Smoking Ban

[chefdavidrusso]

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..

←

What's wrong with that? Why should they be allowed to smoke on company time?

[Daniel]

There is nothing wrong with that if its company policy.. But it should not be A State Law!

[slkinsey]

No, that's not correct. The ban does not say that workers cannot smoke inside while they are on the job. The ban says that no one can smoke in the workplace. The reason no one can smoke in the workplace is that smoking in the workplace creates secondhand smoke in the workplace. The effect of the legislation is to say: "Secondhand smoke is a danger in the workplace, therefore there will be no secondhand smoke in the workplace. Since secondhand smoke is created by smoking, there will be no smoking in the workplace." The purpose of the legislation is to protect workers from inhaling secondhand smoke at their place of work. If people want to expose themselves to secondhand smoke outside the workplace on their own time, that's their own business. No one has anything to say about that.

The government has determined that secondhand smoke is a sufficiently dangerous workplace hazard that it should not be allowed in the workplace. Similarly, the government has determined that fires in restaurant kitchens are a sufficiently dangerous workplace hazard that restaurant kitchens must have fire extinguishers. If people would like to expose themselves to firsthand or secondhand smoke outside of the workplace, or if they would like to cook without protection of a fire extinguisher outside of the workplace, that is their own decision to make.

Your "secondhand smoke in the car" example does not follow, becase the car is not the employee's workplace. In the cases where it is the employee's workplace, I think that certain exemptions might apply (e.g., if the employee is the only person to use the car, smoking might be allowed). Your "making the employees clock out on a smoke break" also does not follow. Employees are provided (again, by the exact kinds of workplace regulations you don't like) with a certain amount of paid break time per shift.

Edited March 12, 2007 by slkinsey (log)

[menton1]

Hear, hear Sam. And yes, it needs to be law. Just as there are health laws regarding sanitary conditions to protect our health, we need smoking ban laws to protect our health.

And, face it, these bans are here to stay. The fact that diehard smoking countries like Ireland, Italy and France have nationwide smoking bans now shows that this is serious, logical and acceptable.

[ghostrider]

It's a curious effect of the law that some NJ restaurants which previously allowed smoking have transformed themselves into hookah cafes in order to maintain their previous level of business.

It's an interesting & somewhat disorienting experience going out to dinner & finding yourself surrounded by tablefuls of teens puffing away on hookahs. I'm no longer sure what decade or country I'm living in. Though I'm still pretty sure it's not Amsterdam.

Do these teens & cafe workers need legal protections too? Is second-hand hookah smoke bad for you? I suppose there are studies.

[Jaymes]

Don't know about NJ, but understand that in some locales, exceptions to the 'no smoking' rule indeed are made for single-owner restaurants, with the understanding that there will never be an employee hired. If even one employee is hired, the no smoking rules are automatically applied.

The rationale is that the 'smoking thing' could be used as a ruse to not hire someone that otherwise is qualified.

In other words, the owner could say that they didn't hire a certain person only because that person was a non-smoker when, in fact, the owner didn't like the race/gender/sexual orientation/age/whatever of the employee.

So, if you own and operate the establishment by yourself, you can do whatever you like regarding smoking, going on the same theory as "I've got a coal mine in my backyard and I don't need no stinkin' oxygen tank."

It's the employee thing that makes the difference.

Although again, this doesn't seem to be the case for NJ. Just offering it as an example to Daniel that in some jurisdictions, anyway, it is about the employees.

[richl2214]

I wish they would ban alcohol in restaurants and bars. It really impacts the health and safety of those consuming and those around them.

[tommy]

I wish they would ban alcohol in restaurants and bars.  It really impacts the health and safety of those consuming and those around them.

←

impacts the health and safety of bystanders? do you mean emotionally? or maybe you're referring to drinking and driving, which is already illegal. or punching someone because you're a drunk idiot, which is already illegal.

[Jaymes]

I wish they would ban alcohol in restaurants and bars.  It really impacts the health and safety of those consuming and those around them.

