Smoking Ban

[CigarMan]

Now that spring is around the corner, all of our smokers can once again enjoy this vice on outdoor patios, rather than having to run outside for a quick smoke.

As business professionals in New Jersey, has anyone seen a drop in business?

Considering that the law was intended to 'protect' those working in this industry, were you happy to see it banned?

[Rich Pawlak]

Now that spring is around the corner, all of our smokers can once again enjoy this vice on outdoor patios, rather than having to run outside for a quick smoke.

As business professionals in New Jersey, has anyone seen a drop in business?

Considering that the law was intended to 'protect' those working in this industry, were you happy to see it banned?

←

Thrilled. Not only for the restaurant and bar woorkers, but because it opened up the number o fplaces that I could dine with my severely asthmatic better half.

I still miss being able to fire up a stogie every now and then...

[Daniel]

I am all for personal freedoms being taken away by the government. Obviously, the owners of a business should not have the right to determine what can take place in there own establishment regardless if its a legal activity.. A person should have the right to walk into anyone elses business and change the policy for themselves.. Hell if someone is a pacifist but wants to be a boxer, they should be able to walk into a boxing ring and decide that punching is too violent for them.. Who cares if the person knew boxing was a violent sport prior to taking the job, they should be protected.. In fact, a lot of boxers are uneducated and have no where else to work.

In fact, I believe that the government should come into Egullet and just change a bunch of shit around..

Edited March 3, 2007 by Daniel (log)

[MJP]

I think the smoking ban is wonderful in terms of restaurants and most indoor areas. I don't smoke, I hate the smell of tobacco, and it causes serious health problems. I think the removal of personal freedoms in the case of smoking justifies the harm it can do to others.

[markabauman]

If the question is just relating to whether a smoking ban has "hurt business" than the question is a loaded one. The question should also be whether a ban ultimately helps business. I live in NY state, but spend a bit of time in NJ, where my parents live. I believe that I can speak for a number of like-minded NY-ers who before the ban, avoided places that permitted smoking and patronized them afterwards. I can't back up anything with statistics, but I imagine that many NY restauranteurs eventually saw an improvement in business after the ban, not withstanding all the other benefits-health primarily.

[tommy]

I am all for personal freedoms being taken away by the government. Obviously, the owners of a business should not have the right to determine what can take place in there own establishment regardless if its a legal activity.. A person should have the right to walk into anyone elses business and change the policy for themselves.. Hell if someone is a pacifist but wants to be a boxer, they should be able to walk into a boxing ring and decide that punching is too violent for them.. Who cares if the person knew boxing was a violent sport prior to taking the job, they should be protected.. In fact, a lot of boxers are uneducated and have no where else to work.

In fact, I believe that the government should come into Egullet and just change a bunch of shit around..

←

that was actually the most compelling argument that i've read on the subject of smoking as it relates to prize fighting and sports and wanting to be a boxer.

i was talking to a restaurant owner the other day, and he is thrilled with the smoking ban, as the bar area can now be used for anyone wanting dinner. before it was smoke-filled, and only a percentage of customers would want to be seated there, or even wait there for a table. he suggested that business is likely not negatively impacted (the contrary was implied, but i don't think he or anyone could really qualify suspicions regarding swings in a business restaurants/bars). the hardcore smokers and drinkers just go to bars anywho.

Edited March 5, 2007 by tommy (log)

[tommy]

edit: can't be bothered pointing it out.

Edited March 5, 2007 by tommy (log)

[jim07044]

The government-regulated ban on smoking in restaurants and bars is no different than government-regulated ban of acts of public lewdness and noise levels after certain hours: you can do them in the privacy of the confines of your own home all you want, but in public spaces such acts affect the quality of life for others who also have a right to their preferences. These restrictions are more about protecting a quality of life rather than taking away personal freedoms: only fools would argue that tobacco has some redeeming health benefits to justify the cancer risk and second-hand inhalation consequence.

