Ah, for the days when the men of this country, whether men of the left or right, weren't emasculated little lap-dogs.
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.
How beneficent of them.
For how long?
That is a rather baseless claim on your part - and totally out of line.
It's coming to that. Make it PRIVATE PRIVATE so the business owner can accomodate EVERYONE. They shouldn't have to do that with their business' now, though. They own it, it's theirs.
I recently read your Second Hand Smoke screed on Free Republic. com. Perhaps you'd like to see that the country at large considers you an anti-property rights facsist.
Bill Aims to Ban Workplace Smoking
If it's not enough for you to make up statistics out of whole cloth, perhaps you'd take the time to read that the EPA's Second Hand Smoke report has been thrown out of court because,
"EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs' products and to influence public opinion."
Or perhaps you've never heard of the Oak Ridge National Lab study which found Second Hand Smoke virtually harmless:
ORNL finds second hand smoke less harmful than thought
Has it ever occured to any of you health Nazis that if it takes 30 to 50 years for an actual smoker to get sick (if he/she is one of the 12% of smokers who do get sick, that is), then it is impossible for someone to get sick from second hand smoke?
You are the typical hack politician, grandstanding and presenting this as a health issue, when in reality this is a property rights issue and you are stripping adult business owners and their adult customers of their ability to make a free choice.
I bet you believe in choice when it come to abortion even though by your name I judge you to be a Catholic. 'Splain that one.
Even you county hacks should be forced to spend some time reading the Constitution and seeing just what is governments business and what isn't, but you're to busy grandstanding for votes and mouthing these meaningless platitudes to your sheep-like constituents.
Thanks for the time,
metesky
real name witheld to protect the guilty
Even you county hacks should be forced to spend some time reading the Constitution and seeing just what is governments business and what isn't, but you're to busy grandstanding for votes and mouthing these meaningless platitudes to your sheep-like constituents.
And they are on this cite posing as conservatives. By the boatload.
That is very scary. Because they don't' see it for what it is. It's control of other people's lives and livelihoods, which is not good. There is too much government control as it is - we need les government intrusion, not more.
Ah, for the days when the men of this country, whether men of the left or right, weren't emasculated little lap-dogs.
Einstein a smoker? Churchill? Most of the founding fathers? Care to reconcider that comment?
I disagree. They know precisely what it is IMO.
This place is filty with authoritarians and other violent types.
I don't smoke, but I'll light one up with you.
This isn't so much about your right to smoke or his right to a smoke free environment. It's about the right of the business owner to run his business as he sees fit. If you don't like his policies, go to another restaurant.
Why don't you just go with them, instead of complaining about it?
While I am not pointing a finger at you, personally, I have no sympathy for the whining of non-smokers about smokers going out to have a cigarette. It was the whiners that caused the problem in the first place by forcing the smokers to go outside to begin with. It's called the law of unintended consequences.
Please post it so it can be examined. If it is good science it will stand up to scrutiny. If not it will be thrown on the junk science garbage pile. Others have posted links to info about it. Have you read them?
If you order it he does. He just doesn't have the right to defraud you into thinking it's not tainted.
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.