Smoking ban applies to private club

[David S]

Club Sues, but Judge Backs NYC Smoking Ban
Thursday, May 26, 2005 8:52 AM EDT
The Associated Press
By LARRY NEUMEISTER

A judge tossed out a lawsuit brought by a 115-year-old private club that sought to strike down no-smoking laws so it could continue to honor its members _ who include Walter Cronkite and Carol Burnett _ with ceremonies that include lighting up.

The Players Club is no more entitled to special privileges with city and state health inspectors enforcing the laws than are pro-tobacco organizations that tried unsuccessfully to overturn them, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said Wednesday.

"Individuals have no `fundamental' constitutional right to smoke tobacco," the judge wrote.

He said the smoking bans target conduct _ smoking in certain places _ rather than speech, association or assembly, which are not regulated by the statutes.

The judge rejected the argument the laws caused a prohibition on a club tradition in which members are honored with pipe ceremonies, which involve smoking on the club's premises.

The judge suggested the ceremonies still might be able to occur after a substitution of suitable non-tobacco products.

The Players Club sued in December 2003 after health inspectors ticketed it for keeping ashtrays behind an office desk. A lawyer for the club did not immediately return a call for comment.

A city smoking law went into effect in March 2003; a state law took effect in July 2003.

Besides Cronkite and Burnett, the club counts among its roughly 700 members Angela Lansbury and Timothy Hutton.

[Richard]

Not really, but I'm rather happy about it.  The faster people realize the government is banning all their rights the faster they will vote them out.

[John Dibble]

No - and no smoking ban should apply to a private club. I disagree vehemently with banning it in 'public' restaraunts, but even more so with private clubs. One anyone can walk into, the other can determine it's own membership and make it exclusively of smokers or people who don't mind if it wants - the whole 'public' argument(which I find as absolute crap considering restaraunts are privately owned and operated) can't even possibly even begin to apply even with the most convoluted logic.

[David S]

Looks like the judge decided that fascism is healthier than smoking.

[Blue Rectangle]

Missing poll option: Hell no.

I'm with Richius, this is good news because it is so outrageous.  It's easier to make a slippery-slope argument when people act this stupidly.  Now we can say, "what next? a smoking ban in apartments?" and not sound paranoid.

[Palefire]

Looks like the judge decided that fascism is healthier than smoking.

It would seems that way.

[TomC]

So, what happens to them if they do? A fine? Just curious. I have no problem with a ban on smoking in public places, but I believe we avbsolutely have a right to consume legally sold products on private property. I could deal with a stipulation that on this prib=vate property, that serves a great number of people, that they must have a smoke free area, but to outright ban it is a violation of property rights.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd say that whether it should apply or not depends on how "private" this private club is.  If they are employing non-members to provide services for the club members then it becomes a workplace safety issue and it should apply.  If it didn't, you'd see a whole bunch of so-called private clubs in NYC appear just to get around the ban, just like they do around here to circumvent Sunday blue laws on alcohol sales. If they aren't paying people to serve the members then the state has no justification for doing so.

[Blue Rectangle]

I'd say that whether it should apply or not depends on how "private" this private club is.  If they are employing non-members to provide services for the club members then it becomes a workplace safety issue and it should apply.  If it didn't, you'd see a whole bunch of so-called private clubs in NYC appear just to get around the ban, just like they do around here to circumvent Sunday blue laws on alcohol sales. If they aren't paying people to serve the members then the state has no justification for doing so.

I can't smoke in my house if I hire a cleaning lady?

[A18]

The judge's job was not to make up a right to smoke tobacco. The judge's job was to apply the law.

I see no one making a legal case here. Your subjective opinions about whether this is a good ban or not are irrelevant.

[Blue Rectangle]

The judge's job was not to make up a right to smoke tobacco. The judge's job was to apply the law.

I see no one making a legal case here. Your subjective opinions about whether this is a good ban or not are irrelevant.

They are somewhat irrelevant to a legal discussion, but this is a political discussion.

Legally, I would say that smoking as part of a ceremony at a private (and obviously a very exclusive club) should be protected by freedom of association.  I mean, come one, if homosexual behavior is protected by that right, then why not smoking?

[A18]

The poll question was, do you agree with this judge's ruling?

Association isn't really a constitutional right, though assembly is. Neither would prohibit this, and I could by the same token claim I had the right to smoke crack cocaine in a private club. I can do anything as part of a ceremony, or as an assembly, and that's nor protected under the first amendment, nor any other state's constitution as far as I am aware.

The law is braindead, but the judge is not.

[Blue Rectangle]

Association isn't really a constitutional right, though assembly is. Neither would prohibit this, and I could by the same token claim I had the right to smoke crack cocaine in a private club. I can do anything as part of a ceremony, or as an assembly, and that's nor protected under the first amendment, nor any other state's constitution as far as I am aware.

The law is braindead, but the judge is not.

I don't get it.  Smoking crack cocaine is illegal, smoking tobacco is not.  These club members are practicing a legal act in a very private setting.