The government also regulates the selection, production, and quality of food in this country. Are you also against such "intrusion" and suggest we go back to the days of "eat at your own risk"?

[chefdavidrusso]

So here's a question to ponder.....could the ban on smoking be at all compared to the ban on foie gras (or vice versa)? Both are instances where personal consumption of an item is regulated by the government. The consumtion of that item gives great pleasure to the consumer, but has a negative health impact on someone else (for smoking it's the other people, for foie gras it's the ducks), and it is for that negative impact that the ban has been enacted. There are strong arguments for and against in each case, pitting personal freedoms vs. the greater good.

Yet my highly unofficial, thouroughly unscientific poll results indicate that alot of the same people who are FOR the smoking ban are AGAINST the foie gras ban.

Any thoughts?

(For the record....I'm for the smoking ban, against the foie gras ban)

Edited March 10, 2007 by chefdavidrusso (log)

[annecros]

Back in the day, when I was a waitress, the most coveted section in the restaurant was the smoking section.

Stayed longer, tipped better, bought more, just generally nicer people.

The non-smoking section was loaded with harpys, who were cheap and mean. And who would send back perfectly good food, because they just seemed to be in the mood to do so.

My personal experience. And only my personal experience.

[PLangfordJr]

The smoking ban was put into effect to protect those employees in the restaurant industry. I understand this for casinos, because if working in this industry is your trained profession, it would be difficult to gain employment elsewhere.

However, if I am working in a restaurant where there is smoking, I can get a job elsewhere. Working in a smoking establishment is a choice, and one where the pros of working in a cigar bar outweigh the cons.

Unless the government is willing to pay the restaurant owner's mortgage, why should they have the right to dictate what customers they open their doors to.

Many of the regulations in the NJ Free Air act make perfect sense...separate rooms for smoking/non smoking areas, two separate ventilation systems which do not feed into each other....if these were enforced rather than used as a requirement after the fact, I think that you would find many more satisfied smokers in New Jersey.

I've seen first hand that there is still a market in the New Jersey area for smokers, and many satisfied patrons once they find it.

[gia]

I would think non-smoking tables would turn over faster. On the flip side, smokers at bars may stay and drink more.

[bradyjr]

So here's a question to ponder.....could the ban on smoking be at all compared to the ban on foie gras (or vice versa)?  Both are instances where personal consumption of an item is regulated by the government.  The consumtion of that item gives great pleasure to the consumer, but has a negative health impact on someone else (for smoking it's the other people, for foie gras it's the ducks), and it is for that negative impact that the ban has been enacted.  There are strong arguments for and against in each case, pitting personal freedoms vs. the greater good.

Yet my highly unofficial, thouroughly unscientific poll results indicate that alot of the same people who are FOR the smoking ban are AGAINST the foie gras ban.

Any thoughts?

(For the record....I'm for the smoking ban, against the foie gras ban)

←

First, hey Dave it’s been a long time since I talked to you, hope all is well.

Second I would like to say where I am coming from. I am a semi ex-smoker. I was a regular smoker when I was younger, but now I only smoke a couple times per year. I am also pro smoking ban and anti foie gras ban. It’s probably at least partly a selfish opinion because my wife and I like to eat dinner at the bar and there’s nothing worse than getting your beautiful dinner served to you and then have the guy next to you light up and blow smoke in your face while you try to enjoy it. But back before the ban I wouldn’t complain because it was my choice to sit at the bar. Also, I like foie gras better than I like smoking.

