On Thursday, April 6, Ben Hirsch and I drove from Massachusetts to the New Hampshire state house in Concord to join with members of the NH Liberty Alliance and show our opposition to the proposed smoking ban. The Liberty Alliance, which is comprised of libertarian and libertarian-leaning persons, has been fighting the usual antismoking lobbies like the American Cancer Society. Unlike the lobbies with their full-time paid staff to pressure legislators and their advertising budget to deceive the public, opponents could rely only upon their distaste for petty tyranny and money out of their own pockets.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives had passed the ban 189 to 156 on March 22, but only after long debate. No one knew which way the Senate would go.
The state house was filled with ban proponents and I could not help but wonder how many were on the clock and collecting pay. We, however, readily identifiable as opponents by lapel pins promoting freedom and property rights, stood outside the senate chamber encouraging those on our side and letting our opposition see that we are not cowed by their bullying.
Of 14 senators who spoke-out of a total of 23 present-I heard only the last two, both of whom were eloquent. One attacked the junk science and the politics of the nanny state while the other stood for individual freedom and responsibility. It was refreshing to hear legislators brave enough to speak their minds and also not to hear ban opposition based only on its effect on business.
When the vote came after two hours we had prevailed 12 to 11. Naturally all the Democrats voted for the ban joined by three Republicans. I believe all those who voted against it were Republicans.
Both Ben and I feel that being at the state house in person and meeting with fellow ban opponents was not only rewarding, but may have helped our side prevail.
The Japanese samurai say that when the battle is won it is time to tighten one's helmet straps. I hope NH ban opponents do not become complacent, but continue to fight the antismokers. Like Prohibition which lasted 13 years tobacco prohibitionists are not going away overnight.
CONCORD, N.H. --It will continue to be up to New Hampshire restaurant and bar owners to ban smoking on their premises.
The Senate on Thursday voted 12-11 against a statewide smoking ban. Fourteen senators presented their arguments before the vote, with Sen. Carl Johnson complaining about the intensive lobbying by advocates.
"Many e-mails have crossed the line. I've been told I'm promoting cancer," the Meredith Republican said angrily. "In all my years in the Legislature, I've never been subject to the kind of lobbying that has occurred with this bill."
Meanwhile, the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce, a major advocate of the ban, pledged to support future efforts to ban smoking.
According to a poll of their members, 75 percent of restaurant and bar owners supported the smoking ban. A separate poll found 79 percent of the general public supported it.
Shawn Joyce, president of Margaritas Management Group Inc., which owns seven restaurants in New Hampshire, has said most restaurant operators would prefer a statewide ban rather than being forced to enact their own.
But opponents argued that's not the role of government. "Don't let your senators and representatives tell you what to do. Do it on your own," Raymond Sen. Jack Barnes, a Republican, argued.
Advocates for the ban say it's unfair to restaurant workers to subject them to a known health threat like secondhand smoke.
Sen. Sylvia Larsen, D-Concord, quoted one estimate suggesting that a restaurant worker on an eight-hour shift inhales secondhand smoke equivalent to smoking one to two packs of cigarettes.
"If you know that smoke causes cancer, wouldn't you do something about it? You wouldn't let drunks run around up and down the highway," argued Lempster Sen. Bob Odell, a Republican.
Sen. David Gottesman, D-Nashua, asked why this was any different from rules against asbestos in the workplace.
"We don't let anyone smoke in the Statehouse. ... Why is this building better than a restaurant?" said Manchester Sen. Lou D'Allesandro, a Democrat.
But opponents insisted it should be left up to restaurant and bar owners to decide when and if to go smoke-free. A majority of restaurants and bars in the state already have, several noted.
"I wish I could vote for this bill but I don't think 24 of us should be telling businesses what to do," said Sen. Bob Flanders, R-Antrim.
CONCORD, N.H. --A proposed ban on smoking in all restaurants and bars in New Hampshire is headed for a battle in the Senate next week.
With a tie vote, the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday ended up recommending against a statewide smoking ban.
But the issue has hardly been decided.
