SMOKING BAN AMENDMENTS HOT TOPIC AS ALBANY LEGISLATIVE SESSION OPENS

Niagara Falls Reporter ^ | January 13 2004 | David Staba

[lockjaw02]

It looked like the perfect plan.

Late last winter, armed with spurious statistics, irrelevant comparisons and a strategy for sneaking the nation's strictest smoking ban through the state legislature and onto the desk of Gov. George Pataki, anti-smoking forces descended on Albany.

While the mainstream media snoozed, legislation prohibiting smoking almost anywhere except your own home or vehicle -- and don't think they didn't try to tell you what to do in those places, as well -- zipped from fond wish to state law in less than 48 hours.

The law took effect after state Assembly members and senators returned home for the five or six months off they get each year. Whatever resistance there might be from business owners and constituents, the thinking went, would surely die down by the time the 2004 legislative session kicked off in January.

Well, not quite.

"Based on public opinion I'm hearing, I think it's appropriate to try to find some kind of middle ground," state Sen. Byron Brown told the Niagara Falls Reporter.

Brown said he was stunned by the level of response to a survey his office sent out to hundreds of businesses, bingo halls and veterans' groups stung by the smoking prohibition.

"Even people in the hospitality industry said, 'They're not going to respond,'" Brown said. "But we got a phenomenal response rate. More than 40 percent of the surveys we sent out came back, and 87 percent of the responses said this is hurting their business and wanted to see a modification."

Brown, who initially voted in favor of the ban, said legislators were hoodwinked by ban supporters, who cited statistics allegedly showing that a similar law in California hadn't hurt restaurant and bar business, while pointing to the support of the New York State Restaurant Association as evidence that business owners supported the bill.

Last weekend, while sub-zero temperatures made standing outside for more than 30 seconds a nostril-freezing, flesh-endangering experience, California also endured a cold snap. In Los Angeles, the mercury dropped all the way down to 53 degrees on Saturday.

"It's like apples and oranges," Brown said of applying California's experience to New York. "They don't have the harsh weather we have, and people just aren't able to go out on a patio and smoke in the middle of winter here."

And the lobbying group in favor of the ban only represented a fraction of the industry, mainly large chain restaurants that don't rely heavily on their bar business. Most of those hardest-hit by the ban -- the mom-and-pop restaurants and corner taverns -- didn't know anything about the ban until the law was passed.

"I was led to believe by advocates for the ban that business groups had changed their position and come to the point where they felt the ban was fine and wouldn't hurt their business," Brown said. "I was under the belief that a lot of outreach and education had been done with businesses and not-for-profit groups. Those factors really motivated me at the time to vote for it.

"Then we started hearing from businesses in the community. As we began hearing more and more, I realized, 'There's a problem with this and I've got a lot of unhappy constituents.'"

Brown said multiple bills have already been introduced in the Senate and Assembly that would modify the ban and that he and several colleagues are working on their own amendment to introduce in the coming weeks.

Possible changes range from granting waivers to businesses that put in separate smoking rooms with special ventilation systems, similar to those seen at some restaurants in Erie County. An increase in the number of one-day exemptions available is another possibility, Brown said.

One option would be the introduction of what amounts to a smoking license.

"Some have suggested charging an administrative fee and allowing establishments to indicate with a sign whether they're a smoking or non-smoking establishment," Brown said. "That would give people some choice."

While the hospitality industry is already heavily taxed, even by the standards of the fee- and surcharge-addicted state government, most bar owners say they'd be willing to pony up so their customers can light up.

"An administrative fee would be less than the amount of money we've lost through losing our smoking customers, so it's certainly worth it," said Judi Justiana, owner of Judi's Lounge and a vocal critic of the ban. "If (adding another fee) was the plan from the beginning, I'd be upset, but I really don't think it is."

While smoking-ban revisions have been a frequent topic among rank-and-file legislators in the early days of the 2004 session, which opened last week, Senate Majority Leader Richard Bruno and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver haven't indicated when, if ever, they'll allow revision of the ban.

"There seems to be some reluctance on the part of leadership to discuss any modification or changes," Brown said. "Some of the most controversial issues don't come to the floor until later in the session."

With state officials staring at a $6 billion budget hole, the session could extend well into the summer. But even if Bruno and Silver resist revisiting the ban, the heat many legislators are feeling will keep it on their agendas.

