Posted on 01/30/2006 8:31:19 AM PST by SheLion
Imagine you own a restaurant in New Jersey. You lease your space and you pay your taxes, your cooks and your servers. The state has decided that, on April 15, you will have to ban smoking.
Trampling over the rights of business owners will go down as one of the last acts of Acting Gov. Richard Codey, who signed the law banning smoking in restaurants this month. The state is doing this to save employees from the dangers of second-hand smoke. In joining other states that have made similar moves, lawmakers also relied on studies indicating that smoking bans are actually good for the restaurant and bar business.
Yet, it's not the lawmakers whose businesses are on the line and, despite the best of intentions, it's likely that some businesses heavily patronized by smokers will suffer by going smokefree. It's noteworthy that Codey and his cohorts didn't dare mess with the Atlantic City casinos that are a cash cow for the state.
It's easy for lawmakers to make decisions for others, especially when they aren't held responsible for the consequences.
Simple truths, it would seem, are being ignored. If it makes business sense to ban smoking, restaurant owners -- not lawmakers -- would likely be the best people to make that assessment. If restaurant employees are concerned about smoke in their workplace, for once they're fortunate to be in a transient and fluid industry where there are other places to work for qualified staff. And if it's such a great idea for businesses, why exempt Atlantic City casinos?
There's still some hope that this ban will be derailed as it faces a legal challenge by restaurateurs, who argue it is not fair because it does not apply to all. Getting the ban overturned would be a small triumph for business rights.
Then we can see whether lawmakers are willing to roll the dice on losing gambling money at a time when the state is projecting a $5 billion deficit. Then, it would seem, lawmakers would have to take a risk themselves rather than foist one upon others. Or they could opt for an educational program that lets business owners make an business decision, which could include installing ventilation systems to give non-smoking diners a true alternative to eating in a smoke-filled room.
If you're a restaurant owner, I wouldn't hold my breath for the situation to change. Apparently, that's just not New Jersey's way.
Yup! Everyone in gov't knows better than me. Amazing!
Well, you can tell it isn't about health, when NJ Governor forced a smoking ban on all private businesses EXCEPT the casino!
And as far as banning gays or their lifestyle, they have the Gay Group with lots of money for court costs behind them. Smokers have no such money or group to turn to.
Then let's confine your answer to the state government. After all, that's the subject of the thread.
Any smoking-ban opponents who say, in effect, "any workers who don't want the risk (no matter how serious it really is) can go find another job" are simply shooting themselves in the foot. They're ignoring or even conceding defeat on the bigger issue, that being whether secondhand smoke really poses a serious health risk.
Because, if you give the 'nazis' a pass, and let them call it a serious health risk, if you're going to say concerned workers should just find another job, you'd better be ready to say the government (at all levels) should abandon all its efforts in the area of worker (and consumer) safety regulation.
Now, while that very well may be true -- hey, I'm a big proponent of 'caveat emptor' myself -- that's going to be a VERY difficult sell to the 90% of Americans to the left of me, the hardcore right-wing zealot. You'll be a lot better off focusing on disproving the alleged risks of secondhand smoke. If secondhand smoke does not rise to the level of a serious health risk, even the most casual conservative will agree government has no business regulating it in the workplace, and you'll have a much easier time convincing the mushy middle.
Many restaurants went to a great deal of expense to do just this before the smoking Nazis' Great Putsch.
It wasn't enough for the Enemies of Private Property.
Good. Then, by all means, beat that drum for all to hear.
If we can convince the non-smoking public that secondhand smoke poses no real health risk, it becomes a lot easier to convince them that there is no justification for government regulation in the workplace. Muddy the message with the "workers who don't like it can find other jobs" line at your own peril.
It wasn't enough for the Enemies of Private Property.
My favorite place to eat almost closed their doors after the first smoking ban in Maine in 2000.
The owner then invested in a very expensive liquor license and business started to boom again.
They then remodeled. The place is beautiful. 4 big ceiling air purifiers. Full menu. A beautiful glass enclosed non-smoking section. Sign on the entrance door "This is a smoking establishment. No one under 18 admitted without guardian."
It is a Sports Bar with the full computer golf game across the back wall; bunch of big TV's. Just beautiful.
But that still wasn't good enough for the state. A full no smoking ban went into effect a year ago January. I went once after the ban, was so miserable that I couldn't sit there like old times and enjoy the evening that I haven't put myself through that again.
And do you think the state will reimburse this business owner for spending his own money to be able to accommodate everyone? You can bet they will not.
Which reminds me of one gal who worked in a bar and couldn't stand the smoke.
She more or less demanded the owner go smoke free.
Guess what? She was out on the streets looking for another job.
Don't forget Abbott
Thanks for the reminder. Seems the socialists are alive and well in their determination to redistrubte the earnings of hard working folks.
The EPA has already refused to set the minimum exposure limits on ETS. They already have permissable exposure limits on the elements of ETS and the limits are far above levels seen in the smokiest of bars. If the nico-nazis were to be successful in getting these limits lowered, then they would be banning everything from heavy manufacturing down to tap water.
But we all know that is their ultimate goal. The destruction of our economy and outright socialism.
BTW, it is no longer even presented under the guise of "health risks" to workers. It is presented as a convenience that they get to avoid the "unpleasant" smell. They celebrate it because their clothes don't stink.
They won't stick to that argument tho'. They will very easily accept that no health risks exist, yet they will still bang the drum. Except their mantra will change from "health" to "I just don't like the smell!"
I've experienced enough of it to know.
Thanks for the ping!
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.