Christina Danson supports tobacco bar relocation as business regulation
Christina Danson testifies in favor of Intro 947 even though she does not support tobacco use. She cites a 1942 court decision, Good Humor v. City of New York, for the principle that government should regulate rather than ban lawful licensed businesses, and she praises the Council for trying to help small businesses.
Christina Danson.
Okay, just want to remind you, you have two minutes, and if not, you can submit testimony.
All right, good afternoon to the Health Committee and to Chairwoman Shulman.
I'm here to testify in favor of Intro 974, which surprises me that we'll be seeking up for the tobacco bars, because this is the first, because I, you know, I'm not a smoker.
I don't support the tobacco industry in any way.
I think it's disgusting and harmful, but...
I believe in business owners'constitutional rights.
In a 1942 court decision, Good Humor v.
The City of New York, the New York State Supreme Court held that the city council cannot ban a lawful licensed business when regulations will suffice to address evils to the public good.
So when the Smoke-Free Air Act was passed, it was not a ban on business.
It was a ban on activity.
It was regulation.
And so I encourage the council here.
I'm encouraged by the fact that they want to help small businesses stay in business.
and to understand that it's not the business of the government to ban businesses, but to regulate them.
And so I'm pleased to see that the government is trying to help small businesses, not help them.
And I hope that they consider that position as they continue the rest of their week.
Thank you.
Thank you very, very much.
Really appreciate it.