NYC Smoking Ban

[=Mark]

n addition 2 my above comments, pls read 2da's nyt's "letters 2 the editor" - pg A22

Are they in English or hard to read cutesy dude-spelling?

[elyse]

I can't read that language.

Edited May 5, 2003 by elyse (log)

[herbacidal]

I'd like to reiterate my position that there should be both smoking and non smoking bars, and people should choose what type of air they breathe if it's a problem. 

That said, I am sorry to hear that these patrons have lost their loyalty to "X."  I hate to say it, but were they out for a drink, or to smoke?  Ultimately both, but they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  It's not the woman with the kid's doing, but these smokers are letting the law affect the innocent people in the matter.  Where are these people going now?  It seems pretty petty to me, that they can't take ten steps outside to keep their favorite bar and single mother in business.

i agree wholeheartedly.

i've thought for a long time that what should happen is for govt to push for people to start non-smoking bars. ideally, a relatively deep-pocketed owner could open one of each.

smokers can go here, non smokers can go here. let the market decide. if the market determines there's too much in one area and not enough of the other, it is relatively easy to change from one to the other, as far as structually. the hardest part there is informing the public.

[bourdain]

well, if our government made men pay child support or people used condoms or didnt have babies when the couldnt afford them, or offered education for people without money , she wouldnt have to have a job as a waitress in the first place,,,,,,,

This has been sticking in my craw for a while. Note the multiple underlying assumptions.

[jeunefilleparis]

I dont know exact numbers either, but come on, you dont think that second hand smoke causes cancer? I know a girl who did not smoke and she grew up with both parents smoking, shes in chemo now,,,,,,,,,,

i know a hundred people who grew up with smoking parents. none are in chemo.

presenting assumption as fact doesn't advance ones argument, and it's a tactic often used in emotional discussions like this one.

I think that what you said, about none of your friend being in chemo, simply means that depending on immune systems, and cells in bodies, people have different dispositions to smoke. when someone smokes cigarettes, they smoke through a filter first, inhaling poison, hten they exhale and are constantly breathing in both from the cigarette and their air supply around them.

i have had sinus surgery three times, and i can tell you that in college when i would go out to bars, my sinuses would literally close off and i would only be able to breathe through my mouth, dont tell me that second hand smoke is innocent of causing damage, its not

[tommy]

I think that what you said, about none of your friend being in chemo, simply means that depending on immune systems, and cells in bodies, people have different dispositions to smoke.

what i was pointing out was that just because you know one friend who has cancer doesn't mean that second hand smoke caused it.

when someone smokes cigarettes, they smoke through a filter first, inhaling poison, hten they exhale and are constantly breathing in both from the cigarette and their air supply around them.

the lungs act as a very good filter for those around smokers. they should be thanking the smoker. i'm not sure what you're getting at with this point, though.

i have had sinus surgery three times, and i can tell you that in college when i would go out to bars, my sinuses would literally close off and i would only be able to breathe through my mouth, dont tell me that second hand smoke is innocent of causing damage, its not

perfume does the same to me.

Edited May 5, 2003 by tommy (log)

[jeunefilleparis]

well, if our government made men pay child support or people used condoms or didnt have babies when the couldnt afford them, or offered education for people without money , she wouldnt have to have a job as a waitress in the first place,,,,,,,

This has been sticking in my craw for a while. Note the multiple underlying assumptions.

they are not assumptions, bourdain, they are simply possibilities

you can blame this law for making a single mother jobless as much as i can blame bush for spending all the money on war instead of putting out in the economy and making more jobs for recent college grads and other out of work people. people lose jobs all the time for one reason or another, is it unforunate that she is out of a job and needs to find another way to support her and her family, yeah, but so are a lot of people

[baruch]

=mark: cutesy dude spelling mon ami didn't know that phonetics r so hard 2 read

elyse: ditto

jeunefille: sort of like hitting your head vs. a wall, n'est-ce pas? why keep going 2 bars when everytime u experience sinus problems??????????????????