"There's strong feelings in both directions," noted Sen. Chuck Morse, who heads the committee. "I don't think there's any doubt there'll be speeches on the floor."
Six finance committee members divided equally for and against the legislation to ban smoking in all restaurants and bars. Without a majority recommending the bill, it goes to the full Senate with a report calling it "inexpedient to legislate."
Senate Democrats who endorsed the bill were upset that the smoking ban didn't get the committee's support, especially after dozens of people -- including one woman battling lung cancer attributed to second-hand smoke -- testified in favor of the ban Wednesday.
"This is not an economic issue. This is not a referendum on our great state motto, 'Live Free or Die.' This is simply a health issue, and a matter of doing what is right for our great state," Sen. David Gottesman, one of the bill's sponsors said in a statement.
Opponents argue it should be left up to restaurant and bar owners to decide whether to make their businesses smoke-free, noting that a majority already have taken that step.
The House passed the ban last week 189-156. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the bill on April 6. If it passes, the smoking ban would become law after 90 days.
Don't ban smokes
Mar 29, 2006
The proposed ban on smoking in restaurants and bars should be absolutely unnecessary. Most people I know exercise free will.
Decision-making is a skill I learned long ago. I won't drive 90 mph through any downtown in any state. Why? It's dangerous. I won't operate old unsafe machinery. Why? It's dangerous.
I hope most people who don't smoke will have the common sense not to frequent a bar or restaurant that allows smoking. Why? It's dangerous.
With the trend leaning toward nonsmoking establishments, I'm sure there is a plethora of bars and restaurants where nonsmokers can work and play. But it seems to me nonsmokers want to go to every bar and restaurant in our supposedly free country. God forbid if there is smoking in one of them.
Don't go to establishments that allow smoking, and I won't go to ones that don't. Get on with your life and let other people get on with theirs.
Get a hobby - perhaps lobbying to pass stricter emission laws on autos and factories. Why should I have to breathe that stuff every time I walk out my front door?
BOB GARDNER
Northfield
Read
Up in smoke: There go our liberties
March 23, 2006
AT THE RATE the New Hampshire House of Representatives is going, New Hampshire won’t remain the “Live free or die” state much longer. Call it the “Live free unless legislators disapprove of your behavior” state.
On Wednesday the House voted 189-154 to ban smoking in all bars and restaurants. The state already bans smoking in restaurants with 50 or more seats. But that wasn’t good enough for representatives who felt compelled to protect citizens from their own choices.
This session House members had already voted to force all pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception and to deny parents the ability to choose where their children go to school. Last year legislators required children to wear helmets while riding bicycles (the bill originated in the House). Every year legislators, usually beginning with House members, try to erode a few more of our liberties.
Only 11 states and the District of Columbia are overzealous enough to ban smoking in all bars and restaurants. If the Senate doesn’t halt House Bill 1177, New Hampshire will be the 12th state. Nothing would be a surer sign that individual liberty is no longer taken seriously in what was once the freest state in the U nion.
House passes smoking ban
Mar. 22, 2006
GARRY RAYNO
Concord – The House voted 189-156 yesterday to ban smoking in all the restaurants and lounges in the state.
It will now go to the Senate, where its fate is uncertain.
Supporters of House Bill 1177 said the ban is necessary to protect the health and safety of workers in the hospitality industry exposed to second-hand smoke.
Opponents of the bill called it government intrusion into private business and said restaurant and bar owners should decide for themselves whether to allow smoking in their businesses.
House members spent 21/2 hours debating the bill and voted down several amendments, including banning smoking in private social clubs, requiring restaurants to wall off smoking areas and banning smoking when a child is present.
Prime sponsor, Rep. Sheila Francouer, R-Hampton, said: “This bill is not about breaking New Hampshire tradition. This bill is about protecting the health and safety of workers in restaurants and bars.”
She spoke of Dana Reeve, the wife of actor Christopher Reeve who died several weeks ago from lung cancer. Although Reeves was not a smoker, Francouer noted, she was exposed to second-hand smoke as a lounge singer.
