NYC Smoking Ban

[tommy]

I just don't buy the business loss angle to quickly.

that angle, i think, is usually mentioned in reference to bars. not so much restaurants.

[theakston]

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.

It is a shame nobody seems concerned enough about the health of servers to push for them to get mandatory health insurance. That would have a more direct impact on their health I'm sure.

[sammy]

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.

How do you know that they wouldn't have sold more dinners to smokers?

[slkinsey]

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.

This is the same bogus comparison others have been trying to make. It doesn't work. Your hamburger and your art and your film don't automatically affect other people. More to the point, they have no negative health consequences for the employees at the restaurant, museum, and cinema.

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.

For the same reason owners of basr/and or restaurants can't choose to allow sexual harassment in their establishments.

The customers can then decide where they would like to go to spend their money.

Sammy, if you take one thing away from this debate, understand this: this is not about customers, it is about employees. If it were about customers, you would be right. But it isn't. It's about employees and so you're wrong.

[sammy]

Last week, I was at the bar at Capitale and the bartender had a large bandage on his hand. I asked him what happened and he said he cut it on a broken glass a few nights before. Should the government legislate that bars and restaurants can only serve in plastic cups to protect employees from the preventable health risks associated with the dangers of handling real glass? I'm sure society will ultimately accept drinking a nice martini in a plastic cup if it was helped along by legislation.

Edited August 7, 2003 by sammy (log)

[tommy]

It is a shame nobody seems concerned enough about  the health of servers to push for them to get mandatory health insurance. That would have a more direct impact on their health I'm sure.

is health insurance mandatory in other industries?

[bergerka]

It is a shame nobody seems concerned enough about  the health of servers to push for them to get mandatory health insurance. That would have a more direct impact on their health I'm sure.

Oh? Mandatory as in "the employer pays for it?" Or perhaps they could lobby for AFFORDABLE health insurance for those who don't make a lot of money, how about that?

This is a sore point with me, as I cannot, in fact, afford health insurance, yet I make too much money to qualify for Medicaid.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled topic (and don't ask me what I think about smoking while you sit next to me, because I'll tell you, and it won't be pretty. "Fire hose" is the mildest way to put it).

K

[MatthewB]

All of you are more interesting when you talk about food.

[sammy]

Sammy, if you take one thing away from this debate, understand this: this is not about customers, it is about employees.  If it were about customers, you would be right.  But it isn't.  It's about employees and so you're wrong.

Understood but I believe we are being somewhat naive believing it is about the employees as opposed to a convenient way for the government to impose itself on our lives.

[slkinsey]

Last week, I was at the bar at Capitale and the bartender had a large bandage on his hand. I asked him what happened and he said he cut it on a broken glass a few nights before. Should the government legislate that bars and restaurants can only serve in plastic cups to protect employees from the preventable health risks associated with the dangers of handling real glass? I'm sure society will ultimately accept drinking a nice martini in a plastic cup if it was helped along by legislation.

Again, that is a bogus comparison. It is entirely possible to wash glasses without cutting one's hands, and the handling of the glassware is entirely under the control of the employee doing the washing. It is not possible -- short of wearing a respirator -- to be in a smoky room without breathing in smoke, and the breathing of that smoke is not under the control of the employee in the smoky environment.

That said, if one was able to reasonably determine that certain kinds of glassware posed an unnecessary and preventable health risk to restaurant employees, then legislation regulating its use would not be inappropriate. I don't think there is too much danger of this happening.

[slkinsey]

Sammy, if you take one thing away from this debate, understand this: this is not about customers, it is about employees.  If it were about customers, you would be right.  But it isn't.  It's about employees and so you're wrong.

Understood but I believe we are being somewhat naive believing it is about the employees as opposed to a convenient way for the government to impose itself on our lives.

One could say the same thing about sexual harassment, no? That bad old government is imposing itself on our lives by telling us we can't fondle the breasts of female employees and co-workers.

[Jaymes]

Sammy, if you take one thing away from this debate, understand this: this is not about customers, it is about employees.  If it were about customers, you would be right.  But it isn't.  It's about employees and so you're wrong.

Understood but I believe we are being somewhat naive believing it is about the employees as opposed to a convenient way for the government to impose itself on our lives.

