>> JUST AHEAD ON "NEED TO KNOW," IT'S A MATTER OF HEALTH FOR
LEGISLATORS WHO PASSED IT.
A STATE SMOKING BAN THAT KEEPS PEOPLE FROM PUFFING IN BARS
AND RESTAURANTS.
TO SOME TAVERN OWNERS, THE LAW IS NOT ABOUT HEALTH CARE BUT
AN INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS.
THEY'RE FIGHTING BACK.
WE'LL FOCUS ON THAT ISSUE AND ALSO LOOK AT HOW TWO
BUSINESSES ARE COPING WITH RISING HEALTH CARE COSTS AND
WE'LL HAVE THE BUSINESS SECTION WITH THE "DEMOCRAT AND
CHRONICLE" NEXT ON "NEED TO KNOW."

>> ACTUALLY, IT SHOULD BE A CHOICE OF THE BAR OWNER WHETHER
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A SMOKING BAR OR NOT HAVE A SMOKING
BAR.
THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE NOT INFRINGING ON OTHER PEOPLE'S
RIGHTS.

>> THANKS FOR JOINING US.
I'M MICHAEL CAPUTO.
THIS PROGRAM IS PART OF OUR MEDIA COLLABORATION WITH THE
"DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE" AND WOKR NEWSSOURCE 13.
THE SERIES IS CALLED "FIGHTING FOR ROCHESTER'S FUTURE, AN
EFFORT TO DISSECT THE TOUGHEST ISSUES FACING OUR REGION.
THE FOCUS THIS WEEK IS HEALTH, AND NO HEALTH RELATED POLICY
HAS BROUGHT FOR DEBATE THAN THE DRIVE TO CURB SECONDHAND
SMOKE.
FOR YEARS MUNICIPALITIES TOOK THE LEAD ON SETTING 2
RESTRICTIONS WHERE SMOKERS COULD SMOKE.
IN 1987, MONROE COUNTY WAS AMONG THE FIRST COUNTIES TO BLOCK
PEOPLE FROM SMOKING IN OFFICES.
MORE THAN A DECADE LATER, THE COUNTY RESTRICTED SMOKING IN
RESTAURANTS CONFINING THEM TO VENTILATED ROOMS OR BAR AREAS.
IN MARCH, SOME OTHER OPPONENTS SLIPPED IN.
SMOKING WAS BANNED IN BARS, ALLEYS AND RESTAURANTS AND EVEN
SOME PATIO COVERED AREAS.
THE LAW WILL TAKE EFFECT JULY 24, UNLESS A LAST STAND BY BAR
OWNERS IS EFFECTIVE.
THEY GATHERED ACROSS THE STATE SUCH AS A MEETING LAST WEEK
IN BUFFALO.
THEY'RE PROTESTING BY SHUTTING DOWN QUICK DRAW LOTTERY
MACHINES.
THE GAMES THAT MEAN CASH FOR STATE COFFERS.
THE ASSOCIATION THREATENS TO CHALLENGE THE LAW IN COURT.
IT'S NOT JUST LEGISLATORS AND LOBBYISTS TALKING ABOUT THE
CHANGE IN HEALTH POLICY.
VIRTUALLY EVERYONE HAS AN OPINION.
MARTIN KAUFMAN WHAT INTO THREE ESTABLISHMENTS, A BAR THAT
PERMITS SMOKING, A BAR AND CAFE, AND A SMOKELESS BAR TO
COLLECT COMMENTS ON THE SMOLDERING TOPIC.

>> THEY'RE JUST OPENING UP PANDORA'S BOX TO ME.
IT'S AN UNENFORCEABLE LAW.

>> IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SMOKE, DON'T GO TO A SMOKING BAR.

>> I'M GOING TO SMOKE WHEN I SMOKE, AND I'M GOING TO SMOKE. 3

>> YOU'RE GOING TO SMOKE IN THE BAR?

>> IN THE BAR, ON THE STREET.
WHEREVER I WANT TO SMOKE, I'M GOING TO SMOKE JUST LIKE I'M
DOING RIGHT NOW.

>> SMOKING AND DRINKING GOES TOGETHER.

>> I LIKE SITTING IN A BAR TALKING WITH PEOPLE AND
SOCIALIZING, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF I'M GOING TO GET LIKE JOE IN
TROUBLE FOR HAVING A CIGARETTE IN HIS BAR, I'M MORE LIKELY
TO STAY HOME.