Lawmakers light up cigarettes outside the front door of the State House in Concord yesterday after a 189-to-156 vote in favor of banning smoking in all restaurants and bars in the state. (AP)
“I believe in ‘live free or die’ as much as anybody in this House. But have any of you watched anyone die of lung cancer and associated diseases,” she asked.
Rep. Jacalyn Cilley, D-Barrington, told of a restaurant owner in her community who spent $19,000 to segregate the lounge from the restaurant. “Are you going to reimburse him for the money he spent?” she asked.
She said the marketplace has clearly shown restaurant owners can deal with the issue, as many have gone smoke-free.
“The marketplace is working,” Cilley said.
After the vote, Lori Fresina of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids said: “For years, New Hampshire workers have labored under a toothless state indoor smoking law that prevents cities and towns from passing strong worksite protections from toxic and deadly secondhand smoke. The days of forced exposure to second-hand smoke may soon be over.”
Current law allows smoking in restaurants seating fewer than 50 customers and in segregated areas that have a physical barrier.
Chris Williams, vice president of the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce said, “The business community in New Hampshire is starting to recognize that a statewide smoking ban can be good both for our employees and for business, and will not affect our net revenues.”
During the debate, Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, R-Manchester, urged the House to add social clubs to the ban. It was hypocrisy not to include the private bars such as the VFW or American Legion, which he said are often more smoke-filled than other bars.
“If you ban smoking in restaurants, you should ban smoking in social clubs and bars,” he said.
His proposal was voted down, 282-61.
A proposal to more clearly define what segregation of a smoking area entails was shot down on a 242-103 vote.
A proposal to ban smoking when a child is present anywhere — including private residences — was killed on a 310-36 vote.
House passes smoking ban for restaurants and bars
March 21, 2006
CONCORD, N.H. --New Hampshire has moved a step closer to banning cigarette smoking in all restaurants and bars.
The New Hampshire House voted Tuesday on a statewide smoking ban, passing it 189-156.
Supporters point to the danger of secondhand smoke for workers and patrons. They say other states that enacted a ban have not seen their restaurants suffer financially.
Opponents of the bill say it should be up to restaurant owners if they want to ban smoking on their premises.
According to a poll conducted by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, 75 percent of restaurant and bar owners support the ban.
A recent statewide poll also showed widespread support from the public.
House postpones vote on smoking ban
March 10, 2006
CONCORD, N.H. --The New Hampshire House has postponed until next week a vote on a bill to ban smoking in the state's restaurants and lounges.
The vote was scheduled Thursday, but then pushed back because of a huge House agenda.
Supporters say the right to breathe clean air supersedes the right to smoke but opponents say the ban will hurt businesses.
The Manchester Chamber of Commerce is behind the ban and a recent poll shows that about 80 percent of state residents support the ban.
The House is expected to approve the ban easily, but Senate Republican leaders have opposed the idea.
Ban smoking! Voluntarily, that is
Thursday, Mar. 9, 2006
JUST IN TIME for today’s House vote on a proposal to ban smoking in bars and restaurants, a UNH poll found that 85 percent of Granite State voters say the right of employees and customers to breathe clean air is more important than the right of smokers to light up. That’s great news — for ban opponents.
The poll also found that 79 percent wanted smoking prohibited in all workplaces, including bars and restaurants. Great! Legislators can now toss out Rep. Sheila Francouer’s silly smoking ban. It isn’t necessary.
How’s that? The public wants smoke-free establishments, so legislators must mandate them by law, you say? Just the opposite.
Such overwhelming desire for smoke-free places of business means one thing: Business owners will ban smoking on their own if they want to keep their customers and employees.
This poll shows unmistakably that customers and employees demand smoke-free environments. Without question, business owners will move to meet that demand or they will suffer the repercussions.
The trend in New Hampshire already favors smoke-free bars and restaurants. It won’t be long before establishments that allow smoking will be difficult to find because demand for them is shrinking rapidly. Banning smoking now, right when the state is on the verge of going smoke-free voluntarily, is foolish and unnecessary.