Edited May 5, 2003 by baruch (log)

[elyse]

i have had sinus surgery three times, and i can tell you that in college when i would go out to bars, my sinuses would literally close off and i would only be able to breathe through my mouth, dont tell me that second hand smoke is innocent of causing damage, its not

But you have always had the choice to go to this bar, or not, right?

[MatthewB]

I'm in the midst of reading Becker's Denial of Death.

I can't help but understand some anti-smoking slants as yet another form of Becker's heroism--heroism as the penultimate avoidance of dealing with death. (And, no, I'm not advocating smoking.)

Edit: clarified that I'm not advocating smoking.

Edited May 5, 2003 by MatthewB (log)

[Lex]

The Scene: Bar "X", a once very busy workingman's bar near Les Halles. For ten years, every morning at 10AM, the bar filled with truck drivers. elevator repairmen, off duty transit workers, electricians.. Every afternoon, 4PM, the post-shift, afterwork rush, Bar two deep with customers, reading their News and Post sports pages,  nursing draft beers, Bud Lites, smoking their butts, griping and joking about work.

Now? It's empty.  " The law killed us," says the bartender, spotted outside at 4pm, huffing a Parliament in the rain. "It KILLED us...Now we have NO afterwork business at all. Nothing. " I look inside. The bar is empty for the first time in years. As it is, apparently, every day now. The first tangible effect of the "protect the workers" smoking ban? They laid off the single Mom waitress. Hey. At least she won't be breathing sceond hand smoke, right? I'm sure she's grateful.

Where do you think they went? Did they decide to stop drinking because they couldn't smoke?

[AndrewG]

yeah, some businesses are going to suffer from this law, but in the long run, do you not see a connection between smoking and cancer and the fact that that costs the government and healthcare millions a year...........

I'm no fan of smoking but I think it is easier to make the argument (though I don't have any figures either) that smokers save the government money. Smokers tend to die younger thus reducing medicare and social security expense later on. Also, without all of the revenues from cigarette taxes and tobacco settlements, the govt's (especially many state govts) fiscal condition would be much worse than it is.

Andrew

[bourdain]

The bar experience, for a very large sector of working class smokers, is simply not enjoyable anymore. The question was raised before: Do people go to bars to drink--or to smoke? The indisputable fact is that a lot of bars survive on clientele who patronize them to do both. The smoldering cig next to the whiskey with draft beer back is an essential ingredient. An enormous sector of the bar business--the small owner-run establishments, the 9th Avenue dive, the TV over the bar place with the ancient regulars, the daytime drinker hangout, the repository for broken dreams, the places that quite simply exist to cater to the needs of hard-working, still-functioning alcoholics, the after-work joint where white collar types go to relax after 8 hours in a smoke-free cubicle. These are the places that are hurting most. And the already-marginalized clientele on whom they depend are melting away. Perhaps to a relatively joyless gallon jug of Fleischmans, at home, to the more convenient to home (but hideous) TGI Fridays or Bennigans (or similar chain dunghole) for a quick maintenance drink..who knows? Fact is, a major (if not the ONLY) enjoyable social time of their lives is altered, gone.

The "we know better how you should live" crowd who rammed this law through--as one of their primary assertions, stated that businesses would in fact benefit from the hordes of newly liberated non-smokers who would flock to these establishments, more than making up for any lost smoking customers. That claim was patently ridiculous-and is now provably false. The old joints were never in the business of attracting the health conscious--and they will gradually disappear--to be replaced by chains, fern bars, more upscale places. The old gin mill? Going going gone. Which is kind of what they wanted all along anyway, isn't it? Like Times Square, where once stood a Blarney Stone, Starbucks, Disney Store, Victorias Secret, Chilis, TGI McFunsters will ooze in to fill the gap.The mallification of America continues.

[elyse]

That's exactly why I think the customer should remain loyal.

[tommy]

Where do you think they went?  Did they decide to stop drinking because they couldn't smoke?

NJ, for one.

the reality is, bars have seen a drop-off in business since the law was introduced. while one could argue it was due to a variety of factors, the fact remains that they are hurting. i'm assuming everything will level out eventually.

on the flip side, outside bars seem to be booming.

