Smoke Free NJ

[jwjojo]

How is it that an owner of an establishment should have a freedom of choice to allow poison to harm his/her customers? That is not a legal choice. It is against the law to knowingly hurt people with toxins....cigarette smoke is toxic. Absolutely no doubt about that. Why is this a discussion?? It is only the financial issue here that is at the heart of this discussion, not freedom of choice etc. It is the financial hit owners may feel. There is no question as to the issue regarding the health of the partons and workers. Cigarette smoke is Toxic. Scientific fact. So the notion of health vs. money becomes the only issue here folks.

[pete ganz]

I thought there was a stipulation (in NY maybe?) that says if there is only one proprietor, who is also the only bartender, then smoking would be permitted if he/she allowed it. This would basically only apply to the hole-in-the-wall, old man bars, which certainly serve a purpose at times.

[Daniel]

How is it that an owner of an establishment should have a freedom of choice to allow poison to harm his/her customers?  That is not a legal choice.  It is against the law to knowingly hurt people with toxins....cigarette smoke is toxic.  Absolutely no doubt about that.  Why is this a discussion??  It is only the financial issue here that is at the heart of this discussion, not freedom of choice etc.  It is the financial hit owners may feel.  There is no question as to the issue regarding the health of the partons and workers.  Cigarette smoke is Toxic.  Scientific fact.  So the notion of health vs. money becomes the only issue here folks.

←

We are talking about a legal product.. Until cigarettes are made illegal, it is still legal to smoke them..

As long as we are protecting non-smokers who are forced to go to restaurants against there will.. I think restaurants should also be forced to provide Kosher Meals.. What about the poor helpless Kosher people that cant go to the BBQ Restaurant.. Or what about the Vegan.. Restaurants should be forced to provide full vegan meal as well.. Also wheat free and whatever else people are allergic too.. They do it with peanut butter in places..

Edited January 6, 2006 by Daniel (log)

[Rachel Perlow]

  So the notion of health vs. money becomes the only issue here folks.

←

Which makes it a non-food, off topic issue, IMO. The only part of this discussion that belongs on eGullet is how it could affect restaurants/bars, not the political ramifications and loss of freedoms, etc.

[Jason Perlow]

How is it that an owner of an establishment should have a freedom of choice to allow poison to harm his/her customers?  That is not a legal choice.  It is against the law to knowingly hurt people with toxins....cigarette smoke is toxic.  Absolutely no doubt about that.  Why is this a discussion??  It is only the financial issue here that is at the heart of this discussion, not freedom of choice etc.  It is the financial hit owners may feel.  There is no question as to the issue regarding the health of the partons and workers.  Cigarette smoke is Toxic.  Scientific fact.  So the notion of health vs. money becomes the only issue here folks.

←

We are talking about a legal product.. Until cigarettes are made illegal, it is still legal to smoke them..

As long as we are protecting non-smokers who are forced to go to restaurants against there will.. I think restaurants should also be forced to provide Kosher Meals.. What about the poor helpless Kosher people that cant go to the BBQ Restaurant.. Or what about the Vegan.. Restaurants should be forced to provide full vegan meal as well.. Also wheat free and whatever else people are allergic too.. They do it with peanut butter in places..

←

The key differnece Daniel, is that cigarette smoke is harmful to other people, whereas kosher and vegan lifestyles are simply a lifestyle and dietary choice and their choice to pursue that lifestyle only affects themselves.

[slkinsey]

no other type of worker has to decide whether or not to take a job based on the air quality of the job site (when it's not directly related to the nature of the work).  i don't see why bar employees should be any different.

I've made these points elsewhere, but Tommy makes the crucial point very well.

These bans are not about protecting customers from secondhand smoke. Customers can choose to go elsewhere. They are about protecting workers in the workplace.

This is also not an issue of the government unfairly interfering with owners' rights. It has long been established in this country that the government can enact measures to protect workers from unnecessary hazards in the workplace. I don't see how a workplace smoking ban interferes with owners' rights any more than OSHA regulations or sexual harassment laws.

[Daniel]

OK.. So this is the part where we disagree.. I believe its the employee that should conform to the business.. You believe its the business's job to conform to the employee..