>> I SMOKE.
IF I WANT SOMETHING TO EAT AND I WANT TO HAVE A DRINK AND
THEN A CIGARETTE AFTERWARDS, THE ONLY PLACE THAT SMOKERS
HAVE LEFT IS BARS.
EVERY OTHER PLACE -- IT'S LIKE YOUR A HELPER.

>> THE IRONIC PART THEY'RE DOING IT SUPPOSEDLY NOT FOR THE
CUSTOMER, THEY'RE DOING IT FOR THE EMPLOYEES.
EVERY SING.
ONE OF MY EMPLOYEES SMOKES.
EVERY SINGLE ONE.
IT'S RIDICULOUS.
NOW WHAT DO I DO WHEN SHE WANTS TO HAVE A SMOKE?
SHE'S GOING TO RUN OUTSIDE AND NOBODY'S GOING TO BE INSIDE
RUNNING THE BAR.

>> YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE MONEY.

>> ALL THE WAY AROUND.

>> THE STATE'S GOING TO LOSE MONEY BECAUSE NOBODY'S GOING TO 4
BE SMOKING.

>> IT SHOULD BE A CHOICE OF THE BAR OWNER.
WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A SMOKING BAR OR NOT HAVE A
SMOKING BAR.
THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT INFRINGING ON OTHER PEOPLE'S
RIGHT, WHICH THEY ARE DOING.
IT'S ALL FOR THE NON-SMOKER, BUT YOU'RE SAYING, HEY, YOU
GUYS THAT SMOKE ARE OUT IN THE COLD.

>> THE NAME OF THE BAR IS SMOKIN' JOE'S.
DO I MAKE IT NON-SMOKIN' JOE'S.

>> YEAH.
DO I PUT A CIRCLE WITH AN GOING THROUGH IT OUT FRONT?

>> HERE WE ARE SELLING CIGARS 9%.

>> WHAT IF THE CIGARETTE SMOKERS FIND OUT THAT YOU ARE A
CIGAR BAR THAT ALLOWS SMOKING.

>> WE HAVE A BEER AND COFFEE.
BUT PEOPLE SMOKING CIGARETTES, YOU WANT A TABLE IN THE
RESTAURANT, YOU SMOKE A CIGARETTE IN ONE MINUTE.
THE CIGAR, YOU NEED TO TAKE TIME.
THIS IS THE GUYS AND THE LADIES.
YOU -- YOU HAVE A BEAUTIFUL LADY, YOU NEED A BEAUTIFUL CIGAR
IN YOUR HAND.
YOU HAVE SOMETHING NICE, YOU KNOW.
YOU PUT IT IN YOUR MOUTH, PUFF THE CIGARS.
YOU JUST ENJOY.

>> ARE YOU GOING TO RESTRICT THE AMOUNT OF CIGARETTE SMOKERS 5
THAT COME IN HERE?

>> NO.

>> SO, WHAT IF THE CIGARETTE SMOKERS OVERTAKE THE CIGAR
SMOKERS?

>> THIS IS A GOOD WAY.
WE HAVE CIGARS -- WE HAVE CIGARILLOS.
WE HAVE SMALL ONES.
I WILL SAY TRY THIS CIGAR.
LOTS OF NICOTINE.
IT WILL BE DIFFERENT -- THAT'S THE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
CIGARS AND CIGARETTES.

>> YOU'RE GOING TO CONVERT THE CIGARETTE SMOKERS TO CIGAR
SMOKERS?

>> YEAH.

>> INSTEAD OF GOING IN AND BUYING AN EXISTING PLACE AND
ALIENATING A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE EXISTING CUSTOMER, I
WOULD GO WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A HARDER ROUTE, I
THEORETICALLY STARTED WITH ZERO CUSTOMERS.
THE SMOKING WAS A HUGE DRAW.
PEOPLE WHO WERE NON-SMOKERS WERE ECSTATIC WITH THE IDEA.
THEY SAID, YOU WON'T HAVE ME.
THAT NICHE IS GONE AFTER JULY.
I'M NOT THAT CONCERNED BECAUSE WE ARE SO ESTABLISHED AT THIS
POINT.