Now my opinion: I don’t feel that you can really compare the smoking ban and the foie gras ban due to what is being protected. The smoking ban is an interpretation of the Constitution where it is stated (very paraphrased here) that people have unlimited freedoms as long as they don’t interfere with the freedoms of others. As far as I know, ducks are not protected by the Constitution. The ban on foie gras is based on an ethical feeling that the way that foie gras ducks are raised is cruel. (Not going to get into that debate right now.) On the other hand the second hand smoke argument for the smoking ban is based on the assumption that the smoker’s freedom to smoke is slowly killing the non-smoker and therefore interfering with the non-smoker’s freedom to live. Now the foie gras ban does not imply that it is bad to eat foie gras, but the process of creating foie gras is bad and that if a less cruel approach was found that the raising of foie gras ducks would be condoned. On the other hand, in most places, it is rarely if ever acceptable to kill somebody. I know this is an extreme argument, but I was trying to clarify my opinion the differences rather than argue whether either one is right or wrong.

Edited March 12, 2007 by bradyjr (log)

[Lreda]

Well folks, now that I'm not in the F&B industry I feel I can offer a opinion that is somewhat unbias. The smoking ban has murdered the independant restaurant and small bar owner. I've been on the road the last 3 weeks and have been forced to eat in chain restaurants and while not to be critical about the food, ( that's a different story), the indie has been murdered by this law. People who dine at upscale indies alone generally smoke. I know. I witnessed this over 12 years. Smokers stay home and mostly dine corperately(sic) and will sneak outside to snag a smoke. Most Indies will be gone soon and the smoking law was the 1st government law to be enacted that is difficult to adapt to for Indies, while Chains will have no trouble with the trans-fat laws and whatever else the government deems healthly for us.

P.S. I stopped smoking recently, I'll let you know after I get back from Dallas, Arkansas and Missouri, I have no clue if they have non-smoking laws.

[markabauman]

Well, to repeat once again- this is deja vu all over again for us from NY state (although I spend a good amount of time in NJ). After an initial sorting out, since our smoking ban has been in place, if you ask many restaurant owners (including independents) - the general feeling is that the ban has been, in fact, very good for business (besides the health protection of workers, etc.). Many people who formerly avoided smoke-filled places now are frequent, regular customers and for many, business is better than ever. Indies may have legitimate competive business problems, but, generally, in NY, the smoking ban is not considered one of them. I know many NY-er's who when travelling in another state most definitely avoid restaurants if they find that they permit smoking. Hang in there- hopefully NJ's experience will parallel that of NY.

[Kim WB]

I live in Lambertville, which is two football fields and a river away from New Hope PA...most people just walk over the two lane bridge. I was at a Chamber of Commerce event this past week, and spoke to a number of owners who agreed that the ban has been a plus for them. They had concerns that their patrons would go over to PA to smoke at the bar..and the most hard core of them did. But in their place, patrons ordering cosmos instead of $3 Domestics, ordering things to nibble, coming back w/ frineds for dinner...and there are no chains in either town, other than a Starbucks, so Lou's thesis doesn't fly here.

Lou did you sell American Grill?

[slkinsey]

I am all for personal freedoms being taken away by the government. Obviously, the owners of a business should not have the right to determine what can take place in there own establishment regardless if its a legal activity.

I really don't get why so many people have a hard tims understanding this. Bar and restaurant smoking bans (just like airplane and office building smoking bans) are not there to protect customers. They are there to protect the workers. If you believe that the government shouldn't be able to regulate smoking in the workplace, then you also believe that OSHA shouldn't exist and that the government shouldn't be able to regulate anything having to do with workplace safety. What the heck, those miners can always get a job working at another mine if they don't like working without respirators, right? The Occupational Safety and Health Act has been around for over 35 years, and it is firmly established that not only can the government enact workplace regulations to protect workers, but indeed this is a responsibility of a good government. History has clearly shown us that business owners aren't going to inconvenience themselves or spend money to protect their workers unless the government makes them do it.

As for smoking being a legal activity, this is a fallacious argument. There are plenty of activities that are legal in certain contexts and not legal in others, sexual acts being the most obvious example. I should point out that there is no law preventing citizens from the legal act of dosing themselves with nicotine in the workplace. Nicotine patches, nicotine gum, chewing tobacco and snuff are all legal. What is banned is a way of ingesting nicotine that negatively impacts the health of workers in their place of work (and the evidence is too overwhelming at this point to suggest that secondhand smoke is not a health hazard). Or, more to the point, the real effect of these legislations is not to ban smoking in the workplace, but rather to ban secondhand smoke from the workplace. If smokers were willing to envelop themselves in plastic spacesuits while they were smoking, I imagine this might be allowed. But, on the other hand, I think most any smoker would rather just step outside for a few minutes.