Was it the intent of the law to create a general ban on smoking?  Of course not, it was intended to ban smoking in "public" places.  The Player's Club is not a public accomodation by any stretch of the imagination.  What would happen if you or I walked in and asked for a table?  The judge chose to interpret the law in a very broad fashion--in my opinion, unreasonablely broad.

[A18]

A law can be confined to certain areas. If it couldn't, it could not apply to only public places.

Do you have a copy of the law? This article nothing of the sort.

"Individuals have no `fundamental' constitutional right to smoke tobacco," the judge wrote.

That's what the article seemed to be about.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd say that whether it should apply or not depends on how "private" this private club is.  If they are employing non-members to provide services for the club members then it becomes a workplace safety issue and it should apply.  If it didn't, you'd see a whole bunch of so-called private clubs in NYC appear just to get around the ban, just like they do around here to circumvent Sunday blue laws on alcohol sales. If they aren't paying people to serve the members then the state has no justification for doing so.

I can't smoke in my house if I hire a cleaning lady?

What you do by yourself when there are no employees there is your concern.  What you do when there are employees involved is a bit more problematic.  Providing appropriate protective gear such as a respirator mask would also be sufficient in my opinion.

[John Dibble]

I'd say that whether it should apply or not depends on how "private" this private club is.  If they are employing non-members to provide services for the club members then it becomes a workplace safety issue and it should apply.  If it didn't, you'd see a whole bunch of so-called private clubs in NYC appear just to get around the ban, just like they do around here to circumvent Sunday blue laws on alcohol sales. If they aren't paying people to serve the members then the state has no justification for doing so.

I can't smoke in my house if I hire a cleaning lady?

What you do by yourself when there are no employees there is your concern.  What you do when there are employees involved is a bit more problematic.  Providing appropriate protective gear such as a respirator mask would also be sufficient in my opinion.

Or better yet, inform them that you smoke, and tell them if they don't like it they can work elsewhere.

[Blue Rectangle]

I'd say that whether it should apply or not depends on how "private" this private club is.  If they are employing non-members to provide services for the club members then it becomes a workplace safety issue and it should apply.  If it didn't, you'd see a whole bunch of so-called private clubs in NYC appear just to get around the ban, just like they do around here to circumvent Sunday blue laws on alcohol sales. If they aren't paying people to serve the members then the state has no justification for doing so.

I can't smoke in my house if I hire a cleaning lady?

What you do by yourself when there are no employees there is your concern.  What you do when there are employees involved is a bit more problematic.  Providing appropriate protective gear such as a respirator mask would also be sufficient in my opinion.

Or better yet, inform them that you smoke, and tell them if they don't like it they can work elsewhere.

I'm pretty sure you'd be looking down the business end of a discrimination lawsuit in that case (sadly).

[John Dibble]

I'd say that whether it should apply or not depends on how "private" this private club is.  If they are employing non-members to provide services for the club members then it becomes a workplace safety issue and it should apply.  If it didn't, you'd see a whole bunch of so-called private clubs in NYC appear just to get around the ban, just like they do around here to circumvent Sunday blue laws on alcohol sales. If they aren't paying people to serve the members then the state has no justification for doing so.

I can't smoke in my house if I hire a cleaning lady?

What you do by yourself when there are no employees there is your concern.  What you do when there are employees involved is a bit more problematic.  Providing appropriate protective gear such as a respirator mask would also be sufficient in my opinion.

Or better yet, inform them that you smoke, and tell them if they don't like it they can work elsewhere.

I'm pretty sure you'd be looking down the business end of a discrimination lawsuit in that case (sadly).

Yeah - it's discrimination to want someone who's willing to work in certain conditions.   I know you don't think so, but I don't think discrimination laws would apply - those usually apply to discrimination by race, not qualification(which includes what conditions you're willing to work in).

[Hatman 🍁]

If the US had state run health care, then you would understand the neccesity for smoking bans. But since health care is not a right in the U.S., than I suppose the right to not be killed slowly by second hand smoke isnt either.

[John Dibble]

If the US had state run health care, then you would understand the neccesity for smoking bans. But since health care is not a right in the U.S., than I suppose the right to not be killed slowly by second hand smoke isnt either.

Don't like second hand smoke? Then don't go to restaraunts that allow smoking.

[Hatman 🍁]

If the US had state run health care, then you would understand the neccesity for smoking bans. But since health care is not a right in the U.S., than I suppose the right to not be killed slowly by second hand smoke isnt either.

Don't like second hand smoke? Then don't go to restaraunts that allow smoking.

Freedom of using restraunts without the danger of second hand smoke is more important than the freedom to slowly kill the people around you by smoking.

[John Dibble]

If the US had state run health care, then you would understand the neccesity for smoking bans. But since health care is not a right in the U.S., than I suppose the right to not be killed slowly by second hand smoke isnt either.

Don't like second hand smoke? Then don't go to restaraunts that allow smoking.

Freedom of using restraunts without the danger of second hand smoke is more important than the freedom to slowly kill the people around you by smoking.

Going to a restaraunt, which is a privately owned and operated establishment, is a privilege granted to you by the owner, not a right. Don't like his policy on smoking, then don't go.

[Democratic Hawk]

No

Dave