Smoking ban, public places, private clubs

Great Debates
1

Pueblo just passed a smoking ban in public places. A lot of the property owners are outraged and there’s at least one bar that’s openly defying it as an act of civil disobedience (and they’re calling the Pueblo city council “The Pueblo Taliban” heh)

However, since the ban is on “public places” wouldn’t an easy solution be to simply declare “My bar is a private club.” You charge, say…10c for a one day membership in this club and if you present your membership ticket, you get 10c off on your first drink.

Is there some sort of standard that a private club must meet to be a private club?

Fenris

2

Depends on the local law but, yes, usually there are very definite standards for private clubs if they are going to supply alcohol to their members.

Moreover a “private club” may still be a “public place” if membership is unlimited and immediately available.

3

It probably says on their business license what kind of establishment they are (public/private). The reason it says this on their license is so that they can be forced to comply with whatever screwball ordinances the local lawmakers decide to enact. Also, they have to comply with local fire & safety codes and if they sell food or drinks, they’re probably at the mercy of local health inspectors. All of this is done with the public’s well being in mind.

A truly private business (more properly called a club) probably does not have such tight restrictions, but I bet they’d have to apply for a new business license if they wanted to do that.

4

The same ban is currently being imposed in New York City. Simply calling your establishment a private club is insufficient. You must meet certain criteria and obtain a license from the city. These licenses, just like the bogus and irritating cabaret licenses, are issued only in small numbers and at considerable expense.

5

This country is carrying this " no smoking" thing too far. Why not allow the owners of the establishment the freedom to make that decision. Do they want a no smoking, smoking , or one with smoking and non smoking sections. Then the choice would be on the consumer as to which places they will patronize. Isn’t is narrow minded that we should legislate anything that should be allowed to be choice.

Oops, I fell off of your question a bit. Not trying to change the focus at all. My apologies.

6

A few thoughts from Toronto. Last year they passed a bylaw, making it illegal to smoke in ‘restaurants’. A ‘restaurant’ is a place that allows people in who are under 19 (i.e. the drinking age in Toronto). You can smoke in ‘bars’ but you can’t bring your kids. So owners have the choice: smoking, or children, never both.

Results: now there are restaurants that you can’t bring your kids to, because they want their regulars to be able to keep smokin’.

But my friend, a non-smoking jazz musician, is thrilled with it. And your clothes don’t reek of smoke at the end of a night out.

7

In my city of Lowell, MA there is no smoking in a place that is serving food.

What you get is the interesting phenomenon of smokers asking other people at the bar “Are you gonna eat?” “How bout you?” No one seems to be eating. “Ok, lets send the kitchen crew home so I can light up!”

Then quite literally, the cooks leave and the ashtrays are handed out.

8

—These licenses, just like the bogus and irritating cabaret licenses, are issued only in small numbers and at considerable expense.—

This makes me doubly sickened with Bloomberg. He has no problem enforcing his own paternalism on others… but if you’re upscale and serve the rich… well of course THOSE people can make decisions for themselves and need someone to cater to their bussiness.

—But my friend, a non-smoking jazz musician, is thrilled with it. And your clothes don’t reek of smoke at the end of a night out.—

I wonder: if this really is a benefit for people, whether prices will increase slightly and wages decrease slightly to compensate.

9

My question…

why can’t a smoker open up a restaurant, employ only smoking staff, and advertise that fact as as smoke-friendly establishment?

10

In Pueblo, because they’re prohibited by law now.

Part of the excuse is that to employ a smoking only staff would be to discriminate against non-smokers. :rolleyes:

Fenris

11

There was a non-smoking waitress in Ottawa that got lung cancer from second-hand smoke, from working in a restaurant all her life.

So this got me thinking: the only way to prevent it would be to put a surcharge on eating there, to compensate the workers for the ‘workplace hazard’. Meaning, the workers in such a place would have to make the decision ‘Is my health and well-being worth this amount that they are offering to pay me?’

It’s like paying people more to work/live in a town with lead in the soil. Which is a tradeoff that people sometimes make.

The fact that sometimes the decision may be ‘Can I (and my family) afford for me to work somewhere with less smoke and also less pay?’ and that people at the higher ends of the socio-economic spectrum makes it a very hard social justice issue.

12

But if they ban smoking, forcing smoking employees to smoke outside or not at work, isn’t that discrimination against smokers?

(I saw your :rolleyes:, Fenris, I’m just trying to get a handle on the logic here.)

In any event, I think the decision should be left up to the business owner. Then the employee and the patron can make a choice. If enough people choose (ie, not forced by gov’t) to avoid restaurants that allow smoking, then one of two things will happen. The business owner will either change or go out of business.

13

Nope, 'cause you don’t have a right to smoke, but people apparently do have a right to have any job they want under any conditions they want. :rolleyes: again.

For what it’s worth, there’s apparently a huge “civil disobedience” movement going on in Pueblo (per 3 different radio reports) and people are flat-out ignoring the ban. (I also find it amusing that the fine for smoking a legal product, tobacco, is $300.00 per incident, but for smoking an illegal product (pot) is $100.00.) There’s also a repeal drive that’s gotten a ton of signatures AND a recall drive for the city councilpeople who snuck* this through.

