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.
When was the last time you saw a gang of smokers outside a grocery store? How about the drugstore? Postoffice?
Don't give me cr*p about gangs of smokers standing in front of, "any business which is necessary for everyday living."
People who walk into office buildings to get to their job cannot voluntarily avoid the smoke.
Your response sounds ignorant of both asthma and office life in any major city.
Neither one.
I'm familiar with asthma. I have known several people that have asthma. I live and work in Kansas City, not a super large city but a city nonetheless.
I have found that not many businesses will allow gangs of smokers right outside their MAIN entrances. Many many buildings that house office workers have more than one entrance. If you can't find one without a gang of smokers around it, complain to the management.
Now that we have that cleared up - how about we get back to the point of the article, which is to ban smoking in ALL workplaces, including, "bingo halls, bowling alleys, bars and restaurants". How many MORE smokers are you going to have hanging around the entrances NOW?
Do you support this?
Do you REALLY trust people you've never met *and* have a proven agenda?
(BTW, I have seen much anecdotal and directly observed evidence that most smokers are more productive over the course of a workday than non-smokers, so there!) < BG >
Dana should be fired immediatly, and if she can't get along without the wimpy, whiney, pewling excuse-of-the-day should probably be cut from the gene pool.
Is that the answer you were looking for?
Or do you think the business owner, his willing employees and his many customers should be forced by law to accomodate the little b!tch? I think we all know the answer...
I recommend that Dana stay home.
Her whining annoys me.
Make sure to wear a Confederate battle flag t-shirt when you light-up. The combination of the two ought to be enough to give "illbay" a nervous breakdown.
Highly allergic is a subjective term.
What amount of exposure does it take to bring on a migraine?
Can she find a job ANYWHERE, outside her own home, that she is NOT exposed to some degree of tobacco product (IE smoke, spit, smell) either going to, coming from, or at her place of work.
Is smoking in the open air on the street supposed to be outlawed so that Dana can get to, and get home from, her place of employment without being exposed to the tiniest bit of tobacco smoke?
If Dana takes a job in a bar, club, restaurant that ALREADY allows smoking then it is her fault and the bar, club, restaurant should NOT be made to disallow smoking JUST because Dana works there.
It's not up to us to solve this issue. It's up to her employer. Mine has solved it by using a parking space and making a covered awning for smokers.
But, I was taught when you leave the confines of your home, you are out in the "PUBLIC." The Public is all peoples. The good, the bad, the ugly and the smokers.
If we go somewhere where we are offended, we avoid that place in the future. When you sit on a crowded bus, you are breathing in the breath of the person next to you. It's just the way life is.
The public is all peoples. It would be nice if we could mold everyone in the way we think they should go, but people being people, are all different. And I am happy about that. It would be a really boring world if we were all the same.
I recommend to Dana that she avoid private property where conditions exist which aggravate her condition.
Should considerations be made for Dana and folks like her?
Yes, I think people who have private property where use of tobacco is allowed be conciderate enough to inform her that they have that policy when she asks them. They might even post the info in a conspicious place. That would be conciderate. Good business people will do that to build good will.
On the attempt to link welfare payments to such people. The fact that money is stolen from some people in order to give it to people to whom it does not rightfully belong is a different moral problem from the property rights issue on the smoking question. They are not linked.
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.