>> I DON'T THINK IT'S -- I THINK IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE
SMOKING BARS MORE THAN US. 6

>> HERE EVERYBODY IS USED TO HAVING THE SMOKE-FREE
ATMOSPHERE.
AT ANOTHER BAR, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY
CAN STILL SMOKE AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE OFF IN THE CORNERS
SNEAKING CIGARETTES.
IN SOME CASES, OF COURSE, IT'S GOING TO BE 99% SMOKE-FREE,
BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE TOTALLY SMOKE-FREE.
THERE ARE GOING TO BE PEOPLE WHO WILL TRY TO SMOKE.
>> SO MANY PEOPLE SMOKED, BUT NOT NECESSARILY JOHNNY'S WILL
LOSE CUSTOMERS, BUT JUST THE BARS IN GENERAL ARE GOING TO
LOSE A LOT OF CUSTOMERS.
THERE'S A LOT OF SMOKERS OUT THERE.

>> IN THE OTHER BARS, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE FORCED TO DO
IT.
ALL THEY'RE GOING TO DO IS COMPLAIN AND I HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE
NOW.
I THINK THE ATMOSPHERE IS NICER IN THAT SENSE.

>> I BELIEVE THE LAW WILL BE CHANGED ONCE THE BARTENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND EVERYBODY WORKS ON IT.
BECAUSE I THINK THE LAW WAS DRAFTED TOO FAST.
THERE SHOULD BE SOME EXCEPTIONS FOR IT.

>> YOU HAVE HEARD FROM THE STREET.
NOW LET'S HEAR FROM TWO PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN IN THE MIDDLE
OF THE ISSUE IN ALBANY.
SCOTT WEXLER, FROM THE EMPIRE STATE TAVERN ASSOCIATION AND
MICHAEL BOPP FROM THE NEW YORK STATE AMERICAN CANCER 7
SOCIETY.
THE LAW IS IF PLACE.
GIVE ME THE ARGUMENT FOR AND AGAINST.
MR. WEXLER, YOU START.

>> WE BELIEVE THE LAW GOES TOO FAR IN RESTRICTING THE RIGHTS
OF CUSTOMERS, EMPLOYEES AND OWNERS.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, THERE HAD TO BE A WAY THAT WE ACCOMMODATED
THE ECONOMIC CONCERNS OF MEMBERS.
THIS LAW COST BARS IN CALIFORNIA, 10% OF THEM WENT OUT OF
BUSINESS.
IT CAUSED A DECLINE IN SALES TAX VERSUS THE RESTAURANTS THAT
DON'T HAVE ALCOHOL.
THERE HAS TO BE A MIDDLE GROUND.

>> DON'T GO TO THAT RIGHT OFF THE BAT WITH THE FACT ABOUT
BUSINESSES BEING AFFECTED.
THE BOTTOM LINE BEING AFFECTED.

>> WE HAVE HEARD THIS ARGUMENT BEFORE FOR ALL KINDS OF
BUSINESSES, NOT JUST BARS.
YEARS AGO WHEN PLACES LIKE MONROE COUNTY TOOK ON A
LEADERSHIP ROLE IN THIS STATE AND IDENTIFYING THIS AS
PRIMARILY A HEALTH ISSUE AND ESTABLISHING POLICIES THAT
PROTECTED WORKERS IN MOST ENVIRONMENTS WITH, YOU KNOW,
NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS BEING BARS, BUSINESSES SAID WHAT ABOUT
THE EMPLOYEES WHO NEED MORE BREAKS, WHAT ABOUT COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS IN UNION SITUATIONS AND SO FORTH.
THEY HAVE FOUND A WAY TO ADJUST THROUGH THAT PERIOD OF 8
WORKING THAT OUT WITH THEIR EMPLOYEES AND ESTABLISHING
SMOKE-FREE POLICIES IN THE WORKPLACE.
THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE COMMERCIAL MARKETPLACE AS
WELL.
IT'S HAPPENED IN -- SCOTT MENTIONED CALIFORNIA.
IN FACT, ALCOHOL RELATED SALES IN BARS AND RESTAURANTS WENT
UP IN CALIFORNIA.

>> WHAT ABOUT THAT?
WE HEAR CONFLICTING NUMBERS ALL THE TIME, MR. WEXLER.