Well, to repeat once again- this is deja vu all over again for us from NY state (although I spend a good amount of time in NJ). After an initial sorting out, since our smoking ban has been in place, if you ask many restaurant owners (including independents) - the general feeling is that the ban has been, in fact, very good for business (besides the health protection of workers, etc.).

Some places have suffered, it's true. Of course, some places are going to suffer from any change in the marketplace. This would be especially true for businesses that don't have much more to offer beyond a place to smoke while someone sells you a bottle of overpriced beer and a watered shot, and a place like this that was in borderline financial shape would have been especially hard hit by the temporary dip in business during the "sorting out" period. Some of these places closed. It's too bad, but the bar and restaurant business is a ruthless one. Places close all the time for all kinds of reasons. In terms of the overall business, my friends in both the bar and restaurant world all tell me that the effect of the NYC and NYS bans has been good for business. I believe that there is economic data to back this up, perhaps in the thread on the New York ban.

It can be temporarily difficult for businesses under a ban that are conveniently close to businesses that are not under a ban, as in Kim WB's example. I say "temporarily" because it seems clear to me that the country at large is moving in the direction of smoking bans for bars and restaurants, and soon these disparities won't exist. Similarly, bars and liquor stores near the border of a state with a lower drinking age lost business when legal age in their state was raised to 21. Some of these businesses, if they depended heavily on 19 and 20 year olds for business, suffered greatly. Some of them were unable to adjust, and they closed. But, eventually, the other state went up to 21 and the disparity ceased to exist.

[markabauman]

Well stated.

[Daniel]

I really don't get why so many people have a hard tims understanding this. Bar and restaurant smoking bans (just like airplane and office building smoking bans) are not there to protect customers. They are there to protect the workers. If you believe that the government shouldn't be able to regulate smoking in the workplace, then you also believe that OSHA shouldn't exist and that the government shouldn't be able to regulate anything having to do with workplace safety. What the heck, those miners can always get a job working at another mine if they don't like working without respirators, right? The Occupational Safety and Health Act has been around for over 35 years, and it is firmly established that not only can the government enact workplace regulations to protect workers, but indeed this is a responsibility of a good government. History has clearly shown us that business owners aren't going to inconvenience themselves or spend money to protect their workers unless the government makes them do it.

Since we are talking in the New Jersey forum, I am assuming we are speaking about the New Jersey smoking act.. This bans smoking in public places regardless of who works there.. So you are incorrect to say this ban is to protect the workers.. If a bar or restaurant is operated by a group of owners who smoke, they still would be unable to smoke inTHEIR PROPERTY.. If the law was so concerned with the workers in the business, the law would take into account a situation where there are no workers besides the owner or owners..

I havent checked the New Jersey Mining Law Books but I dont think there would be a huge fuss if some guy owned his own coal mine and decided to work there by himself with out an oxygen tank.. Regardless, its off topic..

As for smoking being a legal activity, this is a fallacious argument. There are plenty of activities that are legal in certain contexts and not legal in others, sexual acts being the most obvious example

You also mention like strip clubs, sex shows, whore houses, peep booths.. All these take place in public businesses provided proper zoning and permits.. Why can't people provide permits for smoking establishments.. It is incredibly unfair to not offer the other side an alternative. You could provide a small percentage of the restaurants and bars in a given area a smoking permit.. Thus allowing these starving waitresses a larger pool of non smoking restaurants to work at

Edited March 12, 2007 by Daniel (log)

[slkinsey]

Since we are talking in the New Jersey forum, I am assuming we are speaking about the New Jersey smoking act.. This bans smoking in public places regardless of who works there.. So you are incorrect to say this ban is to protect the workers.. If a bar or restaurant is operated by a group of owners who smoke, they still would be unable to smoke in THEIR PROPERTY.. If the slaw was so concerned with the workers in the business, the law would take into account a situation where there are no workers besides the owner or owners.

