NYC Smoking Ban

[elyse]

Feel the love!

[WHT]

Bah!  I'm going to go eat a porterhouse, drink a martini, & . . .

Like it or not today they will come for you! First it will be little labels on food and PSA's that give a friendly reminder of the possible harm of X. There are too many misguided souls out to protect us all from harm. While not in the class of bike helmets and seatbelts they are examples of forced compliance. Back in the ‘60’s they tried just to recommend the use of seatbelts. Now in most states they are mandatory, if you get caught without wearing one you get fined. It has little to do with keeping you safe.

Funny how most insurance companies will pay to help you stop using almost any substance but nicotine. Why is that? I see the pharmaceutical, medical insurance community being more corrupt than any other. The incestuous relationship they enjoy at profiting from our loss is amazing. Look at the number of times an HMO has thought it cheaper to let someone die that to help him or her. All sides but the patient benefit from this situation. Some of the examples of this are too tragic to relay.

If you did the same sort of thing to say a group of people of the same religion or skin color, the outcry would be tremendous. Not to say that I side with the tobacco companies either. Some of the things they have done are just as reprehensible. As far as most studies go they too are suspect. Look at all the conflicting reports on any topic, most aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. So how do you want your nicotine? From RJ Reynolds or GlaxowSmithKline?

[slkinsey]

Thanks for the response, slkinsey.

I'll make just one last comment on this & go back to food!

My primary concern regarding secondhand smoke & public policy is that said policy should *not* be driven by "science" that is still inconclusive.  From what I can tell, the actual risk of secondhand smoke on non-smokers is very much in dispute among epidemiologists.  For instance, here's a recent article.

One more response for me too!

First, I'd like to point out that the science concerning the health risks associated with smoking and passive exposure to tobacco smoke is not exactly inconclusive, tobacco industry-sponsored studies notwithstanding. The scientific/medical community is pretty well lined up in the "it's bad for you" camp. The tobacco companies want to make it look like there is controversy, but really there isn't.

To make a few examples, the author of the study you linked to is funded by the tobacco companies. It's also too bad that you didn't find your way to rebuttals and comments like this one. Among the author's comments are these telling sentences: "It is not being married to a smoker—the indicator of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke used in the paper by Enstrom and Kabat—that leads to disease; rather, it is the inhalation of environmental tobacco smoke. As an indicator of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke the smoking status of spouses is a highly approximate measure."

You might also want to peruse the "rapid responses" posted to the bmj.com web site by readers of the Journal. Among the many critical comments was a link the the following letter from the American Medical Association to the author of your study explaining that it was declined for publication and saying that "[we] believe that this opinion piece is full of speculative assumptions of doubtful scientific value. We could not judge the merit of your criticisms because your own data and methods were so inadequately described. I should add that your article contains perjorative comments that should have no place in responsible scientific discourse."

So, I agree that a lot of the debate is about big corporate dollars... but it is the tobacco companies that are stacking the deck on this one.

[MatthewB]

Good points, slkinsey.

We could keep going back & forth on this, but I've a rare porterhouse to eat & a martini that will lose its chill soon.

See ya on other threads!

Shalom.

Edit: grammar

Edited June 3, 2003 by MatthewB (log)

[KNorthrup]

cartoon

[pogophiles]

First, I'd like to point out that the science concerning the health risks associated with smoking and passive exposure to tobacco smoke is not exactly inconclusive, tobacco industry-sponsored studies notwithstanding.  The scientific/medical community is pretty well lined up in the "it's bad for you" camp.  The tobacco companies want to make it look like there is controversy, but really there isn't.

Then let's talk about a study that was NOT funded by big tobacco. Specifically, the WHO study, which is frequently cited by the "Ban all smoke" crowd.

The WHO study found a Relative Risk (RR) for spousal exposure of 1.16, with a Confidence Interval (CI) of .93 - 1.44. In layman's terms, that means

• Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 16%.