Fenris

*I have no idea why/how they “snuck” it through, but that’s the word being used even by news sources. Maybe they did it in the last 30 seconds of a session or something.

14

—So this got me thinking: the only way to prevent it would be to put a surcharge on eating there, to compensate the workers for the ‘workplace hazard’. Meaning, the workers in such a place would have to make the decision ‘Is my health and well-being worth this amount that they are offering to pay me?’—

Great post cowgirl. This is my thinking exactly. And indeed, if smoking IS already seen as a health hazard, and people really DO care about it enough to affect their decisions, then we might even expect to see slight variations in price and pay because of it already (harder to attract some workers and customers to a smoky place of employ).

—If enough people choose (ie, not forced by gov’t) to avoid restaurants that allow smoking, then one of two things will happen. The business owner will either change or go out of business.—

Ah, but you don’t understand the resiliency of crusaders. They’ll just argue that other people must supply them with resturants they like: and if there are ANY that are not to their liking… well that can’t be tolerated.

15

i welcome this :slight_smile:

while i am STRONGLY for legalization of most drugs, i dont see why i have to breath somebody else’s smoke if i dont want to.

16

You do not have to, at least not at a restaurant. You can choose to stay away from any restaurant that permits smoking. If there are enough patrons who do so, you would see establishments voluntarily banning smoking all over the place.

And I have also eaten at restaurants that did not permit smoking, although the law didn’t require this. That was the proprietor’s right as well, and if I didn’t like it, I could eat elsewhere.

17

If I would live in Pueblo…

I would like to open a cafe’ named “Nicotine-club”, with club-members who smokes and those who does not.
It would give special advantges for those who can prove that they are members of “The Pueblo Taliban” and heavy smokers.

And a half of one wall would be exclusively for photographs from the Pueblo city council, with the some nice texts like: “Our Honoured Council”. If someone would put up there also a picture of some world-wide known fundamentalists; Khomeini, bin Laden etc, I would not interfere, because my restaurang is fighting for freedom, freedom of expression and worship, and can’t thus censor anything (So just send me an E-mail if You need a nice picture of Josef Stalin;)).

The other wall would be totally filled with texts from news-papers, well known slogans etc, fom people who has fought for freedom of man through the history etc. etc.

The revers, to not let in “The Pueblo Taliban” would, I think be against the law, so that is why I would give “special advantages” instead. I think they would understand the hint.

Anyhow, because it maybe still would be against to smoke there, I would make a special room for smokers. Just like we have compartments in the trains here in Europe, for smoking only.
The smokers room would be 100 sqm, with all the services, and the restaurant, (withouth chairs) would be 10 sqm also with all servises.

  1. So what would the law say?
  2. would You visit my club (cafe’)?
  3. would anyone visit my club (cafe’)?
18

So what you’re saying is you are unable to make the choice yourself, and you allow let Big Brother make it for you?

If you want to avoid restaurants that allow smoking, that is your right. You do not, however, have a right to tell me that I must also avoid them.

BTW…I don’t smoke.

19

First off I think it should be a matter of choice, but as a matter of law I can not see why it is a question at all.

As I understand it, secondhand smoke is currently considered a carcinogen by Health Officials. As such under OSHA standards you would not expose employees to it. Unless fitted with a mask to filter it, not what I would want my server to be wearing.

As an example, I work in construction, if someone is welding in the building, it would have to be ventilated so as not to expose the workers to harmful fumes. And no employer could say “Its part of the job, if you do not like it work elsewhere” That would be a lawsuit in a heartbeat.

So to me it seems clear it is already unlawful as long as a person employed is exposed to second hand smoke.

20

This is not just a small isolated issue of smoking or not smoking.

The larger issue, is how well Americans today, can make their own decisions after years and years of public schooling.

The reason we need social security, is because so many people today are not capable of saving money themselves for retirement, thus they need laws to make them save. We need high taxes, because most people today, are not capable of deciding for themselves how to spend their own money. We need speed limits because so many drivers dont know how fast to drive safely.

Smoking is the same thing.

In theory, there would be nothing wrong with letting the owners of restaurants, the employees, and the customers decide for themselves whether to allow, work in, or patronize a restaurant that allows smoking, or non-smoking.

Years ago, all people, both smoking and non-smoking, were smart enough to make these decisions by themselves. Smokers went to places that allowed smoking, and non-smokers went to non-smoking places.

The problem today is, that most non-smoking people no longer think that they are smart enough or capable to make this kind of personal decision by themselves - thus, they need a law passed to make all places non-smoking to avoid being confused.

As americans get stupider and stupider, they will demand the government to increasingly make more and more decisions for them by law, that they are incapable of making themselves.

You cant fight non-smoking laws as long as so many people can no longer think for themselves. Laws against smoking will continue to be passed as long as non-smokers cannot function without them.

We had prohibition once, because so many americans did not think they could decide for themselves whether to drink alcohol or not.

We passed drug laws in the 1900’s , because we no longer thought we could personally decide on if we should take drugs or not.

In the future we may also see laws against obesity or fattening foods, because many of these same people also dont know how much to eat, or what to eat.