NYC Smoking Ban

[slkinsey]

John William Kurowski, Founder

American Constitutional Research Service

Hmmm... before responding to someone who likely won't listen to reason, I should have taken a look around the Internet to see what else pops up about Mr. Kurowski and his one-man organization to see what this axe-grinder is all about.

Needless to say, he does not appear to be on these boards to discuss his love of food.

[MatthewB]

Sam,

You're slipping if you had to Google to figure out what was going on.

[bloviatrix]

CNBC just ran a piece on how NY bars are serving tobacco-infused liquor to help compensate for the smoking ban.

Doesn't Thomas Keller serve a dessert that's infused with tobacco?

I think both Ruhlman and Bourdain have mentioned it.

[johnwk]

Slkinsey

John, you seem to be widely missing the point. The NY ban -- or at least the NYC ban as I understand it -- is there to protect employees from dangers associates with the inhalation of second hand smoke at their place of employment. Public spaces where the ban is in effect are those which inherently have employees. For example, if there were to exist a private smoking club that had no employees (i.e., where the members performed all the maintenance and other duties normally done by employees) then that club would not be subject to the smoking ban.

ANSWER

I believe you have missed the point.”…entering a privately owned restaurant [even if it is to work there] which allows smoking, is done so with full knowledge that one may ingest other peoples smoke and willingly subject themselves to all heath consequences resulting from the ingestion of that smoke“.

Slkinsey

As for your repeated statements as to the "rights associated with property ownership and individual liberty" -- it is quite clear that the government is free to pass laws regulating activities that take place on private property where the safety and wellbeing of employees working on said private property is concerned. If this were not the case, there could be no legislation regulating the workplace whatsoever.

ANSWER

I have addressed this in my previous post, I wrote:

This does not mean that you may exercise you liberty to smoke wherever and whenever you please, there are qualifications and restraints upon the exercise of one‘s own personal liberty especially when it affects others. You may not smoke on privately owned property if the owner of said property forbids it. You may smoke on privately owned property if the owner permits it and there is no clear, compelling and imminent public danger identified by folks in government for which a specific regulation has been passed regulating privately owned property.

Example: smoking in an elevator of a department store or on a crowded bus going downtown at 8 am, or smoking near oxygen in a hospital. Such activities do in fact present a compelling, clear and imminent public danger, and so, are legitimate targets for government regulation for health and safety reasons.

But a smoking ban allegedly to protect the public health simply does not fall within this category of a compelling, clear and imminent public danger and for a number of reasons.

There is no clear and imminent public danger to the “general public health” from those who smoke on privately owned property. The danger, if any, falls upon those who smoke and those who willingly enter upon privately owned property….those who exercise personal liberty and freedom of choice..

Unlike food stored above certain temperatures which is then consumed by an unsuspecting patron in a privately owned restaurant, which may then cause instant, sever and even fatal results from food poisoning, [ego a legitimate reason for regulation requiring food to be stored at certain temperatures], entering a privately owned restaurant which allows smoking, is done so with full knowledge that one may ingest other peoples smoke and willingly subject themselves to all heath consequences resulting from the ingestion of that smoke.”

Slkinsey

Where you make your mistake is in assuming that the smoking bans are intended to protect the general public (patrons of establishments or visitors to private properties). This is not the case, and could not be the case because, as you suggest, patrons and visitors may exercise their freedom of choice and take their business or selves elsewhere. The standard for employees is different, however, and it is quite clear that the government may enact laws to protect employees in the workplace from a reasonably perceived potential danger.

ANSWER

I made no mistake! Due process of law, when individual and fundamental rights are concerned, such as rights associated with property ownership, requires much more than a “reasonably perceived potential danger”, as I have already documented. Perhaps you missed what I posted concerning the Legal requirements to be met for government regulation to be within constitutional limits.

JWK

ACRS

[macrosan]

And I believe that oral and digestive absorption of nicotine is less effective than lung absorption.