• Where you'd normally find 100 cases of lung cancer, you'd find 116.

• The 1.16 number is not statistically significant.

Explanation: The real RR can be any number within the CI. The CI includes 1.0, meaning that the real number could be no increase at all. It also includes numbers below 1.0, which would indicate a protective effect. This means that the number 1.16 is not statistically significant.

An RR of less than 2.0 is usually written off as an insignificant result, most likely to be due to error or bias. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable.

The RR for workplace ETS was 1.17 with a CI of .94 - 1.45, well below the preferred 2.0 - 3.0, and with another CI that straddled 1.0.

The RR for exposure from both a smoking spouse and a smoky workplace was 1.14, with a CI of .88 - 1.47.

The RR for exposure during childhood was 0.78, with a CI of .64 - .96. This indicates a protective effect! Children exposed to ETS in the home during childhood are 22% less likely to get lung cancer, according to this study. Note that this was the only result in the study that did not include 1.0 in the CI.

Still want to argue that only tobacco-funded studies provide doubt?

Edited June 4, 2003 by pogophiles (log)

[tommy]

i'm getting the feeling that there are two sides to this issue.

[Tremor]

Then let's talk about a study that was NOT funded by big tobacco.  Specifically, the WHO study, which is frequently cited by the "Ban all smoke" crowd...

Pogo, YOU DA MAN!! While second-hand smoke is annoying, and it's best to breath "clean air", there is NO evidence that it's any worse than breathing air in Los Angeles or New York City. The same Nazi attitude that infests NYC has infiltrated the Austin area, and it's destroying businesses here, too.

I didn't realize you were such a scientist.

(You may remember me from "somewhere else" as Bushie.)

[Pan]

Then let's talk about a study that was NOT funded by big tobacco.  Specifically, the WHO study, which is frequently cited by the "Ban all smoke" crowd.

Why is it so cited, if your interpretations are accurate? Surely, there must be more to it than that. Perhaps someone could provide a link to the WHO's full report on their study.

[WHT]

Couldn't help but point out here that most smokers I know also manage to get through the entire night - sleeping about eight hours or so - without having to arise from their bed every hour to go have a cigarette.

I wish that was true in my case. I know of lots of others in the same boat. I am up 2 or more times a night to smoke unless I am really in a deep sleep and that doesn’t happen often.

Also some of you seem to be forgetting linked behavior. I know quite a few social smokers that only smoke in bars.

[tommy]

Couldn't help but point out here that most smokers I know also manage to get through the entire night - sleeping about eight hours or so - without having to arise from their bed every hour to go have a cigarette.

I wish that was true in my case. I know of lots of others in the same boat. I am up 2 or more times a night to smoke unless I am really in a deep sleep and that doesn’t happen often.

Also some of you seem to be forgetting linked behavior. I know quite a few social smokers that only smoke in bars.

not to mention it's easier to not do things while you're sleeping. eating and drinking water are 2. i don't go 8 hours without eating or drinking water. unless i'm sleeping.

[danger_doug]

Even if the science is inconclusive (which I would doubt-- as in courts, reasonable doubt doesn't mean no doubt), I say err on the side of not killing people...

[slkinsey]

Then let's talk about a study that was NOT funded by big tobacco.  Specifically, the WHO study, which is frequently cited by the "Ban all smoke" crowd.

Why is it so cited, if your interpretations are accurate? Surely, there must be more to it than that. Perhaps someone could provide a link to the WHO's full report on their study.

