Smokers Suing To Stop NY Smoking Ban

Six New York taverns - including two in Syracuse - sued the state Tuesday and asked a federal judge to stop authorities from enforcing the new law that bans smoking in all indoor work sites, including bars and restaurants.

Buies Inc., the owner of Dodester's, a bar at 2426 South Ave., and Barmarsue Inc., owner of Murray's, at 2722 Burnet Ave., are plaintiffs in the lawsuit, along with the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association, and four other bar owners.

The lawsuit - which seeks to block the law statewide - was filed in U.S. District Court in Syracuse because five of the plaintiffs are Upstate bars. The sixth is on Long Island.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kahn, of Albany, is not expected to rule on the request to block the new law before the smoking ban takes effect at midnight today, said Scott Wexler, executive director of the state tavern association.

Wexler said he hopes that within a few weeks the court will issue a decision that will block the state from enforcing the law.

"We feel the state shouldn't be telling us how to run our business," said Sue Murray, co-owner of Murray's. "Our customers should be able to smoke if they want to. Tobacco is not illegal."

The Legislature passed the law in March to protect New Yorkers from being exposed to cancer-causing second-hand smoke while working.

New York's law is constitutional and the attorney general's office will vigorously defend it, countered Marc Violette, a spokesman for Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

Donald Distasio, the chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society's Eastern Division, said the tavern owners' lawsuit "is the equivalent to a 'Hail Mary' play in football. It's a last act of desperation with little hope of success."

The lawsuit claims the state law is unconstitutional because it conflicts with workplace safety standards established by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Those standards were designed to protect workers from airborne contaminants, including second-hand smoke.

OSHA established permissible levels of exposure for hundreds of substances, including the chemicals found in second-hand smoke, according to the lawsuit.

"The law is pretty clear that once a federal standard is in place, a state law can't supplement, supersede or supplant that issue," said lawyer Kevin Mulhearn, of Orangeburg, who represents the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association.

The lawsuit also claims that the state law is unconstitutional because it is vague.

It notes that the law allows county health departments to grant waivers from the smoking ban to property owners who would experience undue financial hardship.

But the state Health Department has ruled that such waivers cannot be granted because the Legislature did not include in the law any criteria for waiver applicants to meet.

Included as an exhibit in the lawsuit is a letter Onondaga County Health Commissioner Dr. Lloyd Novick wrote July 10 to the owner of Mac's Bad Art Bar in Mattydale in which he denied Mac's a waiver from the smoking law.

Dodester's co-owner, Caren Snyder, said Dodester's agreed to be a plaintiff because the law will hurt her bar and other taverns.

"People come here for the entertainment of each other, and smoking seems to be part of it. If they have to go outside to have a cigarette, I believe they won't stay as long," Snyder said.

She said Central New York bars will especially get hurt in the winter when customers will not want to go outside to smoke.

Sue Murray said it is frustrating that she and other tavern owners have to sue the state to get politicians to listen to them.

She said she's not sure why the tavern association invited her bar - out of the thousands of bars in New York - to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff.

"Probably because we're a small bar, and it's just my mother and me that own it," she said.

But she admitted to being nervous about the attention the lawsuit might bring her and her mother, Barbara Murray, who co-owns Murray's.

"We're not limelight people," Sue Murray said. "We're just a neighborhood bar. Nobody knows about us. Now they will."

The other four bars suing the state are Stash's Pub in Lowville, Lost & Found Inn in Tyrone, Tazmond's Pub in Uniondale and Keefe's Tavern in Elmira.

New York Bar Owners Protest Smoking Ban
Thu July 24, 2003 07:09 PM ET
By Larry Fine

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Bar owners, bartenders, pool hall proprietors and people who like to take a puff rallied at New York's City Hall on Thursday to protest a new law that bans smoking in bars and restaurants.

