Posted on 09/30/2003 6:09:48 AM PDT by 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.
The ban has been especially tough on smaller, local hangouts like Rodbender's Raw Bar and Grill in Cutler Ridge.
For nearly two months after the law took effect, owner Kathy McMillan banned smoking. She said she lost almost 90 percent of her customers, and more than $14,000 in sales.
If they give advance notice of the "offenses," they certainly may.
Do you know, have you read, or are you aware of the effect of cigarette smoking on brain waves? Do you know which, smokers vs non-smokers, have the most beta waves, the brain waves associated with critical reasoning, and which have the most alpha, the brain waves associated with a dreamlike, emotional haze?
Do you know the relationship between Alzheimer's disease and smoking?
I'm going to say something so UN-PC that you may be shocked: Tobacco smoke smells nice. It is as pleasant as incense. It is alluring, on a man wearing a wool sweater and a leather jacket...it's pleasing on a woman in silk, and it blends nicely with her perfume...It's a relaxing smell, soft, non-intrusive, and a great background to slow jazz music and interesting conversations...The smells of fresh baked bread, hot coffee, and a cigarette are intoxicating in the morning...after dinner, the smell of cigarettes blends perfectly with the single-malt scotch in a heavy crystal glass...Smoke is so much more than a smell, it's the soft rise of misty swirls, it's the lipsticked kiss on the end of a filter, the click and fire of the lighter...it's an adult pleasure, it's a zone that says relax...
I'm a part-time smoker...I smoke a pack in four or five days...I think you people are uncultured busybodies...
A business open to the public can't justify offenses against any single customer by claiming privaye property.So what you are saying is that if Donald Wildmon walks into a bar, they must quit serving alcohol because drinking offends him?
-Eric
I'm all for the right to use tobacco or any other recreational substance---but I can't agree with this statement.
The antis (I forget which group) sued OSHA to set a zero limit for ETS, when OSHA refused they sued. the lawsuit was quietly dropped because the antis finally got it through their collective blockheads that had OSHA set PELs for ETS, smoking would be permitted nearly everywhere.A PEL of "zero" would have had two problems. First of all, when speaking of chemical analysis there is no such number as "zero". All methods of analysis have detection limits, below which they cannot reliably detect the presence of the substance in question.A PEL of zero is impossible because most of the compnents of tobacco smoke already have acceptable PEL level and all sorts of things would have had to be eliminated - most of it having to do with cooking!!!
Second of all, cyanide has an OSHA established 8 hour time-weighted average PEL of 5 mg(CN)/m3. To say that ETS has a PEL of "zero" would be to say that it is more toxic than cyanide, an obviously absurd proposition.
However, if they establish a PEL, the whole thing becomes an issue of engineering, not behavior modification, defeating their purpose.
-Eric
The guy had a slamming business before the smoking ban; every night of the week was packed to the gills with 28-65 year olds of all kinds who wanted to hang out at what was pretty much the only non-smoking bar in town.In a town the size of Rochester, the bolded part speaks volumes.
-Eric
Different jurisdictions are handling that different ways. I'm not sure how NY is handling, my only direct experience is how Delaware is handling it.
In Delaware there are exemptions to the ban for Fraternal organizations such as the Moose and the Elks and the Lions, Volunteer Fire Companies, and VFWs and American Legions.
Private clubs are practically non-existent in Delaware, but the few that are (mostly country clubs) are exempt.
Opening a private club that serves alcohol is practically impossible in Delaware. If for example Joe's Bar & Grill wanted to become a private club they would have to show prove that the organization has specific membership guidleines, is not open to the public, has a specific goal, and can produce a minimum of 6 months worth of meeting minutes in addition to their by-laws. And while doing all of that - they would be unable to have a liquor license, have to pay a $500 non-refundable application fee, and go through all kinds of other hoops and loops.
In other words, the types of private club you are proposing is pretty much out of the question in Delaware.
However, if they establish a PEL, the whole thing becomes an issue of engineering, not behavior modification, defeating their purpose.
That pretty much sums up the situation.
W R O N G ! ! ! The smoking ban in New York was enacted specifically to protect the health of employees who work in bars and restaurants, which is why the Federal District Court sitting in Syracuse may strike the law as unconstitutional under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. Why is that, you ask? Because Congress in creating OSHA decided that the Feds should occupy the areas of workplace safety in order to have uniformity across the country and as a result, the states may not pass workplace safety laws that conflict with federal law.
Tobacco is so addictive that it cuts the brain power of smokers in half...
Yup, look what smoking did to Judge Scalia... turned him into a walking idiot. < /sarcasm >
Besides, there is no mentioning of whether the study included smoking wait-staff, thus the study is a farce as always.
I thought some of the AIR LINE FLIGHT ATTENDANTS claimed this same thing???!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.