One could say the same thing about sexual harassment, no? That bad old government is imposing itself on our lives by telling us we can't fondle the breasts of female employees and co-workers.

Right.

And, Dearie, if you don't like the boss bussing your boobies, your solution is to just quit and go find another job.

[Jaymes]

Sammy, if you take one thing away from this debate, understand this: this is not about customers, it is about employees.  If it were about customers, you would be right.  But it isn't.  It's about employees and so you're wrong.

Understood but I believe we are being somewhat naive believing it is about the employees as opposed to a convenient way for the government to impose itself on our lives.

And here we go again.

Rather than believe the stated reasons - other people don't want to breathe in smoke and employees shouldn't be forced to - you say that you don't believe it's about that at all.

Instead, it's about a prudish, busybody, judgmental government trying to interfere in your life because they think they know what's better for you more than you do.

Why can't you just accept that perhaps the employees have a point, and deal with it from THAT aspect. And try to help find a solution to that legitimate concern.

THAT might be constructive.

But saying "you're lying about your motivation and true intent" isn't at all.

Edited August 8, 2003 by Jaymes (log)

[MatthewB]

Sorry.

However much I may agree with kinsey's position on second-hand smoke & employees (& I agree more than one may think), sexual harassment is not the same thing.

Once again, we've veered off into more heat than light.

Back to food, perhaps?

[NeroW]

That bad old government is imposing itself on our lives by telling us we can't fondle the breasts of female employees and co-workers.

Stupid government.

[Callipygos]

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.

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.

Oh, I know, but if there weren't any smokers who were also rude prats, this could have been handled WITHOUT making a legal point of it.

And it's "Callipygos", with a C, not "Gallipygos", with a G.

[slkinsey]

However much I may agree with kinsey's position on second-hand smoke & employees (& I agree more than one may think), sexual harassment is not the same thing.

Please explain how, exactly, protecting employees from the negative health effects associated with passive inhalation of tobacco smoke is fundamentally different from protecting employees from the negative psychological effects associated with being groped?

[MatthewB]

However much I may agree with kinsey's position on second-hand smoke & employees (& I agree more than one may think), sexual harassment is not the same thing.

Please explain how, exactly, protecting employees from the negative health effects associated with passive inhalation of tobacco smoke is fundamentally different from protecting employees from the negative psychological effects associated with being groped?

Actually, the burden is on you. You're the one making the claim.

[slkinsey]

However much I may agree with kinsey's position on second-hand smoke & employees (& I agree more than one may think), sexual harassment is not the same thing.

Please explain how, exactly, protecting employees from the negative health effects associated with passive inhalation of tobacco smoke is fundamentally different from protecting employees from the negative psychological effects associated with being groped?

Actually, the burden is on you. You're the one making the claim.

It's obvious what makes them similar: they are both protecting employees from the negative effects of certain things in the workplace that are not under the employees' direct control, that are reasonably avoidable and that are not fundamentally part the job they are performing.

For what it's worth, however, I didn't make the claim they were the same. I only made a meaningful comparison. You, on the other hand, did make the claim that they weren't the same.

[tommy]

It's obvious what makes them similar: they are both protecting employees from the negative effects of certain things in the workplace that are not under the employees' direct control, that are reasonably avoidable and that are not fundamentally part the job they are performing.

and they're fundamentally different too. you can smoke outside, but you can't grab your waitress' ass outside. i'm pushing for that law to be repealed.

[slkinsey]

It's obvious what makes them similar: they are both protecting employees from the negative effects of certain things in the workplace that are not under the employees' direct control, that are reasonably avoidable and that are not fundamentally part the job they are performing.

and they're fundamentally different too. you can smoke outside, but you can't grab your waitress' ass outside. i'm pushing for that law to be repealed.

Damn it! That lousy government is stomping on my rights as an owner of private property to grab asses whenever and however I like!

[MatthewB]

It's obvious what makes them similar: they are both protecting employees from the negative effects of certain things in the workplace that are not under the employees' direct control, that are reasonably avoidable and that are not fundamentally part the job they are performing.

For what it's worth, however, I didn't say they were the same.  I only made a meaningful comparison.  You, on the other hand, did say that they weren't the same.

It may be obvious to you (& some others) but it's not obvious to *everyone.* And that's the problem.