I believe a person has the ability to look at a job and choose if its what they want to do.. I.E Should buildings be made lower to accomodate workers who are afraid of heights? Or what if someone wants to be a boxer but doesnt like being hit? Should we remove punching from boxing to protect the worker?

Smoking existed before these people took there job.. If you are going to give me the example of the poor worker who has no other option, its simply not true.

[jwjojo]

I worked as a server for many years in a NYC. I had upper respitory issues throughout. My doctor told me to stop smoking...I didn't smoke. Second Hand smoke is hazardous to others. Period.

[Daniel]

Jwjojo,

Where are you serving now? Do they allow smoking?

[jwjojo]

I was in college when I worked as a server...before the ban obviously. I have not worked in a restaurant for many, many years. Thankfully. I also choose not to go to restaurants that allow smoking. IMO it interferes with everything, from the food to the ambience..and of course those pesky health issues.

[Rosie]

Whether you agree or disagree you have the opportunity to let your opinion count.

NJ Assembly Speaker Albio Sires (201)854-0900

NJ Assembly Majority Leader Joseph Roberts

(856)742-7600

[Daniel]

I have heard anecdotal evidence of people being affected by working around smokers.. The restaurant industry is a huge one with many employees.. I wonder if any studies have been done to proove either way if restaurant or bar workers who dont smoke have been affected.. Again, not on the individual case but there must be statistics..

[Taboni]

These bans are not about protecting customers from secondhand smoke.  Customers can choose to go elsewhere.  They are about protecting workers in the workplace.

Just not casino workers. They don't count I guess.

[jwjojo]

A new University of Minnesota study finds that nonsmokers who work in bars and restaurants that allow smoking have higher levels of nicotine and cancer-causing chemicals in their bodies on workdays than when they're not working.

Researchers found that nonsmoking employees had up to 25 times more nicotine in their urine on workdays than on other days.

The co-director of the university's tobacco research center said the same employees had up to four-and-a-half times higher levels on a chemical associated with a cancer-causing toxin on days that they worked.

They study found that even on their days off, the employees had higher levels of the toxin than people who don't work around secondhand smoke.

The study is published in the new issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.

[slkinsey]

OK.. So this is the part where we disagree.. I believe its the employee that should conform to the business.. You believe its the business's job to conform to the employee..

I believe a person has the ability to look at a job and choose if its what they want to do.. I.E Should buildings be made lower to accomodate workers who are afraid of heights? Or what if someone wants to be a boxer but doesnt like being hit?  Should we remove punching from boxing to protect the worker? 

Smoking existed before these people took there job..  If you are going to give me the example of the poor worker who has no other option, its simply not true.

Daniel, the problem with your line of reasoning is that it leads directly back to an industrial revolution-era unregulated workplace. Your examples are, of course, deliberately ridiculous ones. But how about some real examples that would follow from this philosophy: Should construction companies be forced to mandate hardhats and provide safety lines and harnesses? Should mining companies be forced to provide ventilation and other air safety measures? Should manufacturing companies be forced to meet safety standards so their machines don't tear their workers' arms off? Your line of reasoning suggests that they shouldn't -- that the "employees should conform to the business" and simply accept these risks. I believe -- and the government of this and every other modern country agrees -- that the clear answer to all these questions is, "yes, they should." And the sad fact is that none of these things would have happened in these industries if the government hadn't stepped in with regulations. For sure, mine owners and factory owners and industrialists weren't suddenly going to decide to spend money on safety measures unless someone made them do it.

As for "taking the punching out of boxing to protect the worker," that is an even more flawed example. In boxing, punching is an inherent part of the job. No punching equals no boxing. So you can't take the punching out of boxing. Similarly, being around gigantic raging fires that have a risk of exploding is an inherent part of the job if you work putting out oil field fires. You can't take that out of the job, because then there wouldn't be a job. Being around secondhand smoke, on the other hand, is simply not an inherent part of the job of working in an office building, serving someone a plate of food, working as a flight attendant, pouring someone a glass of beer, etc. Take away the secondhand smoke, and the job is not affected one bit. I should point out, however, that in boxing they do take safety measures to protect the workers. Boxing is a highly regulated job. Boxers wear gloves, their hands are taped, both tape and hands are inspected, there are strict rules that must be followed, there is ringside medical personnel, and there is a referee in the ring to make sure the rules are followed and to protect the safety of the workers.

