Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill Aims to Ban Workplace Smoking
Newsday | 9/17/02 | J. Palmer

Posted on 09/17/2002 6:15:39 AM PDT by sushiman

For almost 20 years, Suffolk County has been slowly eroding people's rights to smoke in public. With one more measure, the butts could stop here.

A group of bipartisan lawmakers today is expected to unveil a bill that bans smoking in virtually all workplaces - including bingo halls, bowling alleys, bars and restaurants. This effort is the product of talks with officials in Nassau, Westchester and New York City to provide a regional standard for workplace smoking.

The Suffolk bill would allow smoking only in private homes and in private enclosed offices occupied exclusively by smokers. Smoking also would be permitted in outdoor seating at bars and restaurants. State and federal property are exempt from the county's jurisdiction.

In Suffolk now, smoking is limited to separate rooms in all restaurants. It is also banned within 50 feet of hospitals or public buildings and restricted in workplaces.

Brian Foley, a Democratic legislator from Blue Point, said the proposed ban is essential to protect public health and is also a workplace safety issue.

"Second-hand smoke kills tens of thousands of Americans each year and injures the health of tens of thousands more as well," said Foley, who chairs the health committee and is co-sponsoring the bill with fellow Democrat Ginny Fields of Oakdale and Presiding Officer Paul Tonna, a Republican from West Hills. "This reso- lution is going to save lives here in Suffolk County."

Foley said the proposed ban will be discussed in the next health committee meeting Oct. 2. A public hearing before the full legislature will be held Oct. 8.

In Nassau, similar legislation will be considered by the legislature at its Oct. 7 meeting, said Deputy Presiding Officer Roger Corbin (D-Westbury). Corbin, the legislature's health committee chair, said the bill he's introducing is similar to Foley's. He said legislation being considered in Westchester and New York City will be in step with those proposed on Long Island, but is moving slightly slower.

Since talks among policymakers in the downstate region became public last month, the concept of a complete ban has run into stiff opposition from restaurant and bar owners who say businesses will go belly up as customers opt to stay home to smoke in peace.

John Reyerson, owner of McGuire's Restaurant and Comedy Club in Bohemia, said he expects to lose about a third of his business if the legislation is approved. He said a complete ban would be too onerous because about four years ago the county required restaurants and bars to install separate ventilation systems and partitions to segregate smoking and nonsmoking areas.

"There is no way I'm going to recoup my investment," said Reyerson, who is also chairman of the board of directors for the Suffolk Restaurant and Tavern Association. "They are not going to come here and have a beer and watch a football game if they can't have a smoke. Why would they?"

Suffolk Legis. Fred Towle (R-Shirley) said the ban is too intrusive and takes away people's ability to make decisions. "There comes a point when government has gone too far," he said.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: michaeldobbs; pufflist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-162 next last
To: SheLion
But they can NOT attack my face.

I wouldn't touch that line with a ten foot pole.

Or two five foot Germans.

101 posted on 09/17/2002 8:55:55 AM PDT by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: metesky
This account has been banned.

Well, if he was using daddy's computer and daddy's name, he might be in for it.

There is no reason to attack someone in here like that. Come after me with something we can discuss. Personal attacks are never good.

102 posted on 09/17/2002 8:58:34 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: metesky
You know, metesky, if that was the best he could do in our debate, then that's the best he has. And it wasn't much!

Personal attacks instead of a debate on the issue means that they have reached the end of their knowledge. How's that!

103 posted on 09/17/2002 9:00:09 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: metesky

Heh!