This is definitely not the case. The mouth lining absorbs nicotine at a hugely higher rate than any other part of the respiratory system. I don't have the research figures to hand, but I believe that a smoker who doesn't inhale at all will absorb 90% of the nicotine via his mouth that an inhaling smoker will absorb. If I can find the research, I'll post a reference.

This link (to a "quit smoking" website) has a discussion of the Nicotini cocktail (in the second post) and also news of an unbelievable new produict --- nicotine water which has finally destroyed what little confidence I ever had in the US FDA

[slkinsey]

Slkinsey

John, you seem to be widely missing the point. The NY ban -- or at least the NYC ban as I understand it -- is there to protect employees from dangers associates with the inhalation of second hand smoke at their place of employment. Public spaces where the ban is in effect are those which inherently have employees. For example, if there were to exist a private smoking club that had no employees (i.e., where the members performed all the maintenance and other duties normally done by employees) then that club would not be subject to the smoking ban.

ANSWER

I believe you have missed the point.”…entering a privately owned restaurant [even if it is to work there] which allows smoking, is done so with full knowledge that one may ingest other peoples smoke and willingly subject themselves to all heath consequences resulting from the ingestion of that smoke“.

OK, John... let's ask a simple question. I don't want a bunch of quotes and whatnot, just a yes or no answer.

Do you believe it is within the government's purview to enact legislation with the intention of protecting employees that regulates, say, the amount of volatile coal dust in the air inside coal mines or the safety of machinery in factories or the use of respirators at chemical plants? Understand, of course, that these places of employment are all located on privately owned property.

So... yes or no?

Because it sounds like what you are saying is: no. To rephrase your quote, you could just as easily be saying: "…entering a privately owned dioxin plant [even if it is to work there] which does not provide breathing apparatus and other safety equipment for employees, is done so with full knowledge that one may ingest carcinogenic chemical vapors and willingly subject themselves to all heath consequences resulting from the ingestion of those carcinogenic chemical vapors."

This is tantamount to saying that the government may not enact any legislation to protect employees from dangers at any workplace located on private property because that would be stepping on the property owner's right to do whatever he wants on his own property, and that all employees at these workplaces are "knowingly and willingly" subjecting themselves to the (preventable) dangers associated with those workplaces. This is ridiculous, because this line of reasoning removes any ability whatsoever for the government to protect employees in the workplace and we end up back at the standards of the industrial revolution. Regardless, it has long been established in this country -- and upheld by the Supreme Court -- that the government does, in fact, have the mandate to enact such legislation and so your entire point is moot. If the NYC or NYS smoking bans ever make it to the Supreme Court, I have no doubt whatsoever that they will be upheld as constitutional.

There is no clear and imminent public danger to the “general public health” from those who smoke on privately owned property. The danger, if any, falls upon those who smoke and those who willingly enter upon privately owned property….those who exercise personal liberty and freedom of choice.

I agree on this point when it comes to people who patronize establishments on private property. But, again... how does this address employees who work on these private properties? It doesn't. This is just like saying, "there is no clear and imminent public danger from carcinogenic chemical vapors that are present on privately owned property. The danger, if any, falls upon those who willingly enter upon privately owned property where carcinogenic chemical vapors are present without a breathing apparatus..." This is all fine and dandy when it comes to visitors to the chemical plant. I would agree that any non-employee who is told "there is a fog of carcinogenic chemical vapor inside this plant" and who decides to go in there without a breathing apparatus and other safety gear does so on his/her own dime. However, the standard is different for the people who work at the chemical plant. It is not enough to say, and the highest courts in this country agree, that the employees at the chemical plant voluntarily subject themselves to the carcinogenic chemical vapors at the dioxin plant without any safety measures at their own free will by exercising personal liberty and freedom of choice, and that they can always take their employment elsewhere if they are not happy with the levels of safety provided at the plant. This is, again, tantamount to saying that the government has no mandate to enact legislation to protect employees from workplace dangers when the workplace is located on private property.

Due process of law, when individual and fundamental rights are concerned, such as rights associated with property ownership,  requires much more than a “reasonably perceived potential danger”, as I have already documented.  Perhaps you missed what I posted concerning the Legal requirements to be met for government regulation to be within constitutional limits.

