Smoke FREE NYC! how does everyone feel?

[Ron Johnson]

Or you can come to kentucky where it is our #1 legal cash crop. Cheapest cigarettes in the country, highest percentage of smokers per capita, oh yeah its great.

[ngatti]

perhaps.  but with (business) casualties along the way.  if you put two pubs next to each other in midtown, today, and allow smoking in one and ban it in the other, i think you'd see that more people would go to the smoking bar.

I wouldn't dispute this out of hand, but it is interesting to note that smoking sections in restos (that have them) are generally much smaller than the non-smoking sections and are usually in, or close to, the bar area. However any bar I've been into lately has plenty of ashtrays and plenty of people using them.

Nick

[mogsob]

Martin, you are so wrong. There are precious few restaurants that even had a non-smoking section prior to the mandatory NYC law -- and where they did, they were the worst seats in the house.

Restaurant and bar owners are myopic in many ways. They see how many people smoke in their restaurants and figure that if they banned smoking, they would lose those covers. They never account for the non-smokers who stay at home rather than endure the smoke, or the extra non-smokers who would fill the void. Indeed, the noise from the restaurant community in opposition to the mandatory non-smoking section law was deafening -- they all, by in large, said it would put them out of business. Of course, the opposite was true. Restaurant owners will always cater to those customers they have, and unless a bunch of non-smokers tell them that they are never coming back if they continue to permit smoking, restaurant owners will continue to cater to smokers needs first.

[Blondie]

Smokers drink more than non-smokers, making them more valuable to bar owners certainly, and arguably to many restaurant owners.

[mogsob]

Blondie, do you have any evidence of this. It seems to me that a lot of smokers only smoke at the bar, while nonsmokers are drinking.

[Wilfrid]

From recollection, there is a high statistical association between smoking and drinking alcohol - in other words, if you do one of those things, you are more likely to do the other than someone who does not. I am not sure how strongly the relationship holds between amount smoked and amount drunk, but I shouldn't be surprised if there is such a relationship.

Sorry, no cites.

[tommy]

Blondie, do you have any evidence of this.  It seems to me that a lot of smokers only smoke at the bar, while nonsmokers are drinking.

it's probably impossible to really know.

but i can say that the people left at last call are usually puffing away.

[macrosan]

Smokers drink more than non-smokers, making them more valuable to bar owners certainly, and arguably to many restaurant owners.

Yep, it's true.

Alcohol raise the acidity level of your blood, which causes nicotine to be excreted at a much faster rate than normal, in fact about double. Incidentally, that's exactly the same biological reaction caused by stress). This in turn makes a smoker smoke more than usual in order to maintain the nicotine level in her bloodstream.

What that does is to build a strong causal relationship between smoking and drinking. As a nicotine addict, you get used to the idea that when you drink you smoke more, which gives you a more frequent nicotine "high", which you enjoy, which makes you want to drink more so you have to smoke more.

Further, there's a strong experiential relationship between the two. It becomes a habit to smoke when you drink, and to drink (where you can) when you smoke. I think I'm right in saying that virtually all alcoholics are smokers or users of other drugs.

[jeunefilleparis]

Smokers drink more than non-smokers, making them more valuable to bar owners certainly, and arguably to many restaurant owners.

I drink plenty and I dont smoke!!!! Most of myfriends are non smokers too, and I assure you, we ve paid our dues at many the local watering holes

[tommy]

Smokers drink more than non-smokers, making them more valuable to bar owners certainly, and arguably to many restaurant owners.

I drink plenty and I dont smoke!!!! Most of myfriends are non smokers too, and I assure you, we ve paid our dues at many the local watering holes

there are exceptions to any generalization.

[macrosan]

I drink plenty and I dont smoke!!!! Most of myfriends are non smokers too, and I assure you, we ve paid our dues at many the local watering holes

It's OK, jfp, it's not a drinking competition

[tommy]

It's OK, jfp, it's not a drinking competition 

since when!!??!

[jeniac42]

Just to throw in my (smoker's) two cents' worth, there are a fair number of restaurants in the Columbus, OH area that are smoke-free, voluntarily.

At this stage, it's easier to argue for legislation banning smoking in restaurants because it is still difficult in most cities to find a place that does it voluntarily. But I think, based on the numbers of restaurants that go smoke-free as time goes on, ten years down the road the market would have sorted things out without having to ban smoking everywhere.

Sometimes, for me (oh, what a dirty, dirty addict I am) and for the other smokers I know, smoking is an important part of the dining experience. When you finish your meal, sometimes it's just nice to smoke, particularly if you're eating at, say, Tee Jaye's at 3am after a shift (or a visit to the bar). Hey, the food's not that great, so you've gotta make up for it somehow, eh?

So I suppose, in short, that my feeling is that the legislation is a little overboard. Perhaps some encouragement in the form of a smoking tax to be paid by restaurants that want to allow smoking, much as they pay for liquor licenses, would be more appropriate and push the pendulum further towards smoke-free while still allowing cigarettes in a few places.