I’m watching the new series of Rescue Me and they are in a bar where people are smoking. When the question is asked as to how this is possible a comment is made that it was “grandfathered in” and so isn’t covered by the non-smoking law. WTF does that mean and is this just fiction?
Are there some places where because of some loopholes that smoking is legal?
The law over here doesn’t allow for it(apart for some places specifally mentioned but none of them are bars)
Well, they could have written the law so it only applied to new permits. Then the bars with old permits would be grandfathered in. This has happened before, so they can change the rules without pissing all the current people off.
But they certainly didn’t do this in the case of the smoking ban. All the existing bars had to stop on the same day IIRC.
Smoking is illegal in bars because it subjects employees to smoke. If the bar has no employees, there’s no problem–these bars have all their staff as part-owners.
No disrespect, but I don’t think that’s correct - at least as the ban is written in New York. Here is the text of the New York statute. If you can find something in there to support this, that’s cool - I don’t have the attention span to do more than skim it right now. I will note that it goes through the types of establishment that are exempted (e.g. cigar bars).
I think it’s assumed on the show that the characters have their local bar/hangout, where they do whatever the hell they want. Including smoke.
The “no employees” exemption was for the NYC ban, which predated the state ban by a few months. The only way I can see a bar possibly being exempted now is if it were a bar run as part of a membership group with no employees- I’m thinking of an American Legion post near my house. They have a bar, but no employees ( unpaid members do all of the work), and membership associations are exempted under the state law as long as all duties are performed by unpaid members
There is a similar exemption under the new Ohio smoking ban for clubs or social groups where there is no public admittance and no employees.
I’ve never heard of any smoking ban anywhere that exempts businesses under a grandfather clause. It would make the law virtually worthless.
I just watched some hearings of the Minnesota Legislature today, on our state-wide Freedom to Breathe act.
The tobacco industry managed to get it shunted into a business-oriented committee, where they think their friends can gut it. They seem to be incredibly inventive in thinking up exemptions to weaken this bill.
Some examples:[ul]
[li]exemption for bars that make more than x% of their profits from liquor sales (and the figures used to calculate this come from the bar owner).[/li][li]exemption for businesses located within x miles of a border with a smoking-permitted state.[/li][li]exemption for Veterans organizations (because some veterans learned to smoke while in the service).[/li][li]exemption for bars that have a special ventilation system for smoking areas (but no requirement that it be in operation, or even maintained as operable).[/li][li]exemption for bars where workers are part-owners (no matter how tiny a ‘share’ the workers own, nor how non-negotiable it is).[/li][li]exemption for bars that have an outdoor smoking area, for any months when it’s cold outside (in Minnesota, that’s nearly half the year).[/li][li]exemption for businesses if their employees ‘agree’ to sign a statement that they aren’t bothered by smoke.[/li][li]exemption for bars if there is an ‘entertainment event’ going on somewhere in the bar.[/li][li]etc.[/li][/ul]
Of course, they did slip an anti-democratic provision into the bill that if any locations in the state have already passed a stricter smoking ban in their own location, those are overturned by this bill. (And absolutely no exemptions to that!)
Hopefully, once it gets out of that pro-business committee, the whole legislature will pass a bill with no exemptions – that’s what the state voters want.
The NYC ban also has a waiver provision:
Not sure what kind of undue financial hardship might be contemplated here (and I don’t feel like digging into the legislative history); it looks tailor-made for bribing the “enforcement officer.” Note also that the conditions/restrictions mentioned must minimize the effects upon people involuntarily subject to second-hand smoke; employees and customers who voluntarily submit to it are golden.
So that could conceivably provide an out, depending on what they mean by a few of the terms.
Man, I hate to address such blatant, non GQ editorializing, but it doesn’t matter what voters want; what matters is what’s right. On the surface, none of the exemptions that you decry seem out of line, being that the rights of the owner of a piece of private property actually matter more than the unwashed, uneducated, uncaring masses.
I forgot I was in GQ, so sorry about that last sentence.
Balthisar, if you want to debate (yet again) the rights of property owners vs. the right of their customers & the public, it will have to be in another forum.
Some good info. Thank you all.
No, I’m sorry. I was equally inappropriate.
Some places in NY where you can still smoke:
http://www.circatabac.com/Site%204/Home.html
http://www.clubmacanudo.com/
Edit: Also wanted to add that there are a few place where you’re “allowed” to smoke. Mostly late night. Although that’s not what you asked, it could be what was depicted in the show.