Yea, I read what you said before. I just don't think it applies in this case. The dangers associated with the inhalation of "first hand" tobacco smoke have been well documented. I don't think anyone can argue that smoking is not bad for one's health. For various reasons, several of which I have documented elsewhere in this thread, it is unlikely that absolute proof from long term environmental studies of humans as to the health effects of passive inhalation of environmental tobacco smoke will ever be forthcoming. This has nothing to do with whether or not the inhalation of second-hand smoke is bad for one's health, but rather has to do with the unmanageably large number of oustide variables and other changes inhernet in such a study that make is extremely difficult bordering on impossible to arrive at a conclusive and statistically strong result. That said, there is copious evidence from long-term human studies as to the health effects of first-hand smoking and there are plenty of animal studies -- both laboratory and environmental -- demonstrating the negative health impact which results from the passive inhalation of environmental tobacco smoke. This strikes me as plenty of evidence to satisfy the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Whether or not it is enough evidence for you... who cares? The City and State of New York don't have to satisfy you.

One other thing... you know that this is a discussion board devoted to food and subjects related to food, right? One would hope that you're not just here to flog your pet topic.

[MatthewB]

One other thing... you know that this is a discussion board devoted to food and subjects related to food, right?  One would hope that you're not just here to flog your pet topic.

Gosh, he does use the word "food" once in a while.

[hjshorter]

and now, Fragrance free is a civil rights issue!

I'm sure you find that very amusing, but just so you know, this is real issue for some people. I have an immediate asthmatic reaction to strong perfumes, to the point that the albuterol inhaler becomes necessary.

[johnwk]

Slkinsey wrote

OK, John... let's ask a simple question. I don't want a bunch of quotes and whatnot, just a yes or no answer.

Do you believe it is within the government's purview to enact legislation with the intention of protecting employees that regulates, say, the amount of volatile coal dust in the air inside coal mines or the safety of machinery in factories or the use of respirators at chemical plants? Understand, of course, that these places of employment are all located on privately owned property.

So... yes or no?

ANSWER

Slkinsey, there is no question that folks in government have authority within constitutional limits to adopt regulations for health and safety purposes, even on privately owned property. I have repeatedly pointed this out to you, and have not only done so using my own words, but documented this fact from written legal opinions from both the United States Supreme Court and , two State Attorney General’s opinions! Why you ask such a question is quite suspect of your motives and sincerity in discussing the NYS smoking ban.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but it appears you have some difficulty accepting the requirements which folks in government must meet for health and safety regulations to be within constitutional limits. I’m surprised you, or any American, would feel this way because those rules are there to not only protect individual and unalienable rights, but also to insure that such “… regulation is exercised reasonably, within constitutional limitations, not arbitrarily, and not in such a manner as to restrain trade or to unfairly discriminate.” as stated by the Attorney General of Florida.

Slkinsey wrote

“ To rephrase your quote, you could just as easily be saying: "…entering a privately owned dioxin plant [even if it is to work there] which does not provide breathing apparatus and other safety equipment for employees, is done so with full knowledge that one may ingest carcinogenic chemical vapors and willingly subject themselves to all heath consequences resulting from the ingestion of those carcinogenic chemical vapors."

ANSWER

Dioxin plant? I think you mean a plant in which dioxins may be released into the air during some type of operation in the plant’s processing. However, I believe a better example would be an auto repair shop in which engine repair work is done with engines running and without a ventilating hose attached to the auto’s exhaust. In such a case there is, without question, an imminent life threatening danger from carbon monoxide poisoning and so, is a legitimate target for government regulation for health and safety reasons.

Slkinsey wrote

This is tantamount to saying that the government may not enact any legislation to protect employees from dangers at any workplace located on private property because that would be stepping on the property owner's right to do whatever he wants on his own property, and that all employees at these workplaces are "knowingly and willingly" subjecting themselves to the (preventable) dangers associated with those workplaces. This is ridiculous, because this line of reasoning removes any ability whatsoever for the government to protect employees in the workplace and we end up back at the standards of the industrial revolution. Regardless, it has long been established in this country -- and upheld by the Supreme Court -- that the government does, in fact, have the mandate to enact such legislation and so your entire point is moot.