I don't really give a royal rip about the "health and safety of those consuming," and I'd agree with you if "those consuming" also leaned over to my table every five minutes and forced me to "consume" with them, whether I liked it or not.

[menton1]

I wish they would ban alcohol in restaurants and bars.  It really impacts the health and safety of those consuming and those around them.

←

Spoken like a diehard smoker!! But, sorry, smoking bans are here to stay. If they can stick in Italy, Ireland, and France, they will stick here.

[gfron1]

I'm very proud of my state of NM that goes smokefree later this summer (just signed into law yesterday). My little oasis mountain town has been smoke free for years, but now our bars go clean too!

[tommy]

I'm very proud of my state of NM that goes smokefree later this summer (just signed into law yesterday).  My little oasis mountain town has been smoke free for years, but now our bars go clean too!

←

on a recent trip, i was very surprised to find a bar in Taos that allowed smoking. didn't notice that in Santa Fe too much. we took them up on their smokey offer and had a few after-dinner puffs with our after-dinner drinks. i'm looking forward to a smoke-free Taos on my next visit. something tells me the bar we went to (right there on the square, forget the name) won't suffer.

[richl2214]

I wish they would ban alcohol in restaurants and bars.  It really impacts the health and safety of those consuming and those around them.

←

Spoken like a diehard smoker!! But, sorry, smoking bans are here to stay. If they can stick in Italy, Ireland, and France, they will stick here.

←

I wouldn't say I'm a diehard smoker unless you consider a fine cuban cigar once a month "diehard." I don't smoke cigarettes either. I do say though that when I read most of your posts they are always very assumptive. One thing I learned about the internet is never to assume too much. You are usually wrong.

For the record, I don't mind the smoking ban at all. I actually like it. I am just against an owner of an establishment being forced to ban something in his or her place that is legal to buy and consume in the US, like alcohol.

[menton1]

For the record, I don't mind the smoking ban at all. I actually like it. I am just against an owner of an establishment being forced to ban something in his or her place that is legal to buy and consume in the US, like alcohol

Can't see the logic of that. It's legal to buy a cellphone, but many restos ban loud conversations or ALL conversations on them, as it disturbs the other patrons. It's also legal to buy a broom, but you can't start sweeping up the floors of a restaurant while you are dining there.

The key ingredient here is consideration for your fellow patrons. Smoke, loud cellphone talk, are both deleterious to the dining experience of others. Not to mention the dangers of second hand smoke. That's the key issue here.

P.S. How can you be BOTH for and against the smoking ban at the same time, Rich?

Edited March 16, 2007 by menton1 (log)

[tommy]

For the record, I don't mind the smoking ban at all. I actually like it. I am just against an owner of an establishment being forced to ban something in his or her place that is legal to buy and consume in the US, like alcohol

Can't see the logic of that. It's legal to buy a cellphone, but many restos ban loud conversations or ALL conversations on them, as it disturbs the other patrons. It's also legal to buy a broom, but you can't start sweeping up the floors of a restaurant while you are dining there.

those aren't good analogies because those are policies put in place by the owner, not by legislation.

The key ingredient here is consideration for your fellow patrons.  Smoke, loud cellphone talk, are both deleterious to the dining experience of others.  Not to mention the dangers of second hand smoke.  That's the key issue here. 

actually the only issue and key here is the safety of workers. not respect for patrons.

i still don't understand the alcohol analogy either. it's clearly different than smoking, which has been explained many times in this thread and others.

regards,

analogy police

[hitmanoo]

For the record, I don't mind the smoking ban at all. I actually like it. I am just against an owner of an establishment being forced to ban something in his or her place that is legal to buy and consume in the US, like alcohol

Can't see the logic of that. It's legal to buy a cellphone, but many restos ban loud conversations or ALL conversations on them, as it disturbs the other patrons. It's also legal to buy a broom, but you can't start sweeping up the floors of a restaurant while you are dining there.

those aren't good analogies because those are policies put in place by the owner, not by legislation.