"Can the Ban" was brandished on signs and baseball caps and chanted by hundreds of protesters on the day New York state followed the lead of the city, which barred smoking in indoor workplaces last spring over public health concerns.

The Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association filed a suit on Tuesday seeking a temporary injunction, but the case is not expected to be heard until later this summer.

Rob Bookman, lawyer for New York Nightlife Association, said his group plans to challenge the city law, enacted amid widespread American disapproval of smoking.

Speakers said the city's law had hurt businesses and employees, and many in the audience shouted approval.

"I own a pool hall and we lost more than 50 percent of our business," said George Nikolakakos, who owns Steinway Billiards in Queens. "How can you pay your bills?"

Sandee Wright, co-owner of Lower East Side bar The Whiskey Ward, told the crowd business was down 35 percent and said, "I'm petrified we will lose everything on account of the ban."

Stephen Helfer said he came from Cambridge, Massachusetts, to do some networking in advance of a similar law being considered back home. "This is public health run amok," he said."

Nightlife president David Rabin said quality of life issues are raised since neighbors are bothered by smokers forced to stand outside clubs and bars to have their cigarettes.

A counter-rally featured youth workers from social services organization Alianza Dominicana carrying signs saying "Freedom to Breathe At Last," in the plaza in front of City Hall.

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3156205

The constitution gurantees the persuit of hapiness and life.

Smoking around others threatens their lives. Every bar owner has always had many rules to contend with. Health being one of the first. I doubt you would like it if you got worms from a salad at your bar or hepititus. Thus there are rules to protect you. There are also rules to protect workers. Once smoking was allowed of offices so people like myself with sever alegric reactions to smoke suffered. Rules were put into place to prohibit this but not extended to bars at the time because of the extensive smoking that occured in them. Americans have stopped smoking in droves as the evidence of the dangers of tobbaco have become much better known. Thus these rules have become more stringent. Now I can attend sporting events. In New York thanks to this law I can even go to a bar or become a bar tender if I chose to.

Why can you not see that your right to smoke does not extend to the extend of baring me from bars? Your rights end where my nose begins. You can not hit me in the nose, you can not poison my food and thankfully you can not poision the air I am forced to breathe. What do you expect me to do hold my breath the entire time I am in a bar? Why should I not have the right to enter a bar if I desire? Especially when you can have a room in that bar to smoke.

By the way I still smell your smoke even if you can't smoke in front of me but it doesn't seem to affect my astma unless you still have some smoke in your lungs when you enter a room nearby me. I am effected immediately by second hand smoke but every one is eventually affected.

You must truly be nuts. Do I call the Governor every time I can smell you? Maybe your BO sets off my allergies? Yet your right to exist trumps my nose. Get off your high horse, your nose does not trump MY rights.

If you got hepatitus or worms from a restaurant or bar, you and everyone else would not go there. You are free to go to any bar you wish, smoking or nonsmoking. The fact is, you whiners out there are usually also cheap as well and regardless of the air quality, you will not come out and spend money. Your kind just likes pushing people around and telling them what to do.

"Americans have stopped smoking in droves as the evidence of the dangers of tobbaco have become much better known."

Americans have also stopped going to church in droves, does this mean God is hazardous to your health?

"I can even go to a bar or become a bar tender if I chose to. "

You could have always gone to any bar you wished. You could have gone to a non-smoking bar. Oh that's right, non-smokers are cheap bastards, I forgot.

"Why can you not see that your right to smoke does not extend to the extend of baring me from bars? "

Why can't you see that your nose does not extend to the extenT of baring ME from bars?

"Why should I not have the right to enter a bar if I desire?"

You always have had the right to enter a bar, if you are a 10 lbs weakling who can't handle a little smoke, then you should not even be on the street as the car exhaust may kill you.

" I am effected immediately by second hand smoke but every one is eventually affected. "

OOOOOOOH Poor Baby! I know people who get allergic reactions from the very smell of shellfish, does that mean we ban shellfish? If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

There is no constitutional right that everyone has to make YOU happy.