The reason it is cited a lot is because of politics, which is exactly the same reason the pro-tobacco people always cite the flawed study posted by MatthewB earlier in this thread. Both sides think that the respective studies prove their particular points. It is also political of pogophiles to post this "debunking" as some kind of proof that there is nothing wrong with secondhand smoke. The fact of the matter is that both studies are flawed to the point where they are meaningless because -- please listen closely everyone so I don't have to keep repeating this -- the smoking status of spouses and parents is not a good indicator of one's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, and it is in fact very difficult to quantify ETS exposure of any kind. Guess what this means to both pro-tobacco and anti-tobacco people... it means that studies about secondhand smoke that use these things as a measure of exposure to EST aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

In fact, one of the big problems with all of the secondhand smoke studies is obtaining a proper measure of both esposure to EST and likewise figuring out how and when to judge the health outcomes. For example, one of the big problems with judging childhood exposure is that until recently pretty much everyone was exposed to a fair amount of secondhand smoke. The same holds true for workplace exposure. This makes it very difficult to figure out just how much more secondhand smoke certain people got relative to others. In fact, if one is examining the effects of childhood exposure to ETS for people born in the 40s or 50s, the exposure they got from their parents may be fairly insignificant compared to what they were getting from other sources, especially when one factors in the significance of ETS exposure following childhood. This would tend to obscure the statistical significance of any results that used the smoking habits of the parents as an independent variable. Further complicating matters is the fact that these studies typically look at the effects of secondhand smoke on nonsmokers, which in the case of the children of smokers excludes the very large number of such children who go on to become active smokers themselves. And, of course, there is a significant question as to whether a study is truly evaluating all the potential negative effects of the ETS exposure (as opposed to just one) and whether the subjects are old enough for these effects to have manifested. The point of all this is that there are a million reasons why studies like this can show different kinds of results and why the statistics are not always very significant from a purely statistical standpoint. This should be blatantly obvious to anyone who understands research methods.

This is, needless to say, not great news for someone who wants to use or attack a study of this kind for political purposes. You will note that I have not cited this kind of study to support my position. That said, the controlled animal experiments of which I am aware all strongly support the hypothesis that exposure to secondhand smoke is dangerous to one's health. Of course one always runs into the tired argument of "these are rats, not humans, and it's not really like that in the real world... how do we know it will be anything like that with humans?" This is why I find the cat study I cited earlier -- and which I note none of the pro-tobacco folks here has mentioned in their rebuttals -- particuarly persuasive as it links real-world exposure to secondhand smoke with the incidence of cancer in cats. Especially interesting is the fact that the results showed a linear effect that was dependent on the level of exposure. In layman's terms, this means that the more the cat's owner smoked, the more likely it was that the cat would develop cancer. That strikes me as pretty persuasive evidence.

As to Tremor's assertion that there is no evidence that breathing secondhand smoke is any worse that breathing the air in NYC or LA, I think there is plenty of evidence. Can you really be serious? Are you really trying to tell me that you think spending 12 hours a day in a smoke-filled bar and 12 in my UWS apartment breathing regular NYC air would be no worse for me than spending all 24 hours breathing my regular apartment air? I mean, I don't want to hurt your feelings, but that is either deliberately obtuse or hopelessly naive. Most people would agree that smoking a cigarette is worse for your health than not smoking a cigarette, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that spending 8-12 hours in a room full of tobacco smoke is at least equal to smoking one cigarette a day.

This is what I am trying to figure out: Do you pro-tobacco people think that smoking is not bad for your health? Do you think that all the things in tobacco smoke that make it bad for your health are magically 100% absorbed into the lungs of the smoker, and that none of these things enters the environment when the smoke is exhaled? Do you think that all the tobacco smoke, or even most of the tobacco smoke from a cigarette passes first through the lungs of the smoker before entering the environment? If your answer to these questions is "no" -- and I have a hard time seing how they could fail to be -- then it is reasonable to conclude that long-term exposure to secondhand smoke is bad for one's health.

