Re: Challenge to Hospitality: The ID Check in the Lobby wrote:

>> Herb Ste>>> "NOT a public place" would imply that the no-smoking ban in NY is a crock. >> I have no idea what the terms are of no-smoking ban which is a >> different issue. But any property owner may ban smoking on their own >> property if they so choose. The govt for many years has banned >> smoking in some places, such as the inside of a transit bus. > No smoking in "public places" -- which includes pretty much everywhere > - bars, hotel lobbies, etc. Owner of premises CANNOT decide to allow > smoking on his or her own property. Seems unconstitutional, if ya ask > me.

Might or might not be.

However, government can probably nonetheless, in interest of public health and safety, mandate bans on smoking on any places where employees are required to work, or general public needs to go to obtain various services.

In other words, owner of premises can indeed "decide to allow smoking on his or her own property" -- just can't compel or require (or allow) any employees to work there, and so on.

I used to think that health risks of second-hand smoke were probably greatly exaggerated by opponents of smoking -- just didn't seem that great a threat. Then I read of a study on employees of bars and restaurants in San Francisco, whose health records were rather carefully followed before and after a smoking ban, which had earlier been in force, was turned off for a while. The quality of the study and the magnitude of the results convinced me the risks are real and significant.

Reply to
Loading thread data ... Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.