Posted on 09/30/2003 6:09:48 AM PDT by CSM
One month into "Smoke-Free New York," a few things are clear.
The non-smokers who were supposedly going to flood restaurants and bars once they weren't exposed to the horrors of second-hand smoke aren't going to such establishments any more than they did before July 24, when the nation's strictest indoor smoking ban took effect.
The idea that people who didn't enjoy the occasional cocktail would start doing so was preposterous from the get-go. Not to mention hypocritical, since it implied that one of the benefits of preventing people from smoking was to induce others to drink alcohol, the most devastating drug known to man.
The Big Lie propagated by anti-smoking activists was a cynical ruse used to sway the simple folk who populate the New York State Legislature, who become particularly gullible when their leaders get their pockets stuffed with lobbyist cash. They, in turn, used it as a feeble defense to ward off the ire of constituents furious that such a massive intrusion on private business owners was quietly rushed into law last spring.
Anyone who bought the Big Lie then was a sucker. Anyone who still expounds it is something far worse.
Scores of the service employees supporters of the ban claimed they want to protect are looking for jobs, because their old ones don't exist.
Some Niagara Falls establishments have laid off bartenders and waitresses due to flagging business. Others have cut back their hours of operation, meaning fewer hours of employment for their remaining workers.
Supporters of the ban change their rationale as often as George Bush alters his stated motivation for invading Iraq. But a pamphlet distributed by the state health department, "A Guide for Restaurants and Bars to New York State's Clean Indoor Air Act," makes the reasoning clear, at least at the moment it was printed:
"Why was the state clean indoor air act amended to include restaurants and bars?" one header asks.
"Waitresses have higher rates of lung and heart disease than any other traditionally female occupational group, according to a study published by the 'Journal of the American Medical Association,'" reads the answer. "According to the same report, one shift in a smoky bar is equivalent to smoking 16 cigarettes in a day."
Talk about wildly flawed logic. The AMA's findings regarding lung and heart disease rates may well be true, but blaming it on their jobs ignores how many waitresses smoke away from work in comparison with other "traditionally female occupational groups," whatever that means.
The only places around Niagara Falls even treading water since the ban are those with outdoor patio areas. But after Labor Day, when sitting outside without shelter -- and the law expressly forbids any sort of roof over any outdoor smoking area -- becomes much less appealing, the ban's true impact will be exponentially felt.
The ban has actually helped some businesses. Unfortunately for local entrepreneurs, they're located in neighboring states and on Seneca Nation land in downtown Niagara Falls.
An Associated Press report earlier this month detailed the spike in bar and restaurant business in the border areas of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New Jersey. Meanwhile, many local smokers report visiting the Seneca Niagara Casino more frequently, since the smoking police haven't attempted to extend the ban there. Yet.
People still smoke in bars where the owners are willing to take their chances.
And the odds of getting fined aren't nearly as short as the state would have you believe.
While no Niagara County business has yet been fined, the county Health Department, saddled by the state legislature with enforcing the law, isn't completely ignoring it, either.
One bar owner said a health inspector visited the establishment and said some snitch had called to complain about smoking in the place.
No one was smoking in the bar when the inspector got there, so she couldn't cite the bar owner, but said another complaint would mean another visit, and so on.
The law allows local health departments to provide hardship waivers, but Niagara County has yet to come up with guidelines for even applying for such an exemption, much less receiving it.
The state-printed pamphlet is equally vague on what to do if a customer insists on smoking.
"You or your staff must remind them of the Act and you may politely explain that they must step outside to smoke. If a customer refuses to comply with the Act, use common sense. The purpose of the Act is to protect others from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. DO NOT CALL the police unless the violator is threatening physical harm or is belligerent."
Use common sense? What does that mean? Let them smoke and risk a fine? Throw water on them? Make sure you get in the first punch?
Note the stress placed on not calling the police.
The message from state lawmakers couldn't be clearer -- we're going to make you chase away some of your best customers, we're not going to spend one penny to help enforce the law we claim is so crucial to the health of you and your employees, and you'd better like it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Staba is the sports editor of the Niagara Falls Reporter. He welcomes e-mail at dstaba13@aol.com.