I am absolutely not saying that I think smoking should be outlawed or banned, and I am not saying that the NYC law is the perfect solution. I have been known to smoke a cigar from time to time myself. What I am saying that the scientific evidence points strongly to ETS having negative health effects and I do think it is reasonable to protect people in the workplace from prolonged exposure. So, to me, the debate is not whether secondhand tobacco smoke is bad for you. It is silly to think otherwise. The question is what measures are reasonable measures to protect people from ETS health effects. Tobacco consumption is a fairly unique "vice," because one can indulge in most others without having the mere act of indulging transfer some of your "vice" to those around you, whether they want it or not. None of the alcohol in your martini or the calories in your 32 ounce steak or the smut in your tentacle porn or the heroin in your needle is automatically transferred in part to the person sitting next to you or standing across the bar. Tobacco smoke is. Now, I've been in plenty of NYC bars, and almost all of them were enveloped in a thick fog of tobacco smoke. There is no way this can't be bad for the people who have to spend their working lives in that environment.

[MatthewB]

. . . the flawed study posted by MatthewB earlier in this thread.

Hey! Leave me out of this!

I'm now working on a strip steak & a Manhattan . . .

[Malik]

I think it's fairly safe for a reasonable person to conclude that second hand smoke does nothing good for you and almost certainly does some harm. What is much harder to figure out is exactly how bad it is. The various studies cited seem to indicate that second hand smoke most likely does increase one's chance of contracting lung cancer, though it does not seem to have a very strong effect.

Most people would agree that smoking a cigarette is worse for your health than not smoking a cigarette, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that spending 8-12 hours in a room full of tobacco smoke is at least equal to smoking one cigarette a day.

I have seen people claim that spending a day's work in a bar is equivalent to smoking two packs of cigarettes. I do not believe that's true, though I can believe that it's equivalent to smoking at least one cigarette. My reasoning on this is annecdotal: I very rarely smoke, but when I have I've noticed that cigarettes have a very pronounced effect on me. Just one ultra light cigarette is enough for the nicotine to immediately make me dizzy, and the effect persists for quite a while (over an hour for sure). Yet when I go into a bar, even if the air is very smoky, I do not feel that effect from the second hand smoke. Of course, it could just be that the nicotine content in second hand smoke is much lower than in a cigarette, but it's definitely the case that a couple of hours in a smoky bar has much less effect on me than smoking just one ultra light cigarette.

As to what to do about legislating smoking in restaurants and bars, the argument that the free market as is will take care of it all does not work. After all, as a non-smoker I've always preferred smoke-free environments, but I've never seen non-smoking restaurants or bars without legislation. Moreover, I believe it is the duty of government to protect employees in the workplace, and if there are no (or just very few) non-smoking restaurants and bars, employees in that line of work certainly do not have a reasonable option to work in a smoke free environment.

On the other hand, government must also respect individuals' right to conduct in behavior that's hazardous to themselves, provided they don't at the same time endanger others around them that do not consent to that hazard. I believe that the right answer is that there should be some more creative laws on the subject of smoking in restaurants and bars than the current black or white approach, which is either to let all bars allow smoking or none (just about). And I think the smokers' lobby should concentrate on coming up with such creative solutions. The reality is that non-smokers are a majority of voters everywhere, and they prefer a non-smoking environment that the free market has not been able to provide them, so arguments that smokers should have the right to smoke anywhere and that second hand smoke is not harmful will just never win out.

My personal solution would be as follows. By default, restaurants and bars must be non-smoking only. However, there should be an exception for a limited number of establishments (say 10%) that are strongly regulated: they must install proper ventilation devices, they must provide a higher minimum wage as well as perhaps contribute for health insurance for their employees, etc. As to how to choose which establishments would be allowed to allow smoking, I would let the free market work here. The first thought would be simply auction off the limited licenses to any establishment that meets the conditions above. Of course, that may result in only high end places would allow smoking as they would outbid everyone else. So I would save some licenses for establishments that would pay a percentage of their revenues for the licenses instead of a fixed amount. This would level the playing field for lower end places that may still want to offer smoking, but cannot afford the flat fee.

Anyways, that's just my (long) two cents on the matter. In the end, the smoking ban in NYC (and NY state for that matter) is probably here to stay, and unless smokers experiment with a different approach in other places that do not have a ban yet, I suspect that slowly all places will convert to banning smoking in bars and restaