SMOKING BAN ACCOMPLISHES LITTLE, OTHER THAN BURDENING BUSINESSES

Niagara Falls Reporter ^ | August 26 2003 | David Staba

[CSM]

One month into "Smoke-Free New York," a few things are clear.

The non-smokers who were supposedly going to flood restaurants and bars once they weren't exposed to the horrors of second-hand smoke aren't going to such establishments any more than they did before July 24, when the nation's strictest indoor smoking ban took effect.

The idea that people who didn't enjoy the occasional cocktail would start doing so was preposterous from the get-go. Not to mention hypocritical, since it implied that one of the benefits of preventing people from smoking was to induce others to drink alcohol, the most devastating drug known to man.

The Big Lie propagated by anti-smoking activists was a cynical ruse used to sway the simple folk who populate the New York State Legislature, who become particularly gullible when their leaders get their pockets stuffed with lobbyist cash. They, in turn, used it as a feeble defense to ward off the ire of constituents furious that such a massive intrusion on private business owners was quietly rushed into law last spring.

Anyone who bought the Big Lie then was a sucker. Anyone who still expounds it is something far worse.

Scores of the service employees supporters of the ban claimed they want to protect are looking for jobs, because their old ones don't exist.

Some Niagara Falls establishments have laid off bartenders and waitresses due to flagging business. Others have cut back their hours of operation, meaning fewer hours of employment for their remaining workers.

Supporters of the ban change their rationale as often as George Bush alters his stated motivation for invading Iraq. But a pamphlet distributed by the state health department, "A Guide for Restaurants and Bars to New York State's Clean Indoor Air Act," makes the reasoning clear, at least at the moment it was printed:

"Why was the state clean indoor air act amended to include restaurants and bars?" one header asks.

"Waitresses have higher rates of lung and heart disease than any other traditionally female occupational group, according to a study published by the 'Journal of the American Medical Association,'" reads the answer. "According to the same report, one shift in a smoky bar is equivalent to smoking 16 cigarettes in a day."

Talk about wildly flawed logic. The AMA's findings regarding lung and heart disease rates may well be true, but blaming it on their jobs ignores how many waitresses smoke away from work in comparison with other "traditionally female occupational groups," whatever that means.

The only places around Niagara Falls even treading water since the ban are those with outdoor patio areas. But after Labor Day, when sitting outside without shelter -- and the law expressly forbids any sort of roof over any outdoor smoking area -- becomes much less appealing, the ban's true impact will be exponentially felt.

The ban has actually helped some businesses. Unfortunately for local entrepreneurs, they're located in neighboring states and on Seneca Nation land in downtown Niagara Falls.

An Associated Press report earlier this month detailed the spike in bar and restaurant business in the border areas of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New Jersey. Meanwhile, many local smokers report visiting the Seneca Niagara Casino more frequently, since the smoking police haven't attempted to extend the ban there. Yet.

People still smoke in bars where the owners are willing to take their chances.

And the odds of getting fined aren't nearly as short as the state would have you believe.

While no Niagara County business has yet been fined, the county Health Department, saddled by the state legislature with enforcing the law, isn't completely ignoring it, either.

One bar owner said a health inspector visited the establishment and said some snitch had called to complain about smoking in the place.

No one was smoking in the bar when the inspector got there, so she couldn't cite the bar owner, but said another complaint would mean another visit, and so on.

The law allows local health departments to provide hardship waivers, but Niagara County has yet to come up with guidelines for even applying for such an exemption, much less receiving it.

The state-printed pamphlet is equally vague on what to do if a customer insists on smoking.

"You or your staff must remind them of the Act and you may politely explain that they must step outside to smoke. If a customer refuses to comply with the Act, use common sense. The purpose of the Act is to protect others from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. DO NOT CALL the police unless the violator is threatening physical harm or is belligerent."

Use common sense? What does that mean? Let them smoke and risk a fine? Throw water on them? Make sure you get in the first punch?

Note the stress placed on not calling the police.

The message from state lawmakers couldn't be clearer -- we're going to make you chase away some of your best customers, we're not going to spend one penny to help enforce the law we claim is so crucial to the health of you and your employees, and you'd better like it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Staba is the sports editor of the Niagara Falls Reporter. He welcomes e-mail at dstaba13@aol.com.

[CSM]

I particularly enjoyed the closing paragraph!

[xrp]

The final paragraph is descriptive of many in today's American who want to tell other people how to live their lives, including many who are FR veterans and still don't understand the concepts of freedom, liberty and self-ownership.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

I don't smoke and I am very susceptible to clogged sinuses, headaches, and the like when I am in smoky environments. That having been said, I wouldn't dream of forcing bars, restaurants and the like to prohibit smoking. If I am not happy with the environment, I don't go there. That is my right. But, it is the right of the owner of the establishment to determine how to maximize his profits. If he can make more money by catering to smokers, he should have the right to do that. In a reasonable, non-nanny state, some entrepreneurs in a town might open a bar or restaurant that would serve the non-smoking public, while others would cater to the smoking crowd. I'm not a big fan of James Joyce or Dr. Seuss, but I don't object to their being available at the library.

[whereasandsoforth]

"Supporters of the ban change their rationale as often as George Bush alters his stated motivation for invading Iraq."

This line doesn't make any sense! I thought the supporters of the ban were all over the map with their reasoning. I didn't realize they were such sticklers and held so tight to their principles. I have newfound respect for these nobles in NY.

[HEY4QDEMS]

Massachusetts is considering a state wide ban.

I may open a "Smoke Easy".

[DumpsterDiver]

I particularly enjoyed the closing paragraph.

Me too.

we're going to make you chase away some of your best customers,

we're not going to spend one penny to help enforce the law we claim is so crucial to the health of you and your employees,

and you'd better like it.

[CSM]

"In a reasonable, non-nanny state, some entrepreneurs in a town might open a bar or restaurant that would serve the non-smoking public, while others would cater to the smoking crowd."

This was happening, now as a result of the ban the competitive advantage for the original entrepenaur who opened the non smoking bar is lost. That bar is as likely to see the declines as any other bars, therefore that risk taker is just as likely to lose the business! Thanks nanny!

[CSM]

yeah, that was the only line in the article I disagreed with.

[Judith Anne]

Yes, don't call the police for heaven's sake. Let the people in the bar smoke until somebody can rat out the bar and the owner faces a hefty fine--enough of those will put him out of business. Then there won't be any more of those pesky smokers and drinkers. THEN the nanny state will be satisfied--when everyone lives at the level of a 10 year old child.

[Beck_isright]

In Florida it has been a disaster for those restraunts that elected to keep their bar open and serve food. Those bars that used to serve food and quit to avoid the smoking ban are packed, while the other ones are laying off the help. So far the smoking ban is just a big cluster**** and the anti-smoking Nazis will be trying to go after the stand alone bars next. Hopefully the public will get their head out of their proverbial anal cavity and vote or get nasty about this next attempt to impose communism on them.

[The Great RJ]

This whole smoking ban thing is a sham. If health were truely the issue the government would simply ban the sale and use of tobacco. However no matter how much they say they are concerned about health and seek new ways to stop people from smoking no one will seek a ban on smoking altogether because that would cut the massive tax revenues they get from tobacco taxes. It's a fine example of hypocracy.

[SheLion]

[SheLion]

Puff

[SheLion]

Waitresses have higher rates of lung and heart disease than any other traditionally female occupational group, according to a study published by the 'Journal of the American Medical Association,'" reads the answer. "According to the same report, one shift in a smoky bar is equivalent to smoking 16 cigarettes in a day."

This is bogus and can no longer be used! I don't know what smoky "back street" bar they are referring to, but most of your bigger bars/taverns today have smoke eaters to pull the smoke and the smell out of the air.

This statement has got to be eliminated in today's high tech age.

[tbpiper]

The author might have had to enclude an obligatory dig at the president inorder to get his article printed. Other than this foolishness, it was a good article.

[Gabz]

And the vast majority of non-smokers are actually very much like you

In the law of unintended consequences there is a group of business owners who have been impacted by this ban that remain largely ignored.

Places that had found their niche in the market by being smoke-free on their own. Their market has now been involuntarily removed from them

[SheLion]

"Supporters of the ban change their rationale as often as George Bush alters his stated motivation for invading Iraq."

LIBERAL SPIN AND PROPAGANDA

[JennysCool]

Anti-smokers are a cult. Anyone who thinks this is about "health" is crazy. This is a big experiment in people-control, and has been since at least the late-1960s.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Would the last Free American leaving New York, please turn out the lights.

[SheLion]

This is a big experiment in people-control, and has been since at least the late-1960s.

Thank you for recognizing this........