Posted on 03/28/2003 5:19:39 PM PST by chance33_98
No More Smoking In N.Y. Businesses
State Law Tougher Than Upcoming NYC Law
Posted: 3:13 p.m. EST March 27, 2003
ALBANY, N.Y. -- New York has joined California and Delaware as the only states to ban smoking in virtually all businesses.
Legislation signed by Gov. George Pataki ends smoking in most places that had still allowed it -- bars, certain restaurants, betting parlors, bowling alleys, pool halls and even in company cars.
Exemptions include private residences, personal cars, Indian casinos and New York City cigar bars already registered.
The statewide measure is even tougher than a separate smoking ban due to go into effect in New York City. That measure allows smoking rooms in restaurants and bars equipped with special ventilation.
The law sets a $1,000 penalty for violations.
With the stroke of a pen politicians turn millions of people minding their own business into criminals.
Voting for the lesser of evils always begets evil. How could so many people thinking they're right be so wrong.
Unfortunately, RJR and the other tobacco companies cannot do what you suggest. It is ILLEGAL for them to stop selling cigarettes in any state that participated in the Master Settlement Agreement.
If so, it's a blatant scam to enrich governments and the tort lawyers. That's redundant because the tobacco lawsuit was an obvious scam/fraud on its face.
Bastid makes me ashamed to be Greek (and so does my senator Olympia! Snowe).
You got that right, Not one freaking Republican Senator voted against this nonsense
With the stroke of a pen politicians turn millions of people minding their own business into criminals.
Voting for the lesser of evils always begets evil. How could so many people thinking they're right be so wrong.
I would up that $$ amount even further. Our GOP here in New York is further to the left than many if not most other states Democrats.
Pataki and our GOP are just as bad or even worse than Grey Davis and the liberal Democrats out in California. Yes we only have a $10 Billion deficit compared their $35 Billion but it reality it's much higher. Unlike Davis Pataki doesn't have to have a balanced budget so he can and has borrowed the deficit down and Pataki just passes his spending Boondoggles on to the counties which is one of the reasons why almost every county had double digit tax increases this past year. And even with our deficits Pataki is still planning to add 720,000 more New Yorkers to our already over burdened medicaid.
http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/fhplus/letter.htm
Hillary Clinton only wishes she could have done half as much to socialize health care as Pataki already has done in New York.
Speaking of which If you read many of the post around here in FR, many people are hoping that Pataki takes out Hillary in 2006. I for one do not. I wouldn't cast a vote for Pataki even if his opponent was Satan himself. I worked for his campaign in 1994 agaist Mario and I am really sorry I did. I am just hoping Dante was right because the lowest pits of hell awaits the ultimate traitor Pataki
Unfortunately as to third party candidates, We don't even have that in New York. Golisano was also a leftist/socialist and the Conservative Party LOL! that's not a real political party it's a scam they back whomever will give their members the most political patronage jobs. So we are talking about 5th and 6th party candidates. A conservative in France or any other socialist European country has better people to vote for than we do in New York.
I agree 100%. Lawyers making laws is the ultimate inmates running the asylum scenario.
I remember I actually wrote an essay on that in high school, The topic was if you can go back in time and change one thing I wrote I would go back and tell the Founding Fathers to put that in the constitution.
Get well soon.
Thank you, But I am still hoping you are wrong and this is all a terrible dream.
Surprizingly This hasn't been reported anywhere up here so they did do a good job of sneaking it through.
That would be a masterstroke!
(Mind you I have no love for the tobacco companies which gladly took on the role of tax collectors!)
If no tobacco company allowed sales in California and New York, these states could then not legally argue that its citizens had to pay sales tax for buying out of state.
Everybody wins (except the clymers).
Well I am not sure exactly in terms of state government but it wouldn't surprise me. Out of 11 (National) House delegates only 4 are Dems, 3 are apparently Liberals but 1 Virgil Goode has a higher lifetime conservative rating than any of the NY GOPers.
In Virginia the Dems are powerless even the Rat governor, The Republicans have a veto proof majority in both houses and unlike New York they actually act like Republicans.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/836004/posts
And Check Out Virginia's Smoking Laws
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-2801
§ 15.2-2801. Statewide regulation of smoking.
A. The Commonwealth or any agency thereof and every locality shall provide reasonable no-smoking areas, considering the nature of the use and the size of the building, in any building owned or leased by the Commonwealth or any agency thereof or a locality. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to office, work or other areas of the Department of Corrections which are not entered by the general public in the normal course of business or use of the premises.
B. Smoking shall be prohibited in (i) elevators, regardless of capacity, except in any open material hoist elevator, not intended for use by the public; (ii) public school buses; (iii) the interior of any public elementary, intermediate, and secondary school; (iv) hospital emergency rooms; (v) local or district health departments; (vi) polling rooms; (vii) indoor service lines and cashier lines; (viii) public restrooms in any building owned or leased by the Commonwealth or any agency thereof; (ix) the interior of a child day center licensed pursuant to § 63.2-1701 that is not also used for residential purposes; however, this prohibition shall not apply to any area of a building not utilized by a child day center, unless otherwise prohibited by this chapter; and (x) public restrooms of health care facilities.
C. Any restaurant having a seating capacity of fifty or more persons shall have a designated no-smoking area sufficient to meet customer demand. In determining the extent of the no-smoking area, the following shall not be included as seating capacity: (i) seats in any bar or lounge area of a restaurant and (ii) seats in any separate room or section of a restaurant which is used exclusively for private functions.
D. The proprietor or other person in charge of an educational facility, except any public elementary, intermediate, or secondary school, health care facility, or a retail establishment of 15,000 square feet or more serving the general public, including, but not limited to, department stores, grocery stores, drug stores, clothing stores, shoe stores, and recreational facilities shall designate reasonable no-smoking areas, considering the nature of the use and the size of the building.
E. The proprietor or other person in charge of a space subject to the provisions of this chapter shall post signs conspicuous to public view stating "Smoking Permitted" or "No Smoking," and in restaurants, signs conspicuous to ordinary public view at or near each public entrance stating "No-Smoking Section Available." Any person failing to post such signs may be subject to a civil penalty of not more than twenty-five dollars.
F. No person shall smoke in a designated no-smoking area and any person who continues to smoke in such area after having been asked to refrain from smoking may be subject to a civil penalty of not more than twenty-five dollars.
G. Any law-enforcement officer may issue a summons regarding a violation of this chapter.
H. The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed to regulate smoking in retail tobacco stores, tobacco warehouses or tobacco manufacturing facilities.
(1990, cc. 902, 969, § 15.1-291.2; 1991, c. 601; 1992, c. 827; 1994, cc. 629, 928; 1996, cc. 472, 514, 778; 1997, c.
Oh, wait, I forgot - I forgot to follow the money! The patrons of restaurants obviously have disposable income - surely they can spare some for this new tax.
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.