The New Jersey legislation does not appear to have exemptions for businesses in which owners are the sole employees and all are smokers. This seems like it would be a somewhat reasonable exemption, although I can think of plenty of cases that could cause problems. For example, let's say that three smokers are partners in a bar and decide to have a smoking workplace. They are the sole employees and they take turns tending bar. One of the partners quits smoking for health reasons. So, now what happens? He has to give up his partnership in the bar, and his livelihood because he isn't a smoker anymore? Or would it be the case that any partner at any time would have the right under the law to decide to make the business non-smoking at any time? At some point, one gets into a situation where there are a million individual cases and a million would-be exceptions. It is not unusual for laws of this kind to apply to all workplaces, regardless of whether they are operated only by the owners.

But, let's be honest here, the number of establishments where the sole employees are both owners and smokers are minimal. And where they do exist, there is very little the law can do to affect their business. If those three bar owners were instead partners in an accounting business who wanted to have a smoking office, the police wouldn't be breaking their door down to arrest them.

For what it's worth, the New Jersey legislation does give exemptions to "any cigar bar or cigar lounge that ... generated 15% or more of its total annual gross income from the on-site sale of tobacco products and the rental of on-site humidors" and "any tobacco retail establishment, or any area the tobacco retail establishment provides for the purposes of smoking," as well as the casinos (this last one being purely political, of course).

I havent checked the New Jersey Mining Law Books but I dont think there would be a huge fuss if some guy owned his own coal mine and decided to work there by himself with out an oxygen tank..

Let's use an example that is easier to understand: If workplace law says that a restaurant has to have a certain kind of fire extinguisher on the premises, I believe that even a small restaurant where the owner is the sole operator would be subject to that law.

The law does contain this exemption"

The provisions of this act shall not be construed to apply to a place or building owned and operated by a social or fraternal organization when used by the members of the organization and their guests or families, in which all of the duties with respect to the operation of the organization, including, but not limited to, the preparation of food and beverages, the service of food and beverages, reception and secretarial work, and the security services of the organization are performed by members of the organization who do not receive compensation of any kind from the organization or any other entity for the performance of the duties.

As for smoking being a legal activity, this is a fallacious argument. There are plenty of activities that are legal in certain contexts and not legal in others, sexual acts being the most obvious example

You also mention like strip clubs, sex shows, whore houses, peep booths.. All these take place in public businesses provided proper zoning and permits.. Why can't people provide permits for smoking establishments.. It is incredibly unfair to not offer the other side an alternative. You could provide a small percentage of the restaurants and bars in a given area a smoking permit.. Thus allowing these starving waitresses a larger pool of non smoking restaurants to work at.

These are not analogous situations. Public nudity and sexual acts are a fundamental part of the business for strip clubs, sex shows, whore houses, peep booths. This is what they sell: public nudity and sexual acts. Smoking is not a fundamental part of the business for restaurants and bars. What they sell is food and drink. For the small percentage of businesses where tobacco smoke is a fundamental part of the business (i.e., cigar bars and tobacconists) there is a provision in the New Jersey Smoke-Free Air Act that allows smoking in these establishments. A cigar bar would bt the smoking analogue to someplace like Roberto's (the steakhouse at the Penthouse Club in NYC).

[Daniel]

The New Jersey legislation does not appear to have exemptions for businesses in which owners are the sole employees and all are smokers.  This seems like it would be a somewhat reasonable exemption, although I can think of plenty of cases that could cause problems.