Let’s leave people free to make their own choices. New Hampshire has always prided itself on doing that, and history shows that when government does that, most people make the right decision. If second-hand tobacco smoke is the great health menace its opponents say it is, then people will ban it on their own. If a few establishments continue catering to smokers, so what? The owners, employees and customers will have made their own decisions, and who are we to forbid them from doing so?
Smoking is on its way out as a socially acceptable behavior. The state doesn’t need to hasten its demise with laws invasive of private property rights. The people of New Hampshire, who are smart enough to be trusted with electing their representatives, are smart enough to decide for themselves when and on what terms they will purge smoking from public life.
House Prepares For Vote On Smoking Ban
March 8, 2006
CONCORD, N.H. -- The state is a couple of votes away from instituting a smoking ban in restaurants and lounges, and supporters of the measure believe they have the momentum.
Some critics have warned that a smoking ban could hurt businesses' profits, but the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce points to two businesses -- the Wild Rover and the Puritan Backroom -- whose profits jumped when they banned cigarettes.
"We believe this bill will not adversely impact the business community," said Robin Comstock, of the Chamber of Commerce.
The state's largest business group has put its full weight behind the restaurant smoking ban. New Hampshire is the only state in northern New England without such a law.
"At first we were opposed, but later we found it had no effect on revenue," said Shawn Joyce, president of Margarita's Restaurants.
Joyce said the ban is supported by 75 percent of owners because it cuts down on cleaning and improves employee health.
"The fact is, employees don't always have a choice where they work," Joyce said.
Bolstered by health groups such as the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association, supporters are putting a full court press on House members for Thursday's vote. They point to polls that show that about 80 percent of residents support the ban.
The House vote is expected to be an easy win for supporters. The real fight could be in the Senate, where Republican leaders quietly oppose the idea.
Critics have long said that New Hampshire is the "Live free or die" state, but supporters of the bill say that the right to breathe is more important than the right to smoke.
"We are the live free or die state, but we'd like to prevent that 'die,'" Sen. Lou D'Allesandro said.
Smoking junk: Science on secondhand smoke incomplete
February 27, 2006
BEFORE NEW Hampshire becomes only the 12th state to mandate that citizens may not smoke in bars and restaurants, legislators need to understand that the research on secondhand smoke is not as cut and dried as the advocates of a ban claim.
Supporters of banning smoking in bars and restaurants say that secondhand smoke kills 3,000 people a year. That number is far from certain. It came from an Environmental Protection Agency report issued under President Clinton's activist EPA Administrator Carol Browner. Tobacco companies sued the EPA, claiming the report was junk science. They won.
A federal judge ruled in the favor of the tobacco companies, saying the "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun" and "disregarded information and made findings on selective information."
In 1999 a New England Journal of Medicine editorial questioned a highly touted study that supposedly found that people exposed to secondhand smoke increased their risk of heart disease by 25 percent. The editorial said the figure was improbably high and was more likely to be around 2 percent.
In 2003 the British Medical Journal published a report showing that the spouses of smokers were not significantly more likely to get cancer or heart disease than the spouses of non-smokers.
The World Health Organization, a leading proponent of banning smoking in public places, cites numerous studies to justify its position. But it ignores its own international study, which found no statistically valid link between passive smoke and cancer.
The truth is that the science on the health effects of passive smoking is unclear. Good scientists disagree, and there is research to support both positions. Before New Hampshire — the "Live free or die" state — takes the extreme step of banning smoking in private businesses, shouldn't it be certain of the science first?
Smoking Ban Advancing In New Hampshire
Feb 23, 2006
New Hampshire is one step closer to a statewide ban on smoking in restaurants and bars.
The House Commerce Committee voted Wednesday to recommend the full House approve a ban.
Current state law allows smoking in restaurants with fewer than 50 seats.
Larger restaurants must have ventilation systems and a segregated non-smoking area. But supporters of the ban say that does not protect workers.
If approved, New Hampshire would be the 12th state to institute a statewide ban.
All the other five New England states have a statewide smoking ban.
