tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2574135335005017726.post5000132387970700631..comments2024-03-28T06:59:00.644-04:00Comments on Candace Lately: Smoking in restaurantsCandace Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03384964668734474786noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2574135335005017726.post-73014876694012892012012-02-06T12:06:04.337-05:002012-02-06T12:06:04.337-05:00Hi Erica,
Thank you for taking the time to produc...Hi Erica,<br /><br />Thank you for taking the time to produce a well thought-out comment on the issue. And, although I respectfully disagree with your opinion, I thank you for bringing my attention to some of the issues. <br /><br />I hadn't heard of this "no-challenge clause," and if it does exist, I agree that that is not ideal. And I see your point on the other issues you listed, as well. <br /><br />Thanks again for your comment.Candace Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03384964668734474786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2574135335005017726.post-59271365920168989632012-02-06T11:27:41.568-05:002012-02-06T11:27:41.568-05:00I respectfully disagree. I work in a bar, and I a...I respectfully disagree. I work in a bar, and I am a non-smoker. However, I knew when I began working there, that I would be exposed to smoke. It was something I accepted. On my own time, I know that going into a bar, I may be exposed to smoke. I certainly don't visit bars for my health either. The days I do not wish to be around smoke, there are a wide variety of bars I can visit that do not allow smoking voluntarily.<br /><br />The major issues with this passing is the Board of Health are appointed officials. They are not elected, and the measure they pass are not up for public vote. At the hearings concerning the smoking ban, their arguments were consistently long the lines of "I don't like it, therefore is should be banned." My workplace collected many signatures, offered alternatives (such as bars that have 20% in revenue or less from food sold may have smoking, to cover the bar and grill sub-sector), and banded together with other local bars, but all of it fell on deaf ears.<br /><br />The second issue is a clause in the measure that essentially states that the bill must be followed in spirit, rather than in letter. That is, if you find a loophole, you can't use it. To do so would result in heavy fines. This could raise potential legal issues.<br /><br />The third is the limiting of business growth portion. Exempt businesses, such as cigar bars and hookah bars, are not permitted to expand their business beyond the square footage they currently occupy, and only existing businesses are exempt. No new smoking-oriented businesses will be allowed. This falls right in line with the Board of Health's decision not to issue new liquor licenses a number of years ago, apparently in a spree to crack down on vices, which history has told time and time again does not work.<br /><br />Also, if I am correct, the measure also includes a no-challenge clause, stating that the measure cannot be challenged in court, which is unconstitutional, and the bill would fall in light of that alone.<br /><br />So that is my thoughts on the matter.Ericahttp://geeimhungry.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com