←

Exactly! Couldn't be said any better.

Huge difference between owners deciding what goes on inside their private establishments vs. the government dictating what goes on.

I find it quite obvious how Rich is both for and against the smoking ban. While he enjoys the effect it has had on the clean air, he doesn't like the fact that that choice is being forced upon restauant owners by our government. Smoke free air should be a matter of free will and ownership decision--not a matter of politics.

[richl2214]

For the record, I don't mind the smoking ban at all. I actually like it. I am just against an owner of an establishment being forced to ban something in his or her place that is legal to buy and consume in the US, like alcohol

Can't see the logic of that. It's legal to buy a cellphone, but many restos ban loud conversations or ALL conversations on them, as it disturbs the other patrons. It's also legal to buy a broom, but you can't start sweeping up the floors of a restaurant while you are dining there.

The key ingredient here is consideration for your fellow patrons. Smoke, loud cellphone talk, are both deleterious to the dining experience of others. Not to mention the dangers of second hand smoke. That's the key issue here.

P.S. How can you be BOTH for and against the smoking ban at the same time, Rich?

←

That's exactly my point. The owners can establish thier own set of "rules" establishment they own. Also, no one is forcing people to work in places that allow smoking.

I like the fact there is no smoking in dining establishments but I oppose the gov forcing owners to not have a choice.

Edited March 16, 2007 by richl2214 (log)

[tommy]

  Smoke free air should be a matter of free will and ownership decision--not a matter of politics.

←

i think the word "politics" has connotations that you don't mean to, um, connote. it's more, i believe, about government protecting workers, just as they do in so many other instances. (i'm not sure why people think restaurants/bars should be exempted). "government" and "politics" are not necessarily synonymous.

[Sneakeater]

For the record, I don't mind the smoking ban at all.  I actually like it.  I am just against an owner of an establishment being forced to ban something in his or her place that is legal to buy and consume in the US, like alcohol.

←

I'm pretty sure the owner couldn't legally have sex with his wife in the middle of the dining room during business hours, although it's legal for him to have sex with her elsewhere.

Edited March 16, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Sneakeater]

Uh-oh.

The Analogy Police probably won't like that one, either.

[tommy]

Uh-oh.

The Analogy Police probably won't like that one, either.

←

yeah, public acts of lewdness (or whatever you'd call that) are pretty much against the law everywhere. so it's not as though the government is saying that an owner can't allow something that is allowed everywhere else. then again you can get naked at some bars, and charge people to see you get naked. it's all very confusing, but i think we all can see the simple point that the government protects workers and has been for years and this is no friggin different. all of the analogies are pretty much nothing more than red herrings.

but i like the way you think. i often use the masturbation analogy which, i admit, is flawed. (shhh)

regards,

AP

Edited March 16, 2007 by tommy (log)

[slkinsey]

Huge difference between owners deciding what goes on inside their private establishments vs. the government dictating what goes on. ...  Smoke free air should be a matter of free will and ownership decision--not a matter of politics.

Count me among those who don't quite get this. At this point, the evidence is simply overwhelming that exposure to secondhand smoke is a health hazard. Understanding that, I'm not sure why anyone would argue that smoke free air should be an ownership decision. For example, factories are private establishments. And yet, workplace law says that these factories must install ventilation and provide other kinds of protections against dust and fumes, because these have been deemed a health and safety hazard. There has been factory inspection legislation in this country since something like 1875. Secondhand smoke is also a health and safety hazard. So I'm curious as to why you think this should be any different? Is it because society has historically been tolerant of this danger? Is it because the creation of secondhand smoke (also known as smoking) in certain contexts is a legal behavior? There are myriad examples of behaviors and practices that were once universally allowed and which have subsequently been either curtailed or prohibited for a variety of reasons.

[johnder]

Everyone,

I am going to close this topic as it seems it is just rehashing the same arguments in different permutations.

John