Smoking ban backers out in force
Crowded hearing dominated by one side
By LAUREN R. DORGAN
January 18. 2006
Two dozen supporters of a proposed ban on smoking in New Hampshire restaurants and bars made their case at a House hearing yesterday. Opponents numbered in the single digits.
Read
Smoking ban backers say citizens' health is issue
January 17, 2006
Norma Love
CONCORD, N.H. --Supporters of banning smoking in public restaurants and bars told lawmakers Tuesday they have a duty to protect the public's health.
Francoeur, R-Hampton, is the prime sponsor of legislation to ban smoking in restaurants and cocktail lounges. The ban would not apply to private clubs, such as the American Legion.
If approved, New Hampshire would be the 12th state to prohibit smoking in restaurants and bars, according to the American Cancer Society. The latest state to enact a ban is New Jersey under a law signed Sunday that takes effect April 15.
New Hampshire law currently allows smoking in restaurants with fewer than 50 seats. Larger restaurants have to install ventilation systems, dividing walls or come up with other ways of keeping smoking and non-smoking sections apart.
Francoeur said those measures don't protect workers. She said they inhale second-hand smoke during an eight-hour shift that is the equivalent of smoking two packs of cigarettes. Workers should not have to go home with clothes smelling of stale smoke and wake up with a dry, hacking cough, she said.
Francoeur said she has opposed similar bills in the past, concerned that a ban would drive residents and tourists from eating at New Hampshire restaurants.
"All the other New England states have gone smoke-free," she said. "This is no longer an economic issue. This is a health issue."
Kris MacNeil, a cigarette vending machine operator from Concord, testified that the bill wasn't needed.
"It isn't against the law for a restaurant or cocktail lounge to outlaw smoking all on their own," she said.
She noted that many restaurants have spent thousands of dollars installing ventilation equipment that would no longer be needed.
Workers can choose to take jobs at places that ban smoking, she said.
Francoeur said that isn't an option.
"Smokers shouldn't inflict danger on others," she said.
State Sen. David Gottesman, a bill co-sponsor, said he worked as a waiter while attending the University of New Hampshire.
"I used to go home, cough for an hour or two and hang my clothes up outside because I couldn't afford dry cleaning," said Gottesman, D-Nashua.
The New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association, which lobbies for the state's hotels and restaurants, isn't taking a position on the bill because its members are divided over the issue.
Kevin Sullivan, association chairman and manager of Galley Hatch Catering in Hampton, said the association has long advocated for leaving the decision to the individual business owner.
While not taking a position on Francoeur's bill, the association strongly opposes another one that would let each community decide whether to regulate smoking, he said. That would create a patchwork of different and confusing regulations, he said.
In restaurants, smoke clears
Legislature takes up ban in changed times
By LAUREN R. DORGAN
Monitor staff
December 27. 2005 8:00AM
After nearly 20 years of letting people light up over their eggs and toast, the Egg Shell restaurant in Loudon banned smoking this month. Owner John Cronin said it hasn't hurt business a bit.
"I think people are becoming accustomed to not being able to smoke in public places," Cronin said.
As Bob Dylan, a lifelong smoker, once sang, the times, they are a-changing. This month, after years of battling smoking bans every time legislators considered one, the lobbying group for state restaurants and hotels dropped the fight. The New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association will stay on the sidelines when the Legislature takes up a ban this year.
Rep. Sheila Francoeur, a Republican from Hampton, had always voted against banning smoking in restaurants and bars. This year, she's the bill's lead sponsor. She said she thinks it will pass.
She said her mental calculus hasn't changed, but the landscape has. Now that every other state in New England has banned smoking in restaurants and bars, she argued, New Hampshire won't lose customers to its neighbors.
"Now, it's strictly a health issue for the employees," Francoeur said.
She's not alone in her transformation. House Speaker Doug Scamman, who supports the bill, said he used to think of smoking in public as a simple matter of personal freedom.
"I've come a long way on smoking. They used to smoke on the floor of the House when I was first there," he said. "Slowly, you get educated. Second-hand smoke has quite a few effects on people."
A large number of restaurateurs across the state agree. A November survey found that 69 percent of the lodging and restaurant association's members support a ban, according to Shawn Joyce, the president of Margaritas Mexican Restaurants, who said he's "passionate" in support of a ban.
Association President Michelline Dufort confirmsthat the most recent membership survey found that a lopsided majority support a ban, but she cautions against reading too much into that statistic. Earlier surveys found a more even split, she said.
The association's lobbyist will put in hours on the bill, Dufort said, but only to explain to legislators that the group is torn on the subject and not taking a stand one way or the other.
"My perception is the heat's not going to come on on this issue," said Rep. Jim MacKay, a Republican from Concord who is co-sponsoring the bill.
The bill still has foes. Senate President Ted Gatsas announced earlier this month that he is against a ban, and Majority Leader Bob Clegg is a passionate opponent of banning smoking.
"I'm not going to tell you I have the votes, because I don't know," Clegg said, pointing out that there's now only one smoker in the state Senate. "I'm hoping there are still enough people who believe in a free America that they don't think we can tell restaurants what they can and cannot do."
Clegg calls the argument that it's an employee health issue "poppycock." People choose where they work, he argues, and the government regulation is a slippery slope.
"Let me put it to you this way: If the Senate really decides that restaurants are not the place for legal products, this year it'll be tobacco, next year it'll be alcohol, and the year after it'll be fatty foods," Clegg said. Plus, he said, many restaurants in and around his town of Hudson have gained customers from Massachusetts since that state banned smoking in restaurants and bars.
Interviews with a dozen restaurateurs, bartenders and smokers found ambivalence on the question of a ban. There are proprietors, such as Cronin, who've banned smoking in their own shops but oppose an overall ban because they think it should be the choice of the individual owner.
"If the smoking is kept separate, I think it's up to the individual owner to have a choice whether to have smoking," said Diane Carantit, who owns the Cityside Grille in Concord, which went smoke-free over a year ago.
Cityside manager Jo Lewis said fewer people now linger over cigarettes and coffee, so there is more turnover in the restaurant's barstools and booths.
A former smoker, Lewis said she never wanted a cigarette with her food. But she imagines bars would have a tough time cutting out the smoke.
"Drinking and smoking go together," Lewis said. "It's like coffee and doughnuts."
The lodging and restaurant association's Dufort said that of one recent survey's respondents, roughly 80 percent had gone nonsmoking in their dining rooms, while less than 50 percent had gone nonsmoking at the bar. (Current state law mandates that indoor smoking sections must be separated from nonsmoking areas; restaurants and bars with fewer than 50 seats are exempt.)
Some who support a ban say in the next breath that they think it would be a government intrusion. Others who invoke "Live free or die" also say they would enjoy cleaner air.
Sitting on their bar stools at Penuche'sAle House in Concordlast week, a pair of regulars debated the issue between drags on cigarettes.
"I think it should be illegal to smoke," said Teo Plumley, 28, of Concord. "I'd quit. Americans would be a lot healthier if it were illegal."
"I'm all about personal choice," said Dave Ellum, 39, of Pembroke. "I think all drugs should be a choice."
At the same time, gesturing toward bar manager Matty Audet, who said a ban would be good for his health, Ellum said he doesn't want his smoke to harm anyone else.
"I think smoking is dangerous, and I don't think my secondhand smoke should be poisoning anyone," Ellum said. "You should have Penuche's One and Penuche's Two."
That way, Ellum said, employees could choose which bar to work in and patrons could decide whether they wanted a smoky environment. Ellum is against seat belt laws and helmet laws for the same reason he's against smoking bans: He thinks people should choose for themselves.
Yet, in the end, he said a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants would probably make him cut down.
Joyce of Margaritas would like to banish smoking from his restaurants, but he says a statewide ban would be the only economically feasible way to accomplish that. Otherwise, his customers might leave for competitors that allowed smoking.
Brian Shea, who owns the Barley House in downtown Concord, is more or less in that boat. He sees a ban as inevitable, if not this year, then soon. Shea, who worked as a brewmaster at a Brew Moon in Saugus, Mass., in the late 1990s, when that town passed its own ban, said he saw customers take off for nearby towns.