Edited May 5, 2003 by tommy (log)

[bourdain]

So the already hard-pressed working class unreformed (and not-likely-to-reform) smoker--already taxed 6 bucks a pack for his or her smokes should continue to patronize an establishment which no longer offers them any joy at all--for reasons of social responsibilty? Sort of as a way of subsidizing all the nice people who the law is throwing out of work? Seems to be that if anyone subsidizes this new "healthy, smoke free" morning shot-and-beer concept it should be the well-intentioned architects and supporters of this law.Hard to imagine a bunch of yuppies, mountain-bikers, orange-carrying waterheads making the pre-noon rush at Desmonds anytime soon. Actions, laws and causes have effects. Supporters of this total ban should--at the very least-- own up to the results.

[elyse]

If we want to avoid having barfly theme pubs in the future, yeah. Hopefully, in the future there will be a compromise. Say, smoking four days a week, and non three, like joint custody. Seriously though, if customers completely abandon their haunts, the places will close and we'll be left with animatronic drunkards for the kiddies to clamber over.

Support your local through the hard times and with any luck, something good will happen

[baruch]

O pity those who doth NOT protest beforehand. the ban is here, the smokers are gone, bars will close or do less biz or become disney-like in nature. there is no turning back! wishful thinking - compromise?? be careful what one wishes for, sometimes the antidote is worse, n'est-ce pas? the time to have thought this through & acted has passed. ice cream sundae anyone? its absurd to suggest the one now suffering is the single mom, blah, blah, blah, etc... & those establishments should be supported carte blanche!

there were & are a number of reasons why people frequent bars, one of which, is to have a drink & smoke before going home, meeting others, etc, etc... now we will see the % of those who frequented for the socialality & a "cigarette"

[Lex]

The bar experience, for a very large sector of working class smokers, is simply not enjoyable anymore. The question was raised before: Do people go to bars to drink--or to smoke? The indisputable fact is that a lot of bars survive on clientele who patronize them to do both. The smoldering cig next to the whiskey with draft beer back is an essential ingredient. An enormous sector of the bar business--the small owner-run establishments, the 9th Avenue dive, the TV over the bar place with the ancient regulars, the daytime drinker hangout, the repository for broken dreams, the places that quite simply exist to cater to the needs of hard-working, still-functioning alcoholics, the after-work joint where white collar types go to relax after 8 hours in a smoke-free cubicle. These are the places that are hurting most. And the already-marginalized clientele on whom they depend are melting away. Perhaps to a relatively joyless gallon jug of Fleischmans, at home,  to the more convenient to home (but hideous) TGI Fridays or Bennigans (or similar chain dunghole) for a quick maintenance drink..who knows? Fact is, a major (if not the ONLY) enjoyable social time of their lives is altered, gone.

The "we know better how you should live" crowd who rammed this law through--as one of their primary assertions, stated that businesses would in fact benefit from the hordes of newly liberated non-smokers who would flock to these establishments, more than making up for any lost smoking customers.  That claim was patently ridiculous-and is now provably false. The old joints were never in the business of attracting the health conscious--and they will gradually disappear--to be replaced by chains, fern bars, more upscale places. The old gin mill? Going going gone. Which is kind of what they wanted all along anyway, isn't it? Like Times Square, where once stood a Blarney Stone, Starbucks, Disney Store, Victorias Secret, Chilis, TGI McFunsters will ooze in to fill the gap.The mallification of America continues.

So the short answer is, you don't know where they went.

The Bennigans / TGIF alternative doesn't make much sense. Why would they avoid their old comfortable gin mill because it's non-smoking and transfer their allegiance to an ersatz McPub which is also smoke free?

Maybe your oppressed blue collar proles are spending more time with their wives and children. Would that be so bad?

I'm betting they'll be back soon. (After all, you can only spend so much time with the wife and kids.) They'll miss their friends and their drinks and in no time at all they'll learn to step outside, have a smoke, and step back it. It's not that hard at all. The earth will continue in it's orbit and we'll find new things to bitch about.