ANSWER

No one on this end has suggested what you have stated above. Why do you continue to resort to such absurdity and imply such an extreme which is not even remotely suggested? Is this your way of trying to avoid the rules which must be followed by folks in government when adopting regulations for health and safety reasons?

Slkinsey wrote

If the NYC or NYS smoking bans ever make it to the Supreme Court, I have no doubt whatsoever that they will be upheld as constitutional.

ANSWER

Maybe in the New York State Supreme Tyrant’s Court, but not in the United States Supreme Court. The SCOTUS would have to reverse countless decisions and what they have stated regarding due process of law with respect to rights associated with property ownership and government regulation..

Slkinsey wrote

That said, there is copious evidence from long-term human studies as to the health effects of first-hand smoking and there are plenty of animal studies -- both laboratory and environmental -- demonstrating the negative health impact which results from the passive inhalation of environmental tobacco smoke. This strikes me as plenty of evidence to satisfy the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Whether or not it is enough evidence for you... who cares? The City and State of New York don't have to satisfy you.

ANSWER

But they do have to satisfy the SCOTUS!

To this date the promoters of the NYC smoking ban have been delinquent in presenting credible evidence to support their assertions, and quite busy making outlandish statements concerning 2nd hand smoke. For example, we find in an articleNew York Mayor Proposes Citywide Smoking Ban, that Mayor Bloomberg alleges "Working one 8 hour shift in a smoky bar exposes one to the same amount of carcinogens as smoking half a pack of cigarettes a day,"

In the same article Bloomberg’s Health Commissioner, Thomas Frieden, is quoted as saying: "Secondhand smoke causes more cancer deaths than asbestos, benzene, arsenic, pesticides, hazardous waste sites, industrial chemicals, contaminated sledge, and consumer products combined,…. Secondhand smoke kills approximately 1,000 New York City residents every year. That is why we must act now."

As it turns out, the allegations made by Mayor Bloomberg and his Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden, as well as many of those made by the promoters of the NYC smoking ban, are found to be groundless, especially if applied to an average restaurant, billiard hall, bowling alley, or other such privately owned businesses affected by the newly adopted smoking prohibitions. See: Mayor Bloomberg Exaggerates Secondhand Smoke Risk

In addition, and just for your personal information, the following two cases ought to interest you.

RE: CASE LAW AND SECOND HAND SMOKE

In regard to case law and the alleged health consequences caused by 2nd hand smoke, the following two cases zero in on the actual conditions under which real people were subjected to “2nd hand smoke who initiated a legal action because of alleged consequences suffered under such conditions.

Case No. 1:

IN THE MATTER OF VERONICA JOHANNESEN v. NEW YORK CITY reveals that:

“The facts are essentially uncontroverted. Claimant, Veronica Johannesen, was an office assistant for the City of New York when, in 1981, she was assigned to work at the City's Department of Housing Preservation and Development. The office in which claimant worked consisted of one large room for approximately 50 employees, at least half of whom smoked cigarettes. The room was crammed with desks and file cabinets, so that the employees worked in close proximity to one another.

The windows were kept closed because of smoke from the kitchen of a restaurant located below the office. Also, the office ventilation system did not function properly. A co-employee, who worked on the same office floor as claimant, confirmed claimant's factual allegations.”

The Court ruled:

“The holding in this case does not change existing criteria and legal principles for determining whether a work-related and work-site injury is accidental. Claimants are still required to make showings of unusual environmental conditions or events assignable to something extraordinary that caused an accidental injury. This claimant did so to the satisfaction of the Board and each court that has reviewed the matter. Standard pre-existing legal tests were met in this case and substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that claimant's disabling and aggravated asthmatic condition, caused by prolonged exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke in her confined employment workplace, constituted an accidental injury within the meaning and intent of the Workers' Compensation Law. The award should be upheld.”

