Bill Aims to Ban Workplace Smoking

Newsday | 9/17/02 | J. Palmer

[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.

[strider44]

I do go out there sometimes. I also find other ways to rebel, like going up to a gameroom we having and playing ping pong! Don't get me wrong, I don't hate smokers, But I think making them smoke outside is the right decision. You have to admit that filling up a confined space with smoke is going to bother many people. A bar is totally different. That's a social situation and any idot should know that smoking and drinking go hand in hand. I smoke about 5 cigars a year, always outside though, and usually during a poker game. Question:do you think there should be a finite amount of smoke breaks a worker should be allowed? during a typical 8-hour workday?

[Publius6961]

People who smoke are uniformly dumb and often inconsiderate, but that is no reason to usurp the property rights of private businesses.

You do realize what an idiot this statement makes you look like every time you make it...?
But then no one ever accused tiny controlling twits of access to expansive knowledge...

[johnny7]

I like that! Free-enterprise!

Best breakfast place in our hemisphere... The Purple Cow. South of Billings MT.

Big breakfast includes; 6 pancakes, 6 eggs, home-fries, a pitcher of coffee and a pitcher of orange juice.

$6.00... back in 1989. :^D

[Tazman70]

http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/faq-faq/tobacco-tabagisme/8e.html

[strider44]

Exactly right Badray. It's all about your rights as a private citizen. The government has no right to enforce smoking laws in private establishments. End of story. No one is forced to either work in or go to a bar/restaurant. However, if a private place of employment wants to ban smoking indoors, then that is their right too.

[Protagoras]

but please, keep it to yourself. I dont want to breath it anymore than you want to breath my farts.

If you don't want to breathe it, don't go to businesses where it is allowed.

And if people are able to pass gas in public, why aren't you advocating a law against breaking wind?

BTW, the stench of tyranny is far worse than either of the gaseous offences you are talking about.

[johnny7]

You're OK kid. I'm a big time Bogey fan. Never cared much for FDR.

[Badray]

"Does the restaurant owner have the right to serve tainted meat?"

Do you have the right to serve up strawmen? The more appropriate question is: Does the owner have the right to sell badly seasoned food or ridiculously small portions at extravagant prices? The answer is yes, although he likely will not not stay in business very long. But there are plenty of people who want to enjoy a smoke with or after their meals and the government should not be allowed to interfere with his rights to run his business to suit his customers.

[Gabz]

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.

Exactly. But take it a step further and tell the business owner why you will be going elsewhere - instead of running to the government to solve your problem - because you know what, government interference just causes further problems.

[Protagoras]

Socialist Canadian websites which post no science to back up their many statements is precisely the kind of junk science I was talking about.

[Tazman70]

Because breaking wind has not been found to cause harm to anyone. I agree it is offensive, but not harmful like second hand smoke.

[SheLion]

Just because they smoke, they get these built-in breaks. Very annoying.

Where my hubby works, they usually go out once an hour. IF they aren't busy. If they are busy, they don't go.

The non smokers go right with them. Gives them all a time to socialize, breath fresh air, and take a 10 minute stretch. IF they aren't busy.

[Sloth]

But then no one ever accused tiny controlling twits of access to expansive knowledge...

How am I "controlling"?

[Protagoras]

BTW, I asked for science, not websites which have the same opinion as you. Those are a dime a dozen.

[KS Flyover]

I dont want to breath it anymore than you want to breath my farts.

Tazman70

[Sloth]

Care to reconcider that comment?

Not really. BTW, you misspelled 'reconsider.'

[johnny7]

Go bite a fart... you know how to do that don't you? ;^D

[Gabz]

Does the restaurant owner have the right to serve tainted meat?

Mixing apples and oranges again I see.

[Tazman70]

You are just in denial, read the article, the science is there. You dont have any scientific evidence jesus crist lived but you know he did right?

[Protagoras]

Because breaking wind has not been found to cause harm to anyone. I agree it is offensive, but not harmful like second hand smoke.

So far you have only offered your opinion on farts and secondhand smoke. The evidence for flatuence being harmful is exactly the same as secondhand smoke. Namely, zero.

All of which is irrelevant in any case. It's about property rights, not wind. Next time ask the resturant owner for a seat in the "no farting" section.