"In a reasonable, non-nanny state, some entrepreneurs in a town might open a bar or restaurant that would serve the non-smoking public, while others would cater to the smoking crowd."I've never heard of a nonsmoking bar, at least around here...which of course means that it is already obvious that smokers' business won't be replaced by non-smokers' business.This was happening, now as a result of the ban the competitive advantage for the original entrepenaur who opened the non smoking bar is lost. That bar is as likely to see the declines as any other bars, therefore that risk taker is just as likely to lose the business! Thanks nanny!
It also speaks volumes that the nannies aren't fining or even admonishing the actual "lawbreakers"...only the businesses who "allow" the breaking of the law. This is how the nannies have their cake and eat it too....they pass an intrusive law and don't have to deal with the tougher aspects of enforcement. They just collect the fines.
-Eric
This line is misleading at best and definitely uncalled for. I notice that whenever most newspeople critize the left they always have to throw in something negative about someone or something farther on the right. Not so when they're critical of a conservative person or issue.
This is bogus and can no longer be used! I don't know what smoky "back street" bar they are referring to, but most of your bigger bars/taverns today have smoke eaters to pull the smoke and the smell out of the air.The smoke eaters are why the nannies resist adopting the same method used for dealing with exposure to every other workplace "toxin" there is, the Permissable Exposure Level. If PELs were established then bars would find ways to meet them while allowing smoking, and they wouldn't have their excuse to promote their busybody laws.This statement has got to be eliminated in today's high tech age.
-Eric
Tobacco is so addictive that it cuts the brain power of smokers in half and they believe that others enjoy the stench as much as they do. If they can burn tobacco, why can't I burn chopped truck tires (Michelins are great after a steak).
BTW, what happened to the guy that used to scream about me owning a car as proof that he should be able to light up and ruin my meal? I hope he has not died of lung cancer.
I also like the "private property" silliness. Smoking is an offensive act. Non-smoking is passive. A business open to the public can't justify offenses against any single customer by claiming privaye property. No, this guy should stick to writing about sports.
You are correct, but it is really even more insidious than that. there is no presumption of innocence. You, as the owner, are guilty until you prove your innocence.
I have a ttended a few of the hearings against the owners in Delaware, and the NYS law has the same type provisions, it was literally a kangaroo court.
And on top of that, the bans are selectively enforced. With a few exceptions, every business in the entire state is subject to the ban, but they are only focusing on bars and restaurants.
And finally the fines and punishments are unequal. A coffee shop that repeatedly violates the ban just gets increasingly higher fines. yet the establishment that serves alcohol is subject to losing the liquor license after as few as 3 violations, and thus gets put out of business.
This is not about health - it is about back door prohibition.
In 1999, Maine lawmakers forced a complete smoking ban on the Restaurants. Now, come this January, they are forcing a complete ban on smoking in BARS and TAVERNS in this state.
The economy sucks, and still they want to lose more businesses. Make sense to you?
They are living in the dark ages! They KNOW what business's have done to accomodate all the people, yet they are still touting the "Heavy Smoke In Air" syndrome, and the general public believes it. If the general public doesn't frequent restaurants/bars/taverns to see for themselves, then they believe all the lies and the garbage the nanny's are still spewing.
The ban has been especially tough on smaller, local hangouts like Rodbender's Raw Bar and Grill in Cutler Ridge.
For nearly two months after the law took effect, owner Kathy McMillan banned smoking. She said she lost almost 90 percent of her customers, and more than $14,000 in sales.
No, it was intended to punish business.
It was meant solely to to prevent rude and inconsiderate tobacco addicts from contaminating the air for non-addicts.
Assuming you are one of the non-addicts, I can't imagine that this is relevant, since you are the reason many bar owners have the sign that says: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
I also like the "private property" silliness.
You are not a business "owner", are you?
Smoking is an offensive act.
To you and many others, but not to me.
Non-smoking is passive.
Ok. But criminalizing a common behavior and then forcing business owners to enforce the law for the state is anything but passive.
A business open to the public can't justify offenses against any single customer by claiming privaye [sic]property.
Define "offensive". BTW, Someone is "offended" by everything.
I hope he has not died of lung cancer.
Sarcasm and compassion noted.
The ban has been especially tough on smaller, local hangouts like Rodbender's Raw Bar and Grill in Cutler Ridge.
For nearly two months after the law took effect, owner Kathy McMillan banned smoking. She said she lost almost 90 percent of her customers, and more than $14,000 in sales.
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.