Case No. 2

HELLING v. McKINNEY, 509 U.S. 25 (1993)

This case reveals:

“Respondent is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Nevada prison system. At the time that this case arose, respondent was an inmate in the Nevada State Prison in Carson City, Nevada. Respondent filed a pro se civil rights complaint in United States District Court under Rev.Stat. 1979, 42 U.S.C. 1983, naming as defendants the director of the prison, the warden, the associate warden, a unit counselor, and the manager of the prison store. The complaint, dated December 18, 1986, alleged that respondent was assigned to a cell with another inmate who smoked five packs of cigarettes a day. App. 6. The complaint also stated that cigarettes were sold to inmates without properly informing of the health hazards a nonsmoking inmate would encounter by sharing a room with an inmate who smoked, id., at 7-8, and that certain cigarettes burned continuously, releasing some type of chemical, id., at 9. Respondent complained of certain health problems allegedly caused by exposure to cigarette smoke. Respondent sought injunctive relief and damages for, inter alia, subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment by jeopardizing his health. Id., at 14.

The Court ruled:

“We affirm the holding of the Court of Appeals that McKinney states a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment by alleging that petitioners have, with deliberate indifference, exposed him to levels of ETS that pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his future health. We also affirm the remand to the District Court to provide an opportunity for McKinney to prove his allegations, which will require him to prove both the subjective and objective elements necessary to prove an Eighth Amendment violation. The District Court will have the usual authority to control the order of proof, and if there is a failure of proof on the first element that it chooses to consider, it would not be an abuse of discretion to give judgment for petitioners without taking further evidence. McKinney must also prove that he is entitled to the remedy of an injunction.”

In neither of the above cases are the conditions under which 2nd hand smoke was alleged to have caused or may have been causing an injury even remotely similar to the actual conditions of countless bars and restaurants in the State of New York which, to accommodate their non-smoking customers and employees several years back, and, because of reasonable state imposed clean air legislation [New York State’s Clean Indoor Air Act] spent thousands of dollars each to have well designed and efficient ventilating systems installed, so their non smoking customers and employees would not be bothered from the nuisance of other people‘s smoke.

To date, no scientific evidence has been presented to establish the air quality in these specific business establishments, much less all those business establishments in New York attacked by the N.Y.S. smoking ban, presents a clear and imminent danger to their employees or patrons from “second hand smoke”

Having made such allegations in order to control and restrict the use of privately owned property, for health and/or safety reasons, proof is quite necessary to meet the requirements of due process of law. as the lack of such proof would allow arbitrarily legislation or legislation within the realm of pure speculation and therefore be permissive in a total deterioration of rights associated with property ownership.

Slkinsey wrote

One other thing... you know that this is a discussion board devoted to food and subjects related to food, right? One would hope that you're not just here to flog your pet topic.

ANSWER

Just following the conversation which a good number of posters have been engaged in, including you!

JWK

ACRS

[johnwk]

and now,

I'm sure you find that very amusing, but just so you know, this is real issue for some people. I have an immediate asthmatic reaction to strong perfumes, to the point that the albuterol inhaler becomes necessary.

No, as a matter of fact I do not find Fragrance free is a civil rights issue! as being funny. Nor do I find those who bath in strong perfumes "funny"___ I too have found myself gasping for fresh air because of those too lazy to take a shower and decide to bath themselves in perfumes to camouflage their B.O.

[slkinsey]

Slkinsey wrote

If the NYC or NYS smoking bans ever make it to the Supreme Court, I have no doubt whatsoever that they will be upheld as constitutional.

ANSWER

Maybe in the New York State Supreme Tyrant’s Court, but not in the United States Supreme Court.  The SCOTUS would have to reverse countless decisions and what they have stated regarding due process of law with respect to rights associated with property ownership and government regulation.

Well... Obviously we don't agree on this. But, you know what? I'm sure we'll eventually have a chance to find out which one of us is right and which one is wrong, as I have little doubt that someone will try to challenge one of the smoking laws on the books around America in the highest court possible.