Rarely can we ever claim that any two objects/concepts/whatevers are the "same." (Let's not drag cloning into this, OK?) That's why analogies are central to our thinking and yet so devious when we attempt to establish truth-claims based on analogies.

More importantly, I'm playing the gadfly as this discussion is taking away from your & others fine contributions to food postings.

Edited August 7, 2003 by MatthewB (log)

[macrosan]

There are two fundamental questions at issue here, and no-one (including the legislators) has a satisfactory answer to either of them.

The first is how great is the negative effect on health of passive smoking in places like bars. It is self-evident that it is likely to have a detrimental effect, but the very limited and inconclusive research that has been carried out suggests to me that it's no more detrimental than working in the streets of New York or an airport (exhaust fumes) or working in a bar in New York (hot, inadequate breaks, cramped space, standing too long, noisy, bad lighting).

The second is whether or not it is reasonable to prohibit a perfectly legal activity of a minority group (smokers). The answer to that must be linked to the first question. If the health risk is a clearly proven, significant risk, then I could see that could override normal civil liberties. But I don't believe the risk is well enough proven.

I have to admit that on balance I am glad this legislation is going through, but I am also aware that it is unjust. I have great sympathy for smokers, who are being victimized, and who deserve better from their elected officials. It is that victimization that is alienating smokers, who in turn react by the type of behavior criticized earlier by Jaymes and Callypigos.

And incidentally, in the same way that customers could choose to use a smoking or non-smoking bar, so equally could people choose to work in a smoking or non-smoking bar.

Edited August 7, 2003 by macrosan (log)

[tirgoddess]

After reading this thread, I have to throw my two cents in. I am currently a smoker, I have tried to quit twice. In college, my best friend from New Jersey (a Malboro Red smoker), taught me how to play pool at the neighborhood bar. I picked up on the game and for many years played in pool leagues at neighborhood bars, bars one could walk to and walk home from. I enjoyed my Thursday night competitions and my weekend socializing with my fellow working "class" buddies. During this time I was single and needed a place to go to blow off the work steam, laugh and kick ass on the pool table. Smoking was still legal and a non-issue. The California smoking ban came along and most bars complied. The neighborhood bars (windowless dives) switched to disposable ashtrays and opaque cups with water. A DA in my county pursued these bars and fined them to the point where they eventually had to comply. I agree with Bourdain that everyone needs a place to go to relax with a drink and a smoke. There is comfort to be found in windowless dives that is integral to America and should not be allowd to become extinct. I agree that smoking bothers some people. Most all of the folks at these types of establishments know that smoking is part of the package and they smoke themselves, or they don't mind profiting from their smoking clientele. Personally, if I was trying to quit again, I would not want to be around smokers and could not drink either. Shooting pool with out a cigarette would be a tough one as well. So when I decide to quit again I will have to forgo pool and drink for awhile. Until then, my friend who is a bartender, calls me up and lets me know when the bar is slow so I can shoot pool with her and other smokers at my leisure. The law in NY will stick as it has in CA, businesses and people will adjust. There are a couple of cities (or towns) in both Northern and Southern CA that forbid smoking outside in their towns. This to me is extremist and elitiest. I try to openly smoke in these cities whenever I visit. This snobishness I can do without. I can also do without being itentified as a "smoker". I consider myself to be a polite smoker. I can't stand it when my smoking friends throw their buts on my porch, patio or into my garden. Why can't they ask where the ashtray is? Why do I have to tell them, after finding a butt or two, to please use the ashtray?! Also, why if after having not seen me for a while, so my friends/associates comment on the fact that I am or am not smoking? Why does that have to be the topic of discussion? I usually have to shut them down right there and change the subject. Often times when meeting new people I hold back from smoking so that they can see that I am a smart, thoughtful person. I can't count how many times I have heard, "You don't look like a smoker!" Well, I yam what I yam, when I yam.

[NeroW]

It's obvious what makes them similar: they are both protecting employees from the negative effects of certain things in the workplace that are not under the employees' direct control, that are reasonably avoidable and that are not fundamentally part the job they are performing.

and they're fundamentally different too. you can smoke outside, but you can't grab your waitress' ass outside. i'm pushing for that law to be repealed.

Depends on the waitress, my friend.