>> I THINK ISRAELIS WERE THE FIRST TO SAY IT, THERE'S LIES,
DAMN LIES AND STATISTICS.
MICHAEL AND I HAVE BEEN ARGUING OVER THIS DATA FOR YEARS AND
WE'LL PROBABLY CONTINUE TO ARGUE ABOUT IT.
THE REALITY IS THAT THIS LAW IN CALIFORNIA HAD A DIFFERENT
EFFECT ON PLACES THAT SERVE ALCOHOL THAN THOSE THAT DON'T.
IT'S A DIFFERENTIAL EFFECT.
THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT RESTAURANT SALES WENT UP, BUT SALES OF
RESTAURANTS THAT DON'T SELL ALCOHOL, SALES IN BARS AND
TAVERNS, THEY WENT DOWN.
IN CALIFORNIA TOTALLY, RESTAURANT HE SALES WENT UP BY 3%
WHILE NATIONWIDE THEY WENT UP BY 6%.

>> YOU ARE ARGUING A DOLLARS AND CENTS THING, BUT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HEALTH.
YOU SURELY ARE NOT TELLING ME THAT SECONDHAND SMOKE IS NOT
HARMFUL.
WELL, I'M NOT --

>> I'M NOT A HEALTH EXPERT, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT PEOPLE
FAR MORE INFORMED ABOUT THIS THAN I BELIEVE THAT THE
EVIDENCE ON SECONDHAND SMOKE IS NOT CLEAR.
THERE'S ACTUALLY -- I'M SURE MICHAEL IS FAMILIAR WITH THE
RECENT STUDY PUBLISHED IN THE BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL.
I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE STUDY.
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE EDITORIAL IN THE JOURNAL WHERE IT
SAID THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF RESEARCH, BUT THE
IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE ON HEALTH REMAINS
UNDER DISPUTE.
THE NEXT SENTENCE HE SAYS, GIVEN THE SMALL -- SMALL HEALTH
RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXPOSURE TO E.T.S., THERE NEEDS TO
BE FURTHER STUDY.

>> MR. BOPP, PLEASE.

>> WELL, WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT THE EDITORIAL WITHOUT TALKING
ABOUT THE STUDY.
THE MOST SALIENT FACT ABOUT THE STUDY IS THAT IT WAS FUNDED
BY THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY.
THEY HAVE HAD A STRATEGY IN PLACE FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS
SINCE THE SURGEON GENERAL'S REPORT IN 1986 TO TRY TO CREATE
JUNK SIGNS TO CREATE THE CONTROVERSY AND DOUBT IN THE
COMMUNITY AND AMONGST POLICYMAKERS ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF
SECONDHAND SMOKE.
IN 1992, THE E.P.A. CLASSIFIED SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A GROUP
A CARCINOGEN.
THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL TO A GROUP CARCINOGEN. 10
IN 2000, THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, THE NATIONAL
TOXICOLOGY REPORT ON CARCINOGENS SAID THAT BAR WORKERS AND
YOU TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENTIAL EFFECT ECONOMICALLY, BAR
WORKERS ARE AT FOUR TO FOUR-AND-A-HALF TIMES OF HIGHER RISK
TO EXPOSURE TO SMOKE AND SMOKING RELATED ILLNESSES THAN
PEOPLE LIVING WITH A SMOKING PARTNER IN THE HOME.

>> WHAT IS THE RISK?

>> YEAH.
GO AHEAD.

>> HOW HIGH A RISK IS IT?
THIS STUDY SHOWED THAT SMOKERS HAVE ABOUT A ONE IN THREE
ELEVATED RISK OF DEATH.
WHAT DO SECONDHAND SMOKERS HAVE?
WE TALK ABOUT MULTIPLE RISKS, BUT DON'T I HAVE THE CHOICE AS
AN ADULT TO DECIDE WHETHER TO GO INTO AN ESTABLISHMENT
KNOWING THAT THIS HAS A 25%, PERHAPS CHANCE OF INCREASING
THE RISKS?

>> I WANT TO GET TO-DISH WAS GOING TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT
ENFORCEABILITY, BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I'D LIKE TO PLAY A
CONVERSATION THAT I'D LIKE BOTH OF YOU TO WATCH.
IT'S "NEED TO KNOW" MATT CUMMINGS TALKED WITH HEALTH
DIRECTOR ANDREW DONIGER.
PLEASE TAKE A LOOK.