The constitution gurantees the persuit of hapiness and life.

That's the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution,

Why am I not surprised you don't know the Constitution

Smoking around others threatens their lives.

Really, Name one?

Please just name one person who has died because of 2nd hand smoke.

Every bar owner has always had many rules to contend with. Health being one of the first. I doubt you would like it if you got worms from a salad at your bar or hepititus.

Bogus, Stupid, Argument.

If I own a restaurant and want to serve a worm salad then yes living in a supposedly free country I should be able to serve it. And guess what? You don't have to come in and buy one

Thus there are rules to protect you.

Well who the F!@#*(& elected you my Mom.

Americans have stopped smoking in droves as the evidence of the dangers of tobbaco have become much better known.

Wrong the % of smokers has pretty much stayed the same in the past 10 years.

Thus these rules have become more stringent. Now I can attend sporting events. In New York thanks to this law I can even go to a bar

Bull, You a'int going to sporting events and you certainly a'int going to bars. I know people like you, To be that upset about smoking in bars it shows that you are a miserable person, You don't go to bars or sporting events because people there are having fun and having fun is beyond the ability of people like yourself. Which is why bars and restaurants are hurting despite the promise that non-smokers will more than make up for any business lost by smokers

or become a bar tender if I chose to.

Not likely, Business is down due to the smoking ban that stupid Liberal busybody people like you passed. Bar tenders aren't being hired they are being laid off.

Why can you not see that your right to smoke does not extend to the extend of baring me from bars?

I know you haven't read the Constitution but let me assure you that there is no right for every bar to cater to your wishes. Me personally I hate Rap music, Does that give me the right to demand that rap be banned in every bar and that they can only play Led Zeppelin. NO!

If a bar plays Rap music, I simply don't go there

Your rights end where my nose begins.

Please come up with something better than the typical Liberal talking point.

You can not hit me in the nose, you can not poison my food and thankfully you can not poision the air I am forced to breathe. What do you expect me to do hold my breath the entire time I am in a bar? Why should I not have the right to enter a bar if I desire? Especially when you can have a room in that bar to smoke. By the way I still smell your smoke even if you can't smoke in front of me but it doesn't seem to affect my astma unless you still have some smoke in your lungs when you enter a room nearby me.

OH Boo Hoo, You know the troops fighting in Iraq for our freedoms shouldn't be complaining at all, They have it easy, Poor little ImphClinton has the real hardships in the world after walking around NYC with all the trucks and cars spewing exhaust can't go in all bars.

I am effected immediately by second hand smoke but every one is eventually affected.

Yes everyone is affected, New York State tax receipts are down, Unemployment is on the rise, Who do you think is going to pay to make up for the difference?

Why are you here? This is a Conservative Website in case you haven't noticed. Conservatives aren't for government intrusions into private property.

Imp,

"The constitution gurantees the persuit of hapiness and life. "

As pointed out above, this is in the Bill of Rights. The key word in the phrase is persuit, this does not garuntee that you can restricts someone else's rights to ensure your happiness. It allows for you to work and earn your own happiness.

"Smoking around others threatens their lives."
Prove it. You did not address the points in my post that clearly show that it is not a cause of the deseases any more than a person's diet, way of life or genetics. If we want to restrict people from their freedoms on a basis of potential threat to others, then based on the fact that you have asthma, you would be restricted from procreating. Ya know the threat of giving asthma to any offspring should limit you from threatening any potential child you may have.

"Every bar owner has always had many rules to contend with. Health being one of the first. I doubt you would like it if you got worms from a salad at your bar or hepititus. Thus there are rules to protect you. There are also rules to protect workers. Once smoking was allowed of offices so people like myself with sever alegric reactions to smoke suffered. Rules were put into place to prohibit this but not extended to bars at the time because of the extensive smoking that occured in them. Americans have stopped smoking in droves as the evidence of the dangers of tobbaco have become much better known. Thus these rules have become more stringent."