104 posted on 09/17/2002 9:02:31 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

Comment #105 Removed by Moderator

To: FSU_Nole
It's rather difficult to prove a negative.
106 posted on 09/17/2002 9:09:21 AM PDT by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: sushiman
Oh really! Lets just ban smoking and tobacco completely. That way the feds could just raise your taxes to make up the difference in monies they would lose. Also, they would raise your taxes since people would live longer and bleed the system dry as they get sick and older too. I smoke and if you do not like it "tuff" sh*t! I will smoke where i want to and there is not a whole lot anyone can do about it because if you complain ya just might find a fist or 357 shoved up yer nose. Sorry but it is time the smokers smoke where ever we want and tell the so called self rightous non smokers to shove it. I'm telling ya make them illegal. I can then sell them under the table make millions and watch the feds raise your taxes. It does cost more to take care of an old person for 20 years than it does for them to pay for the cancer i might get. I bet you ride a bike to work too. If you do look out i might run you into the gutter next time i see you.! HA HA HA what a dufuss! smoke this schuck
107 posted on 09/17/2002 9:14:27 AM PDT by Mr_Mayor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
yeah, they lied. plain and simple they lied!
108 posted on 09/17/2002 9:16:44 AM PDT by Mr_Mayor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Well, if it isn't Mr. Gummint Man--back for a new flame war.

Actually, since tobacco is a legal product, smokers DO have the RIGHT to smoke in public.

However, it may be controlled on private property. SInce you likely do not allow it in your home, please do not invite me to come over and visit.

I will gladly honor your dis-invitation.

It is unfortunate that elected officials find it necessary to interpose their good intentions into an otherwise useful function.

Perhaps these nosy Rosies will drop dead.
109 posted on 09/17/2002 9:17:17 AM PDT by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
The government is not "The people" unless you live in China. The bill of rights mentions the government and also the people as being two separate things.
110 posted on 09/17/2002 9:18:34 AM PDT by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mr_Mayor
yeah, they lied. plain and simple they lied!

I thought bubba was at work! You sound just like my hubby! heh!

111 posted on 09/17/2002 9:31:10 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: FSU_Nole
Welcome to Free Republic!

That said, did you check the live links in the post to which you replied? The one leading to the Oak Ridge National Lab study is what you're looking for.

I hope your stay here is long, fruitful and educational.

112 posted on 09/17/2002 9:46:42 AM PDT by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Badray
Where have you been. In most cases, it is the government telling the PRIVATE business owners that there will be no smoking in their establishment. I wish like hell that they would leave it up to the private business owners. I am all for that. But you know what, the smoke nazis will never agree with that. They can all burn (or smoke) in hell for all I care.
113 posted on 09/17/2002 11:02:19 AM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Smoking benefits no one.

Yes it does. It benefits it's biggest stockholder - the Government

114 posted on 09/17/2002 11:04:11 AM PDT by kcpopps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
You have no "right" to smoke in public, any more than you have a "right" to urinate in public.

Could you help me out here, Illbay.

I got this from a link you had posted on your profile page.

How would you say "private property" is defined in the following?

We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

115 posted on 09/17/2002 2:32:12 PM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
" Where have you been?"

Did I mistype something? We are on the same side. I'm saying that the rights of the property are the most important. The government has no business butting in, if you'll excuse the pun.

116 posted on 09/17/2002 3:12:17 PM PDT by Badray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Bird
What I envision is a bar/restaurant suddenly becoming a members-only establishment. For a nominal fee ($5 a year?), a person could become a member. The membership agreement would include the fact that smoking would be allowed. Seems to me that such a place would do huge business.

They tried that here in Ottawa, got shut down by the court.

but our golf club houses has smoking rooms, as does the elite snob appeal places, some people are more equal than others.

117 posted on 09/17/2002 5:32:27 PM PDT by Great Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
How do YOU spell S-E-L-F-I-S-H?

Heck, you don't have to be able to spell, just look in the mirror.

118 posted on 09/17/2002 5:35:55 PM PDT by Great Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: strider44
I don't get to walk outside and just bullshit for 10 minutes with friends. Just because they smoke, they get these built-in breaks. Very annoying.

If they hadn't banned smoking everywhere, this would not be an issue.

119 posted on 09/17/2002 5:47:41 PM PDT by Great Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Tazman70
Have you been hiding under a rock????

No, but you obviously have, the rock of fanatics.

120 posted on 09/17/2002 5:50:13 PM PDT by Great Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-162 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson