Restaurant Smoking Ban

[LaNiña]

hey, T, you can do me anytime....

LOL!

SA

Can I watch? Provide refreshments, perhaps?

[foodboy]

foodboy, no one walks into a stuntperson's place of business and creates a hostile and unhealthy environment where one didn't previously exist.  naming these professions simply does not present a reasonable argument.

Tommy, it simply does. Whether the unhealthy environment is created by someone "walking in", the employer, or the nature of the work itself is relevant. It still has the same detrimental effect on the employees, which is the issue here. Otherwise, the proposed law would only forbid patrons from smoking in the bar.

[tommy]

foodboy states:

Seems to me that one of the main arguments here is that unhealthy work environments should not be legal.

Let's consider the following people who will be out of work if this logic prevails:

while many different facets of this discuss have been presented here, i don't hink anyone would agree with you on this summary. and i really didn't follow your most recent follow. perhaps you could expound a bit on why a stuntman's profession should not be legal.

also, please consider discussing how a restaurant is different than say, a sandwich shop, regarding smoking legislation.

[macrosan]

All research to date suggests that unless a person has a particular pre-disposition, the health risks from second-hand smoke are not unusually high. They would equate to the risks of working in maybe a chemical factory, or working in a foundry, and so on.

Even accepting this hypothesis (I'm not familiar enough with the body of research to comment one way or the other--a clear increase in risk seems to be indicated, but it may be limited to those with certain risk factors), I don't think it's an adequate response. If there were a simple way of making a chemical factory or a foundry demonstrably safer, few would suggest that we ought to let the occassional worker get burned up by molten iron just because employers should be allowed to do whatever they want.

Jordyn, you have to take into account "reasonableness". Any work environment could be made safer by expending vast sums of money, and by radically changing working methods. Most people would agree that there is a level at which it is reasonable to accept the residual risk that exists in everyone's life.

In the case of a foundry, the ultimate safeguard would be to have no ovens and no molten metal Kinda defeats the object of the foundry, wouldn't you say ? But that's what is being suggested about bars. Don't have smoking, but many people will say that defeats the object of the bar.

[Ron Johnson]

[if there were a simple way of making a chemical factory or a foundry demonstrably safer, few would suggest that we ought to let the occassional worker get burned up by molten iron just because employers should be allowed to do whatever they want.

Actually, I used to do a little Worker's Compensation work, and I was surprised at the number of employers who are in favor of allowing the occassional worker to get burned up by molten iron. They just aren't willing to pay his widow any cazash for it.

[hollywood]

So it's not an issue of principle, it's simple practicality.

no, it's not. it sounds like you're suggesting that it would have been impossible to enforce. well CA found out differently several years ago.

When you look at the big picture, it's odd that so much stress is being placed on not permitting smoking. Sure it is a health hazard, but then so is living in cities, breathing the air (I'm in LA). Probably more lungs would be saved from second hand smoke by cleaning up gasoline than banning smoking in public spots. After reading the article in New Yorker about the food inspectors (and having spoken with an inspector here), it is apparent that eating out is hazardous to your health. So, ban restaurants? It is good to remove the risk factor posed by second hand smoke. No question. The real question is why this particular poison? Some puritanical streak in our collective consciousness is at work, perhaps a reaction to being tricked into thinking cigarettes were good for us (originally endorsed by athletes as healthy). Yet by expending so much energy on smoking, we ignore big oil, corporate shenanigans, influence peddling, the ongoing social security shell game, so we can live a little longer having avoided some smoke but die poorer.

[cabrales]

The NYT ran an article within the past week on the effects of the cigarette tax increase on smokers' habits. Perhaps Bloomberg could increase the cigarette tax even more under a dual-pronged approach to combat smoking.

[jordyn]

In the case of a foundry, the ultimate safeguard would be to have no ovens and no molten metal    Kinda defeats the object of the foundry, wouldn't you say ? But that's what is being suggested about bars. Don't have smoking, but many people will say that defeats the object of the bar.

This is a fair point, but is smoking the "object of the bar"? Perhaps it is, for some people. Most people would say that a bar is a place to have a drink rather than a place to smoke, though, and smoking is one of a number of secondary activities such as talking with friends, dancing badly, or finding someone to hook up with.

California's experience seems to indicate that removing smoking from bars is not overly disruptive to business despite industry's predictions (New York's smoking ban in restaurants is also evidence on this point). If it is possible to enforce a safety regulation without disrupting business significantly, this seems like a reasonable approach.

However, it's possible that for some limited number of places and people, smoking is an integral part of their bar experience. To that end, I think it's reasonable to continue to allow smoking in some circumstances. I'm not sure what these are, but something like Miss J's licensing example seems reasonable, especially if licensing requires installation of effective ventilation systems.

[tommy]

Probably more lungs would be saved from second hand smoke by cleaning up gasoline than banning smoking in public spots.

i would like to read any study that even remotely suggests this.

[hollywood]

In the case of a foundry, the ultimate safeguard would be to have no ovens and no molten metal    Kinda defeats the object of the foundry, wouldn't you say ? But that's what is being suggested about bars. Don't have smoking, but many people will say that defeats the object of the bar.

This is a fair point, but is smoking the "object of the bar"? Perhaps it is, for some people. Most people would say that a bar is a place to have a drink rather than a place to smoke, though, and smoking is one of a number of secondary activities such as talking with friends, dancing badly, or finding someone to hook up with.

California's experience seems to indicate that removing smoking from bars is not overly disruptive to business despite industry's predictions (New York's smoking ban in restaurants is also evidence on this point). If it is possible to enforce a safety regulation without disrupting business significantly, this seems like a reasonable approach.

However, it's possible that for some limited number of places and people, smoking is an integral part of their bar experience. To that end, I think it's reasonable to continue to allow smoking in some circumstances. I'm not sure what these are, but something like Miss J's licensing example seems reasonable, especially if licensing requires installation of effective ventilation systems.

Notwithstanding holier than thou pronouncements from politicos, at a lot of bars and particularly music venues in Los Angeles, smoking is treated like prostitution. It's not legal. Everybody knows it. It goes on anyway. Some few people get caught. The rest keep smoking. The exception is high end places where a nonsmoker is likely to complain (they probably have a patio anyway) and family oriented places. The one place where nonsmoking seems universal is movie theaters.

[Billy D]

I have been reading a lot about this issue and I am ready to express my opinion. I am an occasional smoker that does not mind having to step outside for a smoke. I agree that in a fine dining environment a smoker can hinder other peoples experience and that is not fair. As well there are the typical pubs, bars and nightclubs where smoking seems appropriate. My problem with this bill is that I feel like Bloomberg is imposing his moralistic views on me, trying to be my father and he is covering it up by saying he is protecting the workers. Bull Shit I say. In terms of pollution there are far worse environments to work in; a street vendor inhales a lot more carbon monoxide from vehicle exhaust than a bartender, or how about miners or chemical plant workers etc. Additionally, what about the city's private clubs (Grand Havana and the like) where smoking is the norm or private homes where one may have a house keeper, driver etc.; this ban does not extend to these private clubs or homes. I smoke in my home and I have a live in house keeper, should this ban prohibit me from smoking in my own home because I am exposing my help to second hand smoke? If my house keeper does not like the smoke she can go work for Bloomberg.

This is a very dangerous world we live in evidenced by 9/11; anyone could die at any time. Let business owners decide if they want to permit smoking or not, let consumers decide which establishments they will patronize and let workers decide what kind of environment they want to work in.

[Marlene]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the real point is that we live in a democracy, and as such under both the Canadian and American Charter of rights, do have what is known as Freedom of Choice.

While smoking may be bad for you, and the people around you etc, the fact is, it is still legal and consumers spending money should have a choice of whether to patronize a smoking or non smoking establishment.

Why can't bar owners and restauranters choose one or the other, or offer a separate area for smokers.

I live in Ontario, Canada, and our smoking bylaws in this province are certainly not equal across the board. In Toronto, you can have a separately ventilated area for smoking in dining rooms, and places can declare themselves a bar and permit smoking,but no one is allowed in under 19.

In Mississauga, the same rule, and yet right beside Mississauga, in Oakville, there is no smoking, period unless your business is a bingo hall (go figure). In Burlington, no smoking in dining rooms, but ok in bars.

The result is, smokers spend their money elsewhere, so businesses lose. When they make smoking illegal, fine. But there isn't any government I know of who is willing to give up the huge tax revenues generated, so they shouldn't be controlling your freedom of choice.

[tommy]

Let business owners decide if they want to permit smoking or not, let consumers decide which establishments they will patronize and let workers decide what kind of environment they want to work in.

so can i assume that you are a proponent of any action that would allow smoking in office buildings again, assuming the company thought it was OK? that's a new thread altogether.

[Billy D]

Yes-

I work for a french co. and most of my co-workers smoke; I do smoke in my office at night and when those who dislike it are not around.

