Exemption of private clubs inflames debate over proposed smoking ban

After several eating clubs submitted written objections to an ordinance banning smoking in Princeton, the Regional Health Commission agreed during a meeting last week to consider an amendment that would exempt eating clubs and other private social clubs from the ban.

But since that decision, some local business owners and opponents of the ban have raised questions about the validity of exempting private establishments while including public bars and restaurants. They argue that for the ban to be effective, it must protect all employees from secondhand smoke, regardless of where they are employed.

The current language of the ordinance defines a private social club as "a privately owned entity operated exclusively for dues paying members and not open to the general public" and states that such clubs are exempt from the ban.

Representatives of the eating clubs contend that they should be part of this exemption, but some local restaurant owners disagree.

Richard Carnevale, owner of The Annex restaurant, said yesterday he believes there is no valid reason to exempt the eating clubs and not exempt other establishments, such as his restaurant. "Private establishments are under the same obligation as public establishments as far as what the commission is trying to achieve," he said. "They're trying to protect the employees, and eating clubs have employees, just like public bars and restaurants, so they would fall under the same criteria."

Terrace Club president Nili Safavi '01, however, said she believes that an exemption to the ban for the eating clubs would be appropriate. "Terrace is not a restaurant. It is not a bar," she said. "It is more like a second home to its members."

Some opponents of eating club exemption have suggested that the ban should apply to the eating clubs because of a 1990 New Jersey Supreme Court ruling, which determined the clubs to be public places. In that case, Sally Frank '80 sued Tiger Inn, Ivy Club and Cottage Club after they refused to admit women.

Katherine Benesch, an attorney and member of the health commission, said this ruling should not apply to the smoking ban discussion. "The Sally Frank case was a sex discrimination case, against discrimination, under the law of discrimination in the state of New Jersey," she said. "Anything pertaining to smoking would not come under this law."

Opposition

The Princeton Regional Health Commission is currently revising the proposed smoking ban so that it would exempt private social clubs from the law. The proposal will be considered by the commission during a public hearing May 16.

Despite the introduction of the amendment, some members of the health commission expressed doubts about exempting private clubs. "We ought to take a look at the case law and really see if private clubs must be exempt," commission member Bill Slover said.

He added that he is concerned about the health of the customers and employees who work in restaurants and bars whether or not the establishments are private.

Safavi said she believes Terrace does all it can to accommodate employees. "We have rooms where you are not allowed to smoke, and those rooms include the kitchen, which is the main area where the employees work," she said.