Yeh, I dont consider this a slight over site.. This is a clear example where the government is coming into an establishment and taking away the property rights of an individual.. I also thinks this prooves that the smoking ban is not to protect workers as you have suggested.. Its to take away freedoms plain and simple by a group of self-righteousness, do gooders, who want to stamp out smoking because of there own moral self satisfaction.. Just like these transfat people. Its a big world, there will be some things you dont like.. But that doesnt mean it should exist..

Edited March 12, 2007 by Daniel (log)

[slkinsey]

Daniel, I get that you feel that way. But the fact remains that you simply haven't made a case that this legislation is meaningfully different from any other piece of workplace safety and public safety legislation.

[Daniel]

Daniel, I get that you feel that way.  But the fact remains that you simply haven't made a case that this legislation is meaningfully different from any other piece of workplace safety and public safety legislation.

←

I have made the case and particularly in owner operated establishments where it would be ridiculous to protect someone from something they can legally do anywhere besides at work.. You should really look at yourself and see that your objection to smoking is more passionate then your protection of our rights..

[slkinsey]

Daniel, I don't object to smoking in principle (in fact, I feel very strongly that cannabis should be legalized). Also, it's a fact that 99% of the places I'd want to go don't, didn't and wouldn't allow smoking anyway. So it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other, because it doesn't affect me. You just seem to have an attitude about this that says, "they're the owners and therefore they should be able to do whatever they want in their business." All I'm saying is that this is not only unrealistic but incongruous with the known history of workplace and public health legislation. The facts are that the government can and has made legislations and rules of this kind to protect workers in the workplace. I think you will find that there has not been a single successful lawsuit protesting a workplace and public space smoking ban.

So, no... you haven't made the case. Not at all. Let's go back to my earlier example of an analogous situation: The law requires that restaurant kitchens be equipped with a portable fire extinguisher suitable for a Class K fire, with a maximum travel distance of thirty feet. That fire extinguisher must be serviced by a certified fire extinguisher servicing company. This extinguisher is there for the protection of the employees. Let's say we have an outdoor restaurant like Shake Shack where the structure contains only the kitchen, and let's further say that the only people working in this kitchen are owners of the restaurant.

Now, keep in mind that it is legal for individuals to be in their own kitchen without a fire extinguisher. Plenty of people do this in their own homes every day. What you are suggesting is that the owners of that restaurant, because they are the only kitchen employees, should be able to decide that they don't want this government-mandated workplace protection. It's their restaurant, right? And if they're only endangering themselves and no one else by not having a fire extinguisher, they should be able to make that choice, right? This is analogous to the argument you're making. Do you think you can make this case?

If sole proprietors should be able to decide to forego the workplace protection of a smoking ban, then it follows logically that sole proprietors should be able to forego the workplace protection of having a fire extinguisher or certain kinds of ventilation, the requirement that employees not operate machinery under the influence of narcotics and alcohol -- well, pretty much any workplace safety protections they want. You're saying: "they're sole proprietors, and as long as no non-owner employees are affected, they should be able to do whatever they want." Well, guess what: they can't. They're subject to the same laws, regulations and rules as business owners who have employees. If you're not happy about that... hey, I feel you. Take it up with the Supreme Court, not me. I'm not telling you how it should be, I'm explaining how it is. Going back to my example of an analogous situation, the restaurant would still be required by law to have a fire extinguisher.

[Daniel]

You are using way too many examples which dont really apply to anything we are talking about.. The ban only tells workers they can not smoke inside while they are on the job.. If any of what you are saying made sense, then this should ban employees from smoking while working at all.. So this means they would have to punch out, not be paid for the time while they are smoking, then punch back in when they are ready to resume..

The law doesnt protect employees from smoking cigarettes, its only protecting them from inhaling the additional second hand smoke from the cigarette while smoked indoors.. Are you saying that the employee should not be able to go to there car in the parking lot and roll up the windows to smoke? Because hey, they are inhaling second hand smoke in there car. Which is also there property.. I guess thats the next step.. Again, its rather ridiculous..

Edited March 12, 2007 by Daniel (log)