[Wilfrid]

Probably more lungs would be saved from second hand smoke by cleaning up gasoline than banning smoking in public spots.

i would like to read any study that even remotely suggests this.

There are many studies suggestive of a higher risk from vehicle-generated air pollution than from ETS. Numerous studies find increasing respiratory problems among children in cities or countries where smoking has steadily decreased, thus making it plausible that childhood exposure to ETS has decreased.

Of course, you can't run a clinical study to examine the hypothesis.

Anyone want my opinion? If bar managers made acceptance of a smoking environment an explicit term of a contract of employment, everyone would be happy except fanatical anti-smokers and maybe the very small percentage of non smoking bar staff who really object to being exposed to tobacco smoke. Case solved.

[Marlene]

Actually Tommy, you shouldn't "assume" anything. Office buildings are not generally places where consumers go to spend money, and offices are unlikely to go bankrupt with a non smoking rule as could be in the case of bars and restaurants when patrons go elsewhere.

In Toronto, a number of office buildings provide separately ventilated smoking rooms indoors for smokers, usually in the concourse area somewhere.

There are a number of people with asthma in the world, but I don't see anyone banning cars, or buses or other things that put pollutants into the air, making it difficult for those people to breathe.

Having said all that, I still think it comes back to basic freedom of choice, for smokers, non smokers and business owners.

It's legal and we are a democracy.

[LaNiña]

It's legal and we are a democracy" - so maybe speeding should be legal too, then? When is it the responsibility of society/democracy to protect its citizenry?

[hollywood]

It's legal and we are a democracy" - so maybe speeding should be legal too, then?  When is it the responsibility of society/democracy to protect its citizenry?

Are we our brother's keeper? Or just big brother?

[tommy]

Actually Tommy, you shouldn't "assume" anything.  Office buildings are not generally places where consumers go to spend money, and offices are unlikely to go bankrupt with a non smoking rule as could be in the case of bars and restaurants when patrons go elsewhere.

actually, my "assumption" was correct, as billy d confirmed. your use of quotes is curious.

and please, about this going out of business nonsense. clearly a city-wide ban wouldn't favor any specific bar or restaurant. they would all be non-smoking. unless i'm really missing something fundamental here.

[tommy]

It's legal and we are a democracy" - so maybe speeding should be legal too, then?  When is it the responsibility of society/democracy to protect its citizenry?

Are we our brother's keeper? Or just big brother?

no one seems upset about the seatbelt law, which is in lots and lots of states. ironically, this law is designed to keep the wearer of the belt safe, and protects no one else. hmmm.

[Marlene]

It's legal and we are a democracy" - so maybe speeding should be legal too, then?  When is it the responsibility of society/democracy to protect its citizenry?

Are we our brother's keeper? Or just big brother?

Speeding is relative....What is speeding in North America is a fine for going to slow on the Autobon in Germany, LOL.

[LaNiña]

or Autobahn, even

Spelling laws, now there's a thought.

[hollywood]

It's legal and we are a democracy" - so maybe speeding should be legal too, then?  When is it the responsibility of society/democracy to protect its citizenry?

Are we our brother's keeper? Or just big brother?

no one seems upset about the seatbelt law, which is in lots and lots of states. ironically, this law is designed to keep the wearer of the belt safe, and protects no one else. hmmm.

So, that's it then. If you wear a seat belt in a bar or restaurant, you should be able to smoke--just like in a car.

[tommy]

So, that's it then.  If you wear a seat belt in a bar or restaurant, you should be able to smoke--just like in a car.

clearly this was my point.

[foodboy]

foodboy states:

Seems to me that one of the main arguments here is that unhealthy work environments should not be legal.

Let's consider the following people who will be out of work if this logic prevails:

while many different facets of this discuss have been presented here, i don't hink anyone would agree with you on this summary. and i really didn't follow your most recent follow. perhaps you could expound a bit on why a stuntman's profession should not be legal.

also, please consider discussing how a restaurant is different than say, a sandwich shop, regarding smoking legislation.

Tommy,

I don't think the profession of stuntman should be illegal. My point is that if a person favors legislating against unhealthy work environments, he/she should consider how widespread that legislation would have to be.

Perhaps my summary of the argument is incorrect. I hope it is, since it's an argument I consider to be flawed. 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?

As for the difference between a bar and a sandwich shop, the difference is entirely subjective. Most people don't spend entire evenings in a sandwich shop, so that may be one reason why smoking need not be allowed there. There may be several other reasons, but these distinctions are more gray than black-and-white. Law, by it's very nature, is subjective, despite what people may think.