Smoking is still a big part of a bar patrons activity while drinking. Many individuals smoke only when they consume alcoholic beverages. The proportion of smokers in bars is much bigger than the proportion of smokers in the American population. The American population rate of smokers has not decreased over the last few years. It is still at about 25%, yet the per capita lung and heart disease numbers have continued to climb. Diet, lack of exercise, and genetics continues to play a bigger role in these diseases than tobacco use. I assume you support continual erosion of our rights by the government to address these problems.

Bar owners, by definition, own the property that is being infringed upon by the government. What is to stop the next step, restriction of use of other property, regulation of activities in a private home. If a smoker has children, is it valid for the government to step in and seize these children in the name of health? If so, then when will that stop? Will we sanction government seizure of children on the basis of a poor diet (think fast food) or forced abortion by individuals that have a history of health problems?

You advocate seizure of private property based on your preferences. What private property is safe? How do you determine that? You are confusing publicly owned property with private property offered to the public in the form of a business.

"Now I can attend sporting events. In New York thanks to this law I can even go to a bar or become a bar tender if I chose to."

Do you still go to places that have outdoor grilles? Do you attend sporting events that shoot fireworks? These are proven bigger risks than SHS.

"Why can you not see that your right to smoke does not extend to the extend of baring me from bars? Your rights end where my nose begins. You can not hit me in the nose, you can not poison my food and thankfully you can not poision the air I am forced to breathe. What do you expect me to do hold my breath the entire time I am in a bar? Why should I not have the right to enter a bar if I desire? Especially when you can have a room in that bar to smoke."

Regardless of the owners decision to allow smoking or not you still have the right to choose what business to frequent. You also have the right to risk your own cash and invest in a bar or restaurant that bans smoking. If you truly felt that a market exists for a non smoking establishment you should have no issue taking the risk and starting the business, you have that choice. If you haven't done so, then it is pure LAZINESS on your part to allow the government to seize that private property and make rules that suit you. I know of specific cases in my area that are non smoking bars. I don't frequent them and I don't expect someone like you would want to frequent the places that I do. That is fine and that is the whole idea of capitalism and the free market. Both business owners choose what their market is and caters to that market. It works, get used to it. In fact a new restaurant (Blues bar/restaurant) opened up about 6 months ago in my area and was completely smoke free. Within a month smoking was allowed in the bar area, within 2 months a smoking section was set up in the dining area. The customers had asked for it and the owner realized the market called for it.

Bottom line: Your laziness regarding market choices (in the name of your right to not smell smoke) does not preclude the private property owners rights.

"By the way I still smell your smoke even if you can't smoke in front of me but it doesn't seem to affect my astma unless you still have some smoke in your lungs when you enter a room nearby me. I am effected immediately by second hand smoke but every one is eventually affected."

How do you know you smell my smoke even if I don't smoke in front of you? Many people have told me that when they see me smoking it is a total surprise to them, they never would have guessed that I smoke. I guess they couldn't tell because they couldn't smell it.

If everyone is affected eventually by second hand smoke, then why don't we have a whole group of people addicted to second hand smoke? Why isn't the per capita heart and lung disease rates higher in populations where smoking is more prevelant? Why did the WHO find in their own study that SHS actually has positive affects on children where the parents smoke? Why is the asthma rate for children of smokers lower than that of non smokers? You can't answer these questions because you have shut your brain off and blindly follow the nanny government.

Do you know how the "annual deaths per year" number is determined regarding smoking related diseases? Do some research, engage your brain and find some answers on your own. You might learn to enjoy life when you engage your entire being, namely your rational thinking side.

If you would have been alive when the popular beleif that the earth was flat, based on government provided facts, you would have beleived it. You would have called anyone that thought it was round crazy because the government said so. You would have believed the sun revolved around the earth. You would have supported slavery. All of these because the government said so.

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.