DISQUS

EBMike · 1 year ago

While it's good that all restaurants and other public places will be smoke-free, it's a bummer that the bill is so watered down with concessions and special circumstances.

What's to stop every bar now from saying they get less then 15% of their revenue from food in order to be able to allow smoking to continue? I haven't been able to find stories about bars in New York and Ohio, where the majority of bars are smoke-free, and the dramatic drops in business they've had. If anything, more people would go to a bar that's smoke-free. I certainly would.

In fact, I'll start a list. If you have a smoke-free bar, or one that will be when the ban is enacted, let me know and we'll host a list here.

Ron · 1 year ago

I'm just a little bummed that places that have less than 20% of their sales as food are going to be exempt. That means that places like Sherlocks or Rack 'N Roll are still going to be filled with smoke. Going to see a local band play, or watch people drunkenly try to sing just isn't that fun when you can't breathe or see through the haze.

Richard · 1 year ago

I think the Act provides for a compromise but we'll see in the next few years whether these exemptions effectively swallow-up the Act. We may see more restrictions (i.e., less exceptions) in future amendments. Maybe the legislature should consider requiring a standard of air ventilation for those businesses exempt under the Act.

What I found funny, even ironic, is that volunteer ambulance/fire/rescue companies are exempt from the Act. Good news is that the Act does cover private in-home child care services which makes good sense.

As an aside, I remember a couple years back I had friends in from California and we went to McGarry's Oakwood Cafe for lunch (excellent food by the way). We had to sit on the "bar" side of the establishment because the main dining room was packed with a line out the door. It was so odd to eat a meal with people blowing smoke all around. In fact a few of them lit up while eating. My friend who is used to no-smoking laws in California commented on how it seemed "so barbaric." Luckily we won't have to put up with smoke at restaurants anymore (that is, establishments with more than 20% of its gross revenue attributable to food sales).

Stacey · 1 year ago

I tried to read the act - really, I did. I couldn't get through the legal-ese (or is that mumbo-jumbo?) to find out one thing:

say you work for or own a small tool & die shop - for example - does it have to be a smoke free workplace if this act passes???

Richard · 1 year ago

Stacey, the answer to your question is yes. Here's my reading of the Act:

Section 3(a) creates the general rule that smoking is prohibited in public places.

Section 2 defines a public place to include "[a]n enclosed area which serves as a workplace."

Section 2 defines a workplace as "[a]n indoor area serving as a place of employment, occupation, business, trade, craft, professional or volunteer activity."

I would say a small tool & die shop falls under that last definition. Unless the shop falls under an exception listed in Section 3(b) (which I don't see that it does) it must prohibit smoking inside the building.

Michael Cortes · 1 year ago

I am a non-smoker and I do not visit Sherlocks or Rack 'N Roll. You may ask, "Why?" I do not visit them because they are smoking facilities. It is that simple.

I believe we need not wait on the state of Pennsylvania to do what we can do ourselves. These facilities only continue to allow smoking on the premises because smokers and non-smokers alike continue to spend their money at their cash registers.

How many local bands will continue to play at Sherlocks if no one in sitting in the audience?

The world is a different place than it was 20 years ago. Smokers no longer outnumber the non-smokers and businesses can be persuaded to act by the lack of revenue. Keep your money where non-smokers are catered to.

We can decide that non-smoking is more important than a local band, a good meal, or an wine. Together, one dollar at a time, we can decide to change smoking to non-smoking in Pennsylvania.

Jeffr · 1 year ago

First off I want to thank ErieBlogs for being the only place to find real news in this town. It's nice to see this whole thing in the PDF and not summerized and speculated upon by the local media.

I am a smoker and I am glad they passed this.. I hope it keeps all the anti-smokers quiet.. Too bad this wasn't voted upon by the people of Pennsylvania. This decision was made by a very small group of people. The same people that will complain when their taxes go up because of job losses. Ok, you got what you wanted.. Now wait till all these loopholes get used and abused.. What then? Is your law not good enough? Tough luck.. You got what you asked for.

Have fun breathing in 1000% more deadly chemicals from your tire burning plant.

I couldn't believe today I was in a bar and people were actually celebrating this.. Outrageous. There are plenty of nonsmoking places to go. Yet you wanted them all.. How fun is it going to be when you will be paying for government health care and the 24.5% of Pennsylvania smokers claim medical addiction or disability? You had the entire planet except for small mom and pop establishments, and now you killed those.
Simply put if you don't smoke, don't go to smoking places.. How hard was it? You were more worried about some second hand smoke than the hexafluorosilicic acid being put in the Erie water supply..
I am disgusted to be a Pennsylvania citizen today.
Enjoy your police state.

redpanda · 1 year ago

Jeffr - some of your sentiments were those used to keep minorities from food counters in the past (There are plenty of [black] places to go. Yet you wanted them all....Simply put, if you [aren't black], don't go to [non-black] places) Is quitting the very act that far more likely than not will kill you in a horrible way so unachievable? And we're in a representative democracy-of course a small number of people made the decision-those that were voted in. Now you have a problem with the American form of government (which was created by a small number of people)? But you are right with the use of the word "police"; the state government holds a general "police power", i.e., the power to protect the health, safety or general welfare of state residents. Probably not the exact use of the word you had in mind.