physically immune to the tobacco industry.

smoking is a hard habit to kick--i've watched people try to do it. i think that, in my heart, i feel for people who smoke. i don't mind smoky bars, but i don't like smoky restaurants.

banning smoking probably isn't the answer. going after the tobacco industries and forcing them to tell the truth, fining them for lying, and coercing them to produce what gladwell calls "less sticky" cigarettes makes more sense to me. i don't like the idea that big tobacco gets fined millions of dollars when billy joe bob mcgillicutty dies of cancer down in arkansas--but the big T fatcats are lying greedy manipulative scumbags, every last one of them--they have to accept some culpability, too.

[Marlene]

Although I don't live in New York, this is just another reason to quit. I have been a smoker for 30 years. Before reading this thread today I made an appointment for laser therapy for quitting. That appointment is for January 14.

This aint gonna be easy. I've thought about it off and on, and I've tried several times. However, when I got a call from my son's best friend's mom, telling me that she was really sorry, but her son couldn't come to our house any more because he's allergic to the smoke, I realized it was time to do something about it. Yes, I could go outside to smoke, but that would just move the problem, not solve it.

Wish me luck. Maybe Fat Guy will let me post a daily diary!

[La Niña]

Okay, we've got two threads about the smoking ban now, because Jayask started a new one today. Could we merge them into the original thread and get rid of this new one?