"The issue is making it fair and by doing a statewide ban it would be," Shea said.
Rep. James Pilliod, a Republican from Belmont, agrees. He is sponsoring a bill that would allow towns to decide for themselves whether to ban smoking in bars.
"I hope the bigger one passes, and I would even recommend that they kill my bill if it's a problem for anybody," Pilliod said.
He sponsored his bill in response to the state Supreme Court's 2003 ruling that New Hampshire towns don't have the authority to ban smoking. That ruling made smoking bans in Keene and Colebrook unenforceable.
Keene Mayor Michael Blastos, who said that 95 percent of restaurants in his town are smoke-free even though the ban was declared invalid, said that he, too, is rooting for the statewide ban.
"The government steps right in and says, 'Thou shalt not use lead paint, thou shalt not use asbestos, because they're known carcinogens,'" Blastos said. "Secondhand smoke is a known carcinogen. I say, 'Why two out of three?'"
Read
Smoking ban is bad idea for New Hampshire
December 24, 2005
If supporters of a bill before the New Hampshire Legislature have their way, the Granite State will go the way of Massachusetts and ban smoking in all restaurants.
It was a bad idea in Massachusetts when the measure passed in 2004. It is a bad idea in New Hampshire.
Smoking is an unhealthy habit that increases the occurrence of diseases that can cost people their lives. There is no question that people would be healthier if they did not smoke.
That said, human beings engage in any number of activities that can affect their health unfavorably. A free society should allow adults a measure of choice in the habits they choose.
Cigarette smoke can be annoying to those who do not smoke. It can cause breathing difficulties for others. But nothing forces these people to patronize restaurants where smoking is permitted or where nonsmoking sections do a poor job of keeping the fumes out.
Restaurants and other businesses should be free to allow or prohibit smoking as they choose. If there are enough people who demand a smoke-free dining experience, a wise entrepreneur would open a nonsmoking restaurant to cater to them. There is nothing prohibiting restaurants from becoming smoke-free by choice.
Our reporters found that restaurants in Southern New Hampshire are full of Massachusetts patrons who smoke. They have been crossing the border since the 2004 ban, looking for places to eat that still welcome them. If New Hampshire enacts a smoking ban, becoming just the 10th state to do so, where then will these patrons and Granite State smokers go? Perhaps they will just stay home. New Hampshire restaurants will suffer.
Proponents will cite any number of reasons why a smoking ban is a good thing.
We have just one reason why it isn't: freedom. That's as good a reason as anything those who favor a smoking ban can produce.
Senate president opposes eateries smoking ban
December 13, 2005
By Kevin Landrigan
The Telegraph
CONCORD - Banning smoking in all restaurants would be an excessive use of state government power, Senate President Ted Gatsas said Monday.
Gatsas said smoke-free eateries are growing in popularity on their own, but business owners should not be forced to ban smoking.
"These are decisions you should make as businessmen and women. I don’t think we should be saying, ‘You can’t have smoking in your establishment’," Gatsas told reporters during a luncheon where he discussed his agenda for the 2006 session.
The New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association dropped its longstanding opposition to such a ban after a survey of members found a majority embraced the idea. That raised the hopes of supporters that a smoking ban could clear the House of Representatives in the 2006 session.
But Gatsas, a Manchester Republican, seconded earlier opposition to the bill from the Senate’s majority leader, Hudson Republican Robert Clegg.
"I don’t think laws should be passed that would change the way a business should be run," Gatsas said, adding a ban would hurt some restaurant owners who depend on regular visits from smokers.
On other matters, Gatsas said he would support relaxing the state’s truth-in-sentencing laws to reduce state prison overcrowding, as long as the early release of inmates would be done selectively.
"If it’s going to be relaxed, it has to be relaxed in the right places," Gatsas said.
The Legislature would be willing to approve any changes this year or next year to protect the state’s first-in-the-nation primary, Gatsas added. He predicted the Democratic National Committee would reject a recommendation made Saturday by a DNC commission to place more caucuses just before and after New Hampshire’s primary in 2008.