With that, I'd say that this part of the discussion is closed. If you have any thoughts, comments or feelings about food you would like to contribute to discussion on eGullet, please avail yourself of our many forums.

[tommy]

bars oustide of NY are doing a bit better. according to this.

[guajolote]

and now,

I'm sure you find that very amusing, but just so you know, this is real issue for some people. I have an immediate asthmatic reaction to strong perfumes, to the point that the albuterol inhaler becomes necessary.

No, as a matter of fact I do not find Fragrance free is a civil rights issue! as being funny. Nor do I find those who bath in strong perfumes "funny"___ I too have found myself gasping for fresh air because of those too lazy to take a shower and decide to bath themselves in perfumes to camouflage their B.O.

John, do you add aromatics to your stock?

[macrosan]

Here's another one from www.WhyQuit.com

Nicotine Fruit Juice

August 5, 2003

Nicotine-containing fruit drinks could soon be available as an alternative for people trying to stop smoking, says a Los Angeles-based firm which has received exclusive rights to market nicotine drinks.

Platinum Products, set up to develop the nicotine beverages, said today it has acquired the exclusive right to United States patent number 6,268,386, and will start making its first products within the next few weeks.... "In our view, the potential and possibilities for this patent are almost endless," said Platinum founder Robert Moore.

BeverageDaily.com

I'm now struggling to distinguish between this commercial activity and drug-dealing

[MatthewB]

The city is dangerous to your health. Edited August 6, 2003 by MatthewB (log)

[slkinsey]

The city is dangerous to your health.

Perhaps a better headline linking to this article might be: breathing in the debris from several exploded and burned skyscrapers results in a 4% difference in the incidence of lower-than-expected birth weights.

[Callipygos]

Okay.

On the one hand, I am a non-smoker, and am not fond of cigarette smoke and having to breathe in an excessive amount of it.

On the other hand, I date a smoker. However, he has no problem with stepping out in the hall/onto the sidewalk/out of my general range into more circulating air in deference to the fact that just because he smokes, it doesn't necessarily mean I have to as well. So the fact that he smokes has not been a problem.

I think, then, that this is what it boils down to -- those who smoke, who also respect that non-smokers may have a REASON for not wanting to smoke, and are willing to work something out with them to make everyone happy, are not the problem. There are smokers, however, who are downright RUDE about whether or not their habit is inconveniencing and/or harming others.

I have a feeling the smoking ban in restaurants was created, in part, to give restaurateurs the power to get these rude smokers to shape the hell up and show some damn respect.

Please note, I am not implying that ALL smokers are rude (my dude isn't). Nor, by the way, am I implying that all non-smokers who request breathing room are polite about it either. (Some have a downright snit, I'll admit; they may have a reason, yeah, but you DON'T have to be an outright prig about it). But there are some people who are SO overly self-righteous about this whole issue, be it about their right TO smoke or the right to NOT smoke, that working it out amongst ourselves like actual civilized adults is, alas, not possible.

[Jaymes]

I think, then, that this is what it boils down to -- those who smoke, who also respect that non-smokers may have a REASON for not wanting to smoke, and are willing to work something out with them to make everyone happy...

This comment right here exactly delineates the thing that gets me the most pissed off about this whole debate.

And that is the dismissal by smokers of nonsmokers who have legitimate reasons for not wanting to be exposed to smoke, nor to pay the hospital costs for the illnesses of those who do, and myriad other entirely intelligent and reasonable concerns that deserve to be respected and addressed.

Saying such things as "they're just judgmental, self-righteous crusaders with another agenda" is insulting and condescending. Not to mention accusatory as it implies that anyone who says that they object to smoking for other than moral reasons is lying.

I certainly understand why smokers want to smoke. And I understand why they want to have that last cigarette or cigar after dinner while still seated in the nice restaurant, lingering over the last sip of wine or coffee, rather than out on the sidewalk, or in the car during the drive home.