Edited May 6, 2003 by Lex (log)

[tommy]

So the short answer is, you don't know where they went.

The Bennigans / TGIF alternative doesn't make much sense.  Why would they avoid their old comfortable gin mill because it's non-smoking and transfer their allegiance to an ersatz McPub which is also smoke free?

my short answer is/was "NJ". don't discount it. it's happening. and it's been documented in the new york times as well (so, you know, it *must* be true).

[mogsob]

So many wagging tounges, so little reason or knowledge:

1. Independent studies conducted in California have concluded that the statewide smoking ban in that state (a) has resulted in a net increase in tourism, (2) has resulted in increase profits for restaurants, and (3) has not effected bar owners one way or another. While NY is different than California in many respects, the opponents of the NYC and NYS smoking bans cannot present similar evidence to support their arguments. The message here is simple: smokers are a minorty, who engage in a filthy habit that by its nature affects others. When smokers are forced to abandon their habits in public, those public spaces (be they offices, restaurants, hotels or bars) benefit.

2. Since the introduction of the CA smoking ban, the rate of heart attacks in that state have fallen dramatically. Given the close association between smoking and heart disease, it is not unreasonable to believe that the smoking ban has, in fact, had a positive effect health-wise.

3. The idea to create both non-smoking and smoking bars is remarkably naive. How is this going to happen? Are certain bar owners going to be forced to convert to non-smoking, or is it a voluntary thing? Banning smoking is an all or nothing proposition. Either it is banned in all bars and restaurants or in none (those pesky constitutional rights and all).

4. Mr. Bourdain's study of one bar is simply not compelling evidence. Nice story (particularly that bit about the single mom and all), but totally without merit from a statistical point of view.

The fact is, the NY smoking ban is here to stay. Smoking bans will continue to be enacted throught the US and Europe. Indeed, a smoking ban is going into place in Ireland this summer and is being debated presently in the UK. As I see it, banning smoking in public places can only be a good thing. The rights of the majority non-smokers have finally been protected by law. Food-service and bartending staff no longer have to fear that their jobs put them at risk from second-hand smoke. Moreover, by giving people fewer opportunities to smoke socially, so-called social smokers will smoke less often and fewer people will start smoking.

[tommy]

clearly mogsob has all of the knowledge. i'll crawl back under my rock where it's safe.

[elyse]

Now I FEEL remarkably naive! Remarkable.

[bourdain]

mogsob is indisputably right about a couple of things:

The New York smoking ban is indeed here to stay. No question. There is no putting the toothpaste back back in the tube. Non-smoking bars, restaurants and public places are without question, the future. Here--and in the UK and Europe.

And smokers are no doubt a minority. A despised minority.

And my post detailing one working class bar, one waitress, one strata of people in New York City (unfortunately the same strata I've drank with and hung out with for my whole drinking life) is indeed "totally without merit from a statistical point of view" . Exactly. Donald Rumsfeld couldn't have said it better.

[jeunefilleparis]

I think that what you said, about none of your friend being in chemo, simply means that depending on immune systems, and cells in bodies, people have different dispositions to smoke.

what i was pointing out was that just because you know one friend who has cancer doesn't mean that second hand smoke caused it.

when someone smokes cigarettes, they smoke through a filter first, inhaling poison, hten they exhale and are constantly breathing in both from the cigarette and their air supply around them.

the lungs act as a very good filter for those around smokers. they should be thanking the smoker. i'm not sure what you're getting at with this point, though.

i have had sinus surgery three times, and i can tell you that in college when i would go out to bars, my sinuses would literally close off and i would only be able to breathe through my mouth, dont tell me that second hand smoke is innocent of causing damage, its not

perfume does the same to me.

I guess you never learned in science class that smoke and other polluntants kills cilia, those little hairs that line your lungs and nose, they catch dirt and other harmful agents in the air, when they die, those poisons are able to attack your body,

<>http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artjun99/bacilia.html

i cant believe seemingly intelligent people cant see that nicotine is addictive and is poisonous.