"I can tell you, this will be something members will be talking about amongst themselves," Brown said. "I think there's middle ground that can be found here so that we can safeguard people's health and not trample on people's liberties. We should allow people to make decisions on how to live their lives when it comes to legal products."

Democrats like Brown can't pass legislation in the Senate without Republican cooperation. State Sen. George Maziarz, who also voted for the ban initially, said there's now support on that side of the aisle for change, as well.

"I think there is no question there are going to be revisions to the law," said Maziarz, who sent out surveys to his constituents last week aimed at getting their input on the ban.

Of course, it would have been nice to hear such reasonable voices emanating from Albany before the ban was passed in the first place. But the business owners whose numbers are getting crunched by the prohibition will settle for "late" when it comes to fixing the over-reaching and quite possibly unconstitutional law.

Just so long as it doesn't turn into "never."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While possible revision of the smoking ban works its way through Albany, local restaurant and tavern owners are continuing their fight with a meeting at 7 p.m. on Monday, Jan. 19, at The Ritts on Upper Mountain Road in Lockport.

Renee Lembke, who closed her Middleport Inn in October due to the drop-off in her business after the ban took effect in July, said an attorney will be on hand to talk with bar owners about contesting citations for violating the law, as well as possible future legal action by opponents.

Lembke said the meeting is for business owners and employees affected by the ban, but not open to the general public.

Following the law's passage last year, anti-smoking fanatics crashed several meetings designed to explain the ban to business owners and offer them a forum for their opinions. The Ritts is located across Upper Mountain Road from the Delphi-Harrison plant.

[freeeee]

Well if private property laws are all that matter why have fire codes, health codes, building codes or any other kind of over-site.

Glad you asked!

When most people think of communism they think of money. The most famous characteristic of classic communist countries is a nationalized economy: communist governments don't recognize an individuals right to assert private property rights over a business. This is chiefly done to deny a private business owner's property right to his profits, hence the tendency to think of communism as a purely economic phenomenon. But when closely analyzed, the key component of communism isn't merely state control of money, it's the state's failure to respect private property rights of all sorts.

Money isn't the only property right a business owner has. He has the right to determine what occurs on his or her property. His right extends to the cash in his register, the music he plays, the food he serves, the products he offers, and yes, what behavior is tolerated on his property, including smoking.

The communist holds that the will of the people outweighs the rights of the individual, hence they will themselves to become owners of businesses, and collectively assign themselves its property rights. It is said communist governments assert this "ownership" on behalf of the people. But at least they're honest and upfront about it: they tell you right to your face that you can't own a business.

However a more insidious form of communism exists: government, always seeking power and therefore money may seek to take advantage of the prosperity of the free market. It operates under a false façade of ownership,, alleging private property rights exist and doling them out in barely sufficient amounts as privileges in order to lure productive individuals to create wealth. This is properly called fascism.

So when any people vote to steal a man's property right to allow smoking on his premises, they are by definition behaving as communists. When they allege he still owns his business, they are fascists. Few will own up to this because it would expose them for what they are. They'll call themselves free or capitalists, but then again I can call myself a fire hydrant. They are defined by their actions, and by their actions there is no question what they really are:

[Mears]

I thank God every day for Altoid boxes.

[swarthyguy]

Thanks for the LI Update.

only anecdotal, but steady evidence here in MA from towns, most of the who have bans, and before the statewide ban, is that altho traffic in Boston proper is down, it's not catastrophic, however, in the burbs, bars are empty more often than not.

In the winter, instead of stepping out to smoke, many are just staying at home.

Don't you just love the vindictive nature of our American Taliban, coming after the last havens.

[Glenn]

The important fact in this article is the 48 hour cycle it took to get the legislation passed. That's the latest trend. Pretend there is gridlock for six months then "suddenly" pass whatever legislation was cooked up.

The PA house did the same damn thing this year.

No public comment or opinion will be tolerated. You will be taxed. You will be controlled.

[freeeee]

So a smoking ban has communist overtones.

It is communism in practice. The people (proletariat) empower their government to deprive business owners (bourgeois) of property rights. Whether they want money or to impose smoking laws, property rights are forcefully deprived all the same. This is the essence of communism.

Bit of a stretch there fella.

I didn't just call it communism, I demonstrated why it is so. You can attempt to refute that, but 'bit of a stretch' isn't going to cut it.