I don't say that they're just "making that up," and that "a cigarette is a cigarette is a cigarette" whether at table or in the parking garage, and that their "real motive" and "hidden agenda" is to "loosen up all us tightasses" and "teach us how to have a good time," or maybe to "pollute the world" as a social statement.

But by similiarly denigrating and dismissing my equally legitimate desire to not be forced to inhale that smoke along with them, they ensure that this issue will never be resolved amicably.

Edited August 7, 2003 by Jaymes (log)

[sammy]

I have a feeling the smoking ban in restaurants was created, in part, to give restaurateurs the power to get these rude smokers to shape the hell up and show some damn respect.

The restaurateurs already had that power. They could have chosen to make their restaurants non-smoking.

The stated purpose of the law was to protect employees. The irony is the law did nothing of the sort as many bar employees were either let go or make considerable less money in tips, so where is the protection? They're probably so pissed off about losing a job or income that they may have started to smoke themselves, if they didn't already.

As a non-smoker who hates smoke, I feel it is simply not the role of government to be involved in whther or not smoking is permissable in a bar or restaurant. What's next?

Edited August 7, 2003 by sammy (log)

[Callipygos]

I certainly understand why smokers want to smoke.  And I understand why they want to have that last cigarette or cigar after dinner while still seated in the nice restaurant, lingering over the last sip of wine or coffee, rather than out on the sidewalk, or in the car during the drive home.

But by denigrating and dismissing my equally legitimate desire to not be forced to inhale that smoke along with them, they ensure that this issue will never be resolved amicably.

There are indeed some who behave this way. THEY are the problem. You've got the smokers like my guy, who DON'T dismiss requests that they not smoke; I've seen him practically hang his ass out the window sitting far enough out on the windowsill so he could blow the smoke out the window rather than having it blow back into the apartment and bug people. Smokers like HIM, aren't the problem.

It's the people like YOU mention that are. But, these people are cut from the same cloth as the people who talk in movie theaters, or the people who cut in lines, or the people who walk their dogs and don't pick up the poop...selfish twits, basically.

Yeah, this whole law exists because some jerks ruined it for the rest of us. Like most laws have, I've found.

Feh.

[Jaymes]

I certainly understand why smokers want to smoke.  And I understand why they want to have that last cigarette or cigar after dinner while still seated in the nice restaurant, lingering over the last sip of wine or coffee, rather than out on the sidewalk, or in the car during the drive home.

But by denigrating and dismissing my equally legitimate desire to not be forced to inhale that smoke along with them, they ensure that this issue will never be resolved amicably.

There are indeed some who behave this way. THEY are the problem. You've got the smokers like my guy, who DON'T dismiss requests that they not smoke; I've seen him practically hang his ass out the window sitting far enough out on the windowsill so he could blow the smoke out the window rather than having it blow back into the apartment and bug people. Smokers like HIM, aren't the problem.

I am in total and complete agreement with you. I guess I didn't make that clear. I wanted to single out and call attention to your excellent summation about smokers believing nonsmoker's stated reasons, rather than ascribing moral motivation and hidden agendas to their concerns.

PS - I guess I should start over and rewrite my post. It's obvious I did a piss-poor job the first time. 'Cause I was trying to say, Calli, I think you've got that part of it at least exactly right.

Edited August 7, 2003 by Jaymes (log)

[slkinsey]

I have a feeling the smoking ban in restaurants was created, in part, to give restaurateurs the power to get these rude smokers to shape the hell up and show some damn respect.

The restaurateurs already had that power. They could have chosen to make their restaurants non-smoking.

Two things here:

1. Gallipygos is wrong. The smoking ban in restaurants and bars was enacted to protect restaurant employees from the preventable health risks associated with the inhalation of second hand smoke.