For what I think is a definitive study on the health risks associated with secondhand smoke in the bar and restaurant workplace, google for "Respirable Particles and Carcinogens in the Air of Delaware Hospitality Venues Before and After a Smoking Ban," which was published in the Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine (46(9):887-905, September 2004. Repace, James MSc). The fulltext is out there somewhere.

[Anonymouze]

Also I have to mention two different occasions years ago that smoking affected my situation. On one occasion, once I temped somewhere, there were only 2 non-smokers one non-smoker was me! I walked in there and felt like I was undersea it was so bad, thank god I was only there 1 week but I had to use my steroidal inhalers like crazy I think I put 5 pounds on that week alone! LOL

The 2nd time I was an office manager and had to hire some temps and I let them know if they needed to smoke, smoking outside was okay but I had to let one go her hair, clothing, everything REEKED and when she walked by all us non-smokers glanced at each other... she was definitely a heavy duty smoker. A lot of smokers don't notice how much they smell of cigarette smoke. UGH! It's just plain nasty and there is no NEED to smoke really!

[Daniel]

Slkinsey,

My reference to taking the punching out of boxing would result in the ban of boxing all together.. Also, besides air testing, if this is such a problem, there should be countless studies showing the affects on the workers.. Are the studies or cases showing the there are alarming numbers of restaurant workers dropping dead or getting more sick then non restaurant workers?

Edited January 6, 2006 by Daniel (log)

[CiriloE]

Smoking existed before these people took there job... 

←

Business always changed for the benefit of the workers albeit with great resistance from industry. Workers joined companies that had pre-existing high levels of lead, phenol, mercury, arsenic, formaldehyde, asbestos, etc. in the past. The work environment were made to change once the health effects were directly connected. Why can't we accept that about smoking? If a smoke free working environment is not possible, this is NJ after all, improved engineering controls like negative air pressure rooms for smokers may be help protect the workers of this industry.

Cirilo

[Daniel]

Smoking existed before these people took there job... 

←

The work environment were made to change once the health effects were directly connected.

Cirilo

←

Ok.. So show me the direct connection.. Show me studies showing the health improvements of New York Restaurant workers passed personal experience.. Show me figures and facts.. If its so harmful and deadly proove it with facts that clearly should be there in countless cases of restaurant workers..

Edited January 6, 2006 by Daniel (log)

[jwjojo]

Daniel, you now have two studies to interpret on the negative effects of second hand smoke. It is scientific...not really up for debate. Just as smoking is bad for you..not really up for debate. I am sure you too can find all the studies you are looking for in a google search. Just make sure the tobacco industry is not the author.

[tommy]

We are talking about a legal product.. Until cigarettes are made illegal, it is still legal to smoke them..

←

masturbating, as far as i know, is legal. masturbating in public, however, not so much. the argument is not very strong.

it's been a while since i've even thought to my self "hey, i'm glad to see sam chiming in". but his comments here are right in line with my own. not from a political or social standpoint, but from a logical one. so, i'll stick to my tried-and-true masturbation argument.

[Daniel]

You can smoke in public.. Just not with your pants down..

[tommy]

You can smoke in public.. Just not with your pants down.. 

←

personally i'd like that law reversed. literally.

[mitchellwarren]

Daniel, you now have two studies to interpret on the negative effects of second hand smoke.  It is scientific...not really up for debate.  Just as smoking is bad for you..not really up for debate.  I am sure you too can find all the studies you are looking for in a google search.  Just make sure the tobacco industry is not the author.

←

One can add many things to the list which includes your masturbation example:

sex, in general

drinking alcoholic beverages

sleeping

fist fights

All of these things are legal but not acceptable, for the most part, in the workplace.

[menton1]

You can smoke in public.. Just not with your pants down.. 

←

personally i'd like that law reversed. literally.

←

There are a couple of beaches in Italy where this is probably true... Do you prefer the Adriatic or the Mediterranean?