Wait 'til SheLion reads this!
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.
Strangely, urination is at least beneficial to the one urinating--even if not for everyone else.
Smoking benefits no one.
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.
Would a "cigar bar" need to go out of business under this new law?
I think that is a very poor analogy. Despite what the smoke-nazis aver, there is no evidence that second hand smoke is anything other than a nuisance to people. That being the case, can you outlaw body odor, or offensive looking people?
You are correct that there is no inherent "right" to smoke in public. However, nothing I have read gives the government the power to restrict it.
There is no evidence that playing loud music all night long is anything other than a nuisance, either.
But if I tried it tonight, the sheriff's deputy would be at my door right enough.
What most people fail to get in this argument is that we restrict and prohibit all SORTS of things just because they are "nuisances." You can't "read" anywhere that the government (that is, "the people") have the right to restrict them either, but we do it all the time.
But YOU can decide on your own to foul the air and make it d*mned inconventient for others to breathe.
How do YOU spell S-E-L-F-I-S-H?
Finally someone who sees the WHOLE picture.
As far as tis is concerned, the rights of the private property owners superceeds the rights of anti-smokers to be smokefree and the rights of smokers to smoke on private proerty.
There's more to life than "benefits". "Enjoyment" is just as important, if not moreso.
And quite a few people smoke simple because the enjoy it.
That's their Right, and I oppose any effort to infringe upon it.
Shouldn't this be headline news? Or is he just making this up to justify his position?
Tell that to the lawyers that worked on the Master Settlement Agreement for the tobacco companys.
Define "public".
Smoking benefits no one.
Incorrect, and irrelevant. But it's not surprising that you come down on the side of intrusive government thugs and against American citizens.
Your fascist tendencies are showing. Guess the ninth amendment just doesn't mean anything these days.
If you don't like my smoking, don't breathe near me. Your car exhaust is a lot more deadly than my cigarette smoke.
Define "public". Private businesses have property rights. He is incorrect, as usual.
Wait 'til SheLion reads this!
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.