"I think the Democrats will see the light and do what’s right for the nation," Gatsas said.
Hampton Republican Rep. Sheila Francoeur, who is proposing the smoking ban, said it would protect the health of employees at restaurants that currently allow smoking.
Nashua Democratic Sen. David Gottesman is a co-sponsor of the ban along with Amherst Republican Rep. Cynthia Dokmo.
Clegg said people could choose to work only at smoke-free eateries.
"You can vote with your feet," Clegg said.
A former cigarette smoker, Clegg said he believes the ban on smoking in Massachusetts last year drove people to restaurants over the border in New Hampshire that allow it.
Smoke-free or die: Looking for a new state motto
December 8, 2005
WITH EACH new session of the General Court, legislators take out their pick-axes and chip away at our great state motto. The impulse to tell others how to live their lives has overcome legislators in Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine, and now it is seeping into New Hampshire from all sides.
The latest Republican legislator to succumb to the I Know What’s Best For You disease is five-term Rep. Sheila Francoeur of Hampton. After losing two brothers, both smokers, Francoeur decided it was up to her to rescue New Hampshire bar and restaurant patrons from the perils of second-hand smoke, such as they are. She has introduced a bill to ban smoking in all bars and restaurants in New Hampshire.
If this bill passes, New Hampshire’s state motto — “Live free or die” — will ring ever hollow. It will have to be amended. “Live free or die, unless you enjoy smoking tobacco products.” Over the years, no doubt we will have to make further amendments as more laws are passed to deprive people of their liberties.
“Live free or die, unless you wish to smoke in a bar or restaurant, ride your motorcycle without a helmet, drive without a seat belt, wear a T-shirt that might offend someone, carry a concealed weapon, or consume fatty foods.”
It is not surprising that the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association refuses to lobby against this legislation. Many of its members would love to go smoke-free, but they fear losing business. If they can ban smoking under cover of a state mandate, and their customers have nowhere else to go, then they’re off the hook.
Down in Washington the same dance is taking place. Republicans are abandoning their free-market principles and trying to impose their will through industry regulation. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin suggested last week that the government force cable TV providers to offer channels on an a la carte basis, rather than in bundled packages.
People ought to be able to buy television channels a la carte, just as they ought to be able to patronize smoke-free restaurants and bars. But the correct path to these outcomes runs through the market, not state regulation.
Cable companies sell channels in bundles because they face little competition. They are granted local monopolies by government. Eliminate those monopolies, and eventually competitors will come, and consumers will get to choose the channels they want.
As far as a statewide smoking ban goes, whether it hurts or helps businesses is beside the point. The issue is whether it is an appropriate use of state force. It is not.
Republicans used to understand that government exists to secure individual liberty. But that was when they were out of power, which is just where they’ll end up if they don’t stop governing like Democrats.
N.H. restaurant lobbying group won't fight smoking ban
December 6, 2005
CONCORD, N.H. --The group that lobbies for New Hampshire's hotels and restaurants says it's dropping its fight against a proposed smoking ban in the businesses.
The New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association policy board voted Monday to tell its board not to oppose smoking bans. It says individual members are free to speak for or against the proposal when it comes up for hearings in the Legislature.
Association President Michelline Dufort said the group has seen a shift among members away from fighting the bans. The group has 700 members.
Current law allows smoking in restaurants with fewer than 50 seats, Dufort said. Larger restaurants have to install ventilation systems, dividing walls or come up with other ways of keeping smoking and non-smoking sections apart.
Dufort said similar bans in Vermont, Maine and Massachusetts reduce the risk that restaurants and lounges will lose business to competitors in other states.
Hampton Republican Sheila Francoeur is sponsoring the ban, saying she's concerned about the health of employees who have to work in smoke-filled rooms.
"Tell me one other business where customers can walk in and blow smoke in the face of an employee. A waitress shouldn't have to get up in the morning coughing and smelling like a tobacco factory," she said.
Francoeur also said the deaths of her two brothers, both smokers, also played a role in her decision.
Opponents say businesses should be able to choose whether to allow smoking.