2. Once many restaurants were forced to put in nonsmoking sections, that is exactly what many restaurants did. However, put yourself in the position of the restaurant owners... A financial decision has to be made. If there is enough societal acceptance of smoke in the restaurant (or bar), then the proprietor would be crazy to turn away potential patrons who wish to smoke. However, as society's acceptance of smoke in these environments changes -- helped along by legislation -- so does the proprietor's decision. I have little doubt that a restaurant which allowed smoking all over the dining room today would lose business because most diners have decided that they won't tolerate a dining room where clouds of smoke come from the next table over. Compare this to office buildings. Not too long ago, it was commonplace for smokers to light up in office buildings with impunity. These days, such a situation is unacceptable to the majority of working people (again, largely due to a societal change helped along by legislation). A business which allowed smoking in its offices today would have a hard time attracting talented employees because, for many of them, working in a smoky office would be a "deal breaker" and they would simply seek employment with a company that did not permit smoking in the office. Where would we be on this without legislation on smoking in the office? Not here.

The stated purpose of the law was to protect employees. The irony is the law did nothing of the sort as many bar employees were either let go or make considerable less money in tips, so where is the protection?

The stated purpose of the law was to protect employees from the preventable health risks associated with the inhalation of second hand smoke and it has been successful in this areas. As for "many bar employees were either let go or make considerable less money in tip" -- I'll be interested to see where this ends up in another several months. I'm sure there will be plenty of data available to evaluate the short-term and long-term impact of the smoking ban on bars and restaurants factoring out the effects of the recession. My casual observation -- which is backed up by what I hear from my friends in the business -- is that some establishments are clearly suffering, but that many/most are not doing appreciably less business than expected by now.

As a non-smoker who hates smoke, I feel it is simply not the role of government to be involved in whther or not smoking is permissable in a bar or restaurant.What's next?

I know what you mean. As a non-sexual-harasser who hates sexual harassment, I feel it is simply not the role of government to be involved in whether or not ass-grabbing is permissable in a bar or restaurant. I mean really... the next thing you know we're all going to have bar codes tattooed on the backs of our necks.

[Jaymes]

I know what you mean.  As a non-sexual-harasser who hates sexual harassment, I feel it is simply not the role of government to be involved in whether or not ass-grabbing is permissable in a bar or restaurant.  I mean really... the next thing you know we're all going to have bar codes tattooed on the backs of our necks.

[Bux]

Last night we went out for dinner at the last minute and walked into an all too popular restaurant in the neighborhood without a reservation. A forty-five minute wait shoudn't have been a surprise and I was about to leave, when it dawned on me, we can sit at the bar and a have a drink. Old habits are hard to break and mine was to avoid bars for well over twenty years in NY. (Admittedly, the older habit of not avoiding bars twenty years ago was even harder to break, but once I got the second hand smoke out of my system, I couldn't stand going back.) That's hardly going to change the economics of the bar scene, which was two deep all night at this bar--my wife got a stool, I stood--but the house and the bartender got to split twenty bucks and the house sold a dinner they wouldn't have sold. Mrs. B's plan was to go home and make omelets if we couldn't get a table, but a bar stool and glass of wine was an acceptable compromise. And, as I mentioned, business at the bar seemed brisk. I saw a few couples with kids. The couples were having a drink at the bar while waiting for a table. I wonder if they'd have done that in a smoky bar. I don't think the bar business is dead, just changing its clientele. Don't get me wrong, I still have some sympthy for the displaced smoker/drinker who has no social place to go. I just don't buy the business loss angle to quickly.

[sammy]

If there is enough societal acceptance of smoke in the restaurant (or bar), then the proprietor would be crazy to turn away potential patrons who wish to smoke.  However, as society's acceptance of smoke in these environments changes -- helped along by legislation -- so does the proprietor's decision.

But now he has turned away potential patrons and it was the governments decision, not his own. Where is the logic?

And do we really want society's acceptance of things to be helped along by legislation? What if a current government doesn't believe it is right to eat hamburgers in restaurants? Is it okay once it becomes socially acceptable to no longer eat hamburgers? What about the arts? Should the government determine what is socially acceptable to see on Broadway or in museums or on film? Very dangerous.

I still don't understand why owners of bars and/or restaurants can't choose on their own to allow or disallow smoking in their establishments. The customers can then decide where they would like to go to spend their money.

Edited August 7, 2003 by sammy (log)