Maybe we should not have a public police force to throw out the troublemakers. Let serve booze to minors. Go ahead and sell some heroin while your at it.

Let us remember the issue at hand is property rights.

- A police force does not necessarily violate property rights, in fact their "removing troublemakers" is an act of upholding property rights.
- Minors lack capacity and are assumed to be incapable of making decisions. Their rights are held by their parents by proxy. Therefore, it is a violation of the parents rights over their child to sell them alcohol and businesses hold no right to do so.
- As far as your last topic, it will quickly send this thread to the Smoky Back Room, so I will not address it here. If you wish to pursue this topic with me, please post a link to a thread in the SBR and I'll see you there.

[freeeee]

The important fact in this article is the 48 hour cycle it took to get the legislation passed. That's the latest trend. Pretend there is gridlock for six months then "suddenly" pass whatever legislation was cooked up.

Banana Republic is as Banana Republic does.

[VermiciousKnid]

You don't get it, do you?

First of all, and most importantly, the decision to allow or not allow smoking within any establishment should rest with one person and one person ALONE: the owner.

Secondly, I am not talking here about a one-night slowdown, I'm talking about a constant emptiness in our local bars, pubs, and some restaurants.

Bars and pubs that used to be literally hopping with activity are now almost completely empty, and not just on one or two nights a week (like it used to be). Now they are empty on Friday nights and Saturday nights. These places have taken to offering the most astonishing array of "incentives" to get people inside, but the people aren't going -- not the hordes of non-smokers that were promised, and certainly not the RINOs who passed this idiotic piece of legislation in the first place.

I've seen people MEET at bars after work, but they stay only a few minutes and then they head home. Those that smoke, of course, don't want to spend money where they aren't accommodated, and their non-smoking friends are going home with them.

The fact of the matter is, the smoking bans are not only an unnecessary intrusion into the lives of both the owners of the establishments and their patrons, but are palpably HURTING those very same businesses.

You may not like it, but there it is. Smoking bans are nothing except an attempt to denormalize smoking and to marginalize smokers. It is social engineering, pure and simple and NO person who values freedom should encourage his government to engage in it.

Regards,

[VermiciousKnid]

Oh yes, it is VERY important to note that this entire process took only 48 hours.

They SNUCK it through with no notice, no debate, no nothing, and then when confronted with this fact, my own state senator -- Flanagan (RINO), treated me to a whole lot of hemming and hawing (read, LYING) about it.

It was a wholly disgusting episode in New York and has utterly soured me on ever voting for any of them again.

Banana Republic, indeed.

Regards,

[swarthyguy]

Don't bang your head against the wall.

The Taliban don't care.

I just wish they'd stop using cars and making me breathe secondhand exhaust. And stop flushing, too, what do they think, the world is their toilet?

[freedumb2003]

I can hang out other none smoking places

LOL!!

You know, we have a fairly new FReeper from China -- his English verry much that like.

This isn't a very good place for newbies with no actual understanding of the Constitution to hang out (smoking or none).

[Madame Dufarge]

correlation is not causation

Then perhaps you could enlighten us: Why was the establishment empty, on a weekend night, following the smoking ban?

[freeeee]

Really it is more like socialism.

Ok. At least you're honest.

There is no absolute capitalism so there will be some regulation.

Please see 4th paragraph of post #81, re: fascism.

You like to label everything you do not like with emotionally charged terms

Actually, I defined terms and displayed how they apply to smoking laws. That's quite different than mere name calling.

Nobody is really worried about communism anymore.

Maybe it doesn't bother you. Some of us haven't bought into Marxism.

The owner should have his own private police force

If he wants one, why not.

So communism is OK if you are a minor

There is nothing communist about respecting the rights of parents to make decisions for their children. Communist countries are notorious for doing otherwise, in fact I can't think of a single communist country that doesn't claim the power to ignore parental rights.

I've a question for you: Why don't you open up your own bar/restaurant if you don't want smoking there. Going into a private establishment and acting like you own the place isn't any different than going into someone's house and telling them what color the walls should be. You didn't build the place, you don't pay the rent. What do you think you are, royalty?

[freeeee]

Smoking bans are nothing except an attempt to denormalize smoking and to marginalize smokers.

And an underhanded way of shutting down bars. Don't think they don't want that as well.

It's a crusade.

[Madame Dufarge]

It's a crusade

Yes, it is.

The only thing that changes is the target.

The New Puritans.