>> YOU KNOW, THE DEGREE TO WHICH WE IMPOSE ON SMALL
MINORITIES OF PEOPLE REALLY IS A FUNCTION OF HOW DANGEROUS
OR PROBLEMATIC THE BEHAVIOR IS THAT THEY DISPLAY. 11
SO, I DO THINK THIS IS APPROPRIATE AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH
THE TRADITION OF AMERICAN LAW ABOUT PUBLIC HEALTH, WHICH
SAYS THAT WE SOMETIMES DO REGULATE AND WE KNOW THAT IT
SOMETIMES DOES BOTHER A MINORITY, BUT IT'S DONE FOR THE
WELL-BEING OF THE MAJORITY.

>> YOU MENTION THAT THERE IS A MAJORITY OF RESTAURANT-GOERS,
BAR-GOERS WHO ARE HAPPY WITH THE NEW LEGISLATION, BUT THERE
ARE SO MANY RESTAURANT AND BAR OWNERS WHO SAY THIS IS GOING
TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT THEIR BUSINESS.
IT SEEM AS THOUGH THE MATH DOESN'T ADD UP, IF THE MAJORITY
OF THE PATRONS ARE HAPPY WITH THE LEGISLATION, THAT THEY
WOULD FEAR IT.
WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IS?

>> WELL, THERE IS A BODY OF SOLID RESEARCH NOW THAT
INDICATES THAT THESE KIND OF LAWS PASSED IN OTHER LOCATIONS
HAVE NOT HAD A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE HOSPITALITY BUSINESS,
ON THE SALES IN RESTAURANTS AND IN BARS.
NOW, NON-SMOKERS ARE -- TEND TO BE VERBAL AND THEY DO HAVE
THIS SOLID ARGUMENT ABOUT CIVIL LIBERTIES, AND WE ARE A
SOCIETY THAT VALUES CIVIL LIBERTIES VERY HIGHLY.
I THINK THAT THE OWNERS OF BARS AND RESTAURANTS HEAR THAT,
AND THEY WANT TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THEIR CUSTOMERS.
AND THEY HAVE A FEW THAT COMPLAIN, AND THEY SPEAK OUT
LOUDLY.
AND I THINK THAT SOMETIMES THE PERCEPTION IS THAT THAT
MINORITY IS LARGER THAN IN FACT IT REALLY IS. 12
PRIVATELY, MANY RESTAURANT OWNERS AND BAR OWNERS HAVE TOLD
ME THAT THEY BECOME THIS KIND OF CHANGE, AND EVEN THOUGH
THEY MAY NOT SAY IT TO THEIR CUSTOMERS, I THINK WITH REGARD
TO THE VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY IN TERMS OF CLEANLINESS, THE
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH UPKEEP AND THE PROTECTION OF THEIR
EMPLOYEES, THEY WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE NON-SMOKING
FACILITIES.

>> MR. WEXLER, I WANT TO -- YOU JUST HEARD WHAT DR. DONIGER
SAID.
IS IT TRUE?
DO THEY HARBOR, REALLY, A SIGH OF RELIEF?
HEY, THE STATE TOOK CARE OF IT, I DON'T HAVE TO STEP IN NOW.
I WANTED IT THAT WAY TO BEGIN WITH?

>> I HAVE BEEN HEARING FROM THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF
TAVERN OWNERS WHO DON'T AGREE WITH THE HEALTH COMMISSIONER.
I'M CERTAIN THERE ARE SOME BUSINESS OWNERS, PARTICULARLY
RESTAURANT OWNERS WHO GOT TIRED OF SEPARATING SMOKERS AND
NON-SMOKERS.
THAT'S FINE.
I WISH THEY WOULD JUST VOLUNTARILY BAN SMOKING, BECAUSE
THEY'RE NOT LOOKING -- THOSE SAME RESTAURANT OWNERS WHO ARE
IN FAVOR OF BANNING SMOKING ARE AGAINST PROVIDING
NUTRITIONAL INFORMATION TO US SO WE KNOW ABOUT THE FAT
CONTENT AND CALORIE CONTENT OF THE FOOD.
THEY SEEM TO HAVE A MIXED MESSAGE HERE ON HEALTH.

>> MR. BOPP, I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN ENFORCE SOMETHING LIKE 13
THIS.
ISN'T IT UNENFORCEABLE?
ARE WE GOING TO HAVE POLICE GOING INTO EVERY CORNER OF A BAR
LOOKING TO SEE IF SOMEBODY'S PUFFING AWAY?

>> OF COURSE NOT, MIKE.
BASICALLY, IT'S GOING TO BE ENFORCED THE SAME AS CURRENT
STATE LAW.
IT'S A COMPLAINT-DRIVEN SYSTEM.
PEOPLE COMPLY.
NOT JUST BAR OWNERS WHO ARE ANXIOUS FOR THIS TO TAKE PLACE
IN THAT YOUR ESTABLISHMENTS, BUT THE CUSTOMERS THEMSELVES.
THEY KNOW THEY NEED TO RESPECT THE LAWS ON A WHOLE HOST OF
THINGS FROM SPEED LIMITS TO CHILD SAFETY SEATS OR HER
MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE LARGER COMMUNITY EVEN IF IT
CONSTRICTS THE RIGHTS AND BEHAVIORS OF AN INDIVIDUAL.
I WANT TO GET BACK TO THE IDEA THIS IS A HEALTH PROBLEM.
WHEN IS IT A PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM.
THE DIMENSION OF THE TOBACCO RELATED COST IN LIVES AND
DOLLARS IN THE STATE CANNOT BE IGNORED.
THE QUESTION IS WHAT DO YOU DO TO BEGIN TO GET A GRIP ON
THAT TO REDUCE TOBACCO USE AND BEGIN TO REDUCE EXPOSURE FOR
NON-SMOKERS TO SOMEBODY WHO'S BASICALLY CONSUMING POISON
THEMSELVES.
THAT WAS THE DECISION THAT THE NEW YORK STATE SENATE AND NEW
YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MADE AND THAT THE GOVERNOR ENDORSED,
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM, IT'S TIME TO GET A GRIP ON 14
WHAT TOBACCO DOES TO THE COMMUNITY.

>> MR. WEXLER, EVEN IF I ACCEPT MICHAEL'S ARGUMENT THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS ABOUT PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE NEED TO REGULATE
THIS BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH CONCERNS, YOU HAVE TO AGREE THAT
THE LESS GOVERNMENT WE HAVE, THE BETTER.
THERE WERE CERTAINLY MANY THINGS WE COULD HAVE DONE SHORT OF
THIS TOTAL OUTRIGHT PROHIBITION IN A PRIVATE BUSINESS, THAT
PRIVATE PEOPLE COME AND CHOOSE TO SMOKE AND CHOOSE TO WORK
AND PERMIT IN THEIR ESTABLISHMENTS.

>> TWO DEMOCRATS IN THE LAST WEEK ARE TALKING ABOUT PULLING
BACK SLIGHTLY.
I DON'T THINK IT'S A VERY BIG CHANGE TO THE LAW.
IS THAT ENOUGH IN

>> CERTAINLY, OUR MEMBERS DON'T THINK IT'S ENOUGH, BUT IT'S
INTERESTING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
BECAUSE WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THEY RECOGNIZE THAT THERE MAY
BE SOME FINANCIAL ISSUES FOR THE SMALLER OPERATOR, AND THEY
ALSO RECOGNIZE THE USE OF VENTILATION TECHNOLOGY, YOU CAN
CONTINUE TO PROTECT THE WORKERS WHILE ALLOWING THE CUSTOMERS
TO SMOKE.

>> MR. BOPP, DOES IT SHOW THAT IF YOU ALREADY -- THE LAW
HASN'T EVEN TAKEN EFFECT YET AND YOU HAVE SOME MEMBERS OF
THE ASSEMBLY TALKING ABOUT IT CHANGING ALREADY.
DOES IT SHOW THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAVE STAYING POWER IN THE
LEGISLATURE?

>> THE MEMBERS WHO ARE TALKING ABOUT IT ARE FOR THE MOST 15
PART MEMBERS WHO VOTED NO ON THE BILL.
THAT'S NOT SURPRISING.

>> THAT'S NOT TRUE.

>> FACT OF THE MATTER IS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED.
THERE'S RUMORS OR PRESS REPORTS BUT WE TRY TO TRACK THIS
EVERY DAY.
ONCE WE SEE WHAT'S OUT THERE AS A PROPOSAL, WE'LL REACT TO
IT.
FRANKLY, THERE'S NO REASON FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO REVISIT
THIS IN THIS SESSION.
WE NEED TO GET THROUGH THE TRANSITION.
LET THE LAW LIVE IN THE BOOKS AND COMMUNITIES FOR A COUPLE
OF YEARS AND SEE HOW IT IMPACTS PEOPLE AND WAIT UNTIL YOU
SEE THE HEALTH BENEFITS AND COMPARE THOSE THAT THE COSTS.

>> THE OSHA STANDARDS, THE FEDERAL STANDARDS WOULD HAVE
REQUIRED SAFE WORKPLACES ANYWAY, EVEN IF THE STATE
LEGISLATURE DIDN'T DO THIS, FEDERAL LAW WOULD HAVE SAID YOU
HAD TO DO THIS ANYWAY IN YOUR BAR.

>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, OSHA STUDIED THE ISSUE OF REGULATING
SECONDHAND SMOKE FOR YEARS, COMPILED THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS
OF PAGES OF EVIDENCE, AND ULTIMATELY CHOSE NOT TO ENACT A
REGULATION REGULATING THIS.
SOME WOULD ORGANIZE THAT -- ARGUE THAT OSHA'S DECISION NOT
TO ACT PREVENTS NEW YORK STATE OR MONROE COUNTY ACTING IN
THE AREA. 16

>> I HAVE 30 SECONDS LEFT.
I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO ANSWER THAT.
ISN'T THAT TRUE, THE OSHA STANDARDS SAY, HEY, THE WORKPLACE
HAS TO BE SAFE.

>> SCOTT IS RIGHT.
OSHA DID PULL BACK, BUT IT WOULD TAKE A SEPARATE SHOW TO
TALK ABOUT THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY INFLUENCE IN FEDERAL
POLICYMAKING FOR YEARS.
THAT WAS A MANIFESTATION OF THAT.
WORKER SAFETY IS A CONCERN FOR THE STATE AND THE LEGISLATURE
ACTED APPROPRIATELY TO ADDRESS THAT.
WE WERE GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE SOME COMMUNITIES HAD
PROTECTION AND OTHERS DIDN'T.
THERE WOULD BE NO COMPARABLE AREA TO SAY THAT THE STATE
WOULD ALLOW ASBESTOS IN SOME AREAS AND OTHERS NOT.
OR IT'S UP TO THE LOCALITIES AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A
ROLE.
THE GOVERNOR AND THE COMMISSION OF HEALTH DECIDED TO MOVE
FORWARD.
WE'RE GLAD THEY DID AND DIDN'T ROOK BACK.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE ON "NEED TO KNOW."
YOU TOO, CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION EITHER ON THE WEB
AT wxxi.org/ntk or via email at needtoknow@wxxi.org.

FINALLY TONIGHT IN YOUR WORDS, THE PLACE WHERE WE GIVE VOICE
TO YOUR FEEDBACK ABOUT "NEED TO KNOW."
CHRIS SCIME OF EAST ROCHESTER SENT AN EMAIL ABOUT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN THE SUBURBS.

CHRIS SAID THAT THE PROGRAM SHOULD HAVE EMPHASIZED THE IDEA
OF MIXED HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS, THOSE THAT INCLUDE A RANGE OF
RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT.

CHRIS WROTE, "IF WE SUBSIDIZE THE DEVELOPMENT BUT ALLOW IT
TO BE PRIVATELY MANAGED AND WE DO NOT SEGREGATE PEOPLE
ACCORDING TO INCOME, BUT MIX INCOME GROUPS, THEN THE MIX
STABILIZES AND MITIGATES ALL OF THE RISK FACTORS AND
OBSTACLES.

I DIDN'T REALLY SEE THIS BIG PICTURE VIEWPOINT FROM YOUR
GUEST.

I SAW HINTS OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON INCOME, RACE,
ETHNICITY GEOGRAPHY, ET CETERA, BUT THAT REALLY ISN'T THE 24
ROOT CAUSE.

THE ROOT CAUSE IS THE IMAGE OF A LOW INCOME CRIME AND DRUG
INFESTED GHETTO DRAGGING ALL OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY
DOWN WITH IT, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE MODEL OF THE MUNICIPAL
HOUSING A FEW YEARS AGO.

GO TO needtoknow@wxxi.org OR wxxi.org/ntk
"NEED TO KNOW" WILL TAKE A WEEK OFF NEXT WEEK FOR A SPECIAL
LIVE FROM LINCOLN CENTER BROADCAST AND WE RETURN JUNE 5 WITH
A LOOK AT A TRAINING GROUND FOR ASPIRING POLITICIANS.
WILL IT WORK TO DISPEL CYNICISM ABOUT THE POLITICAL PROCESS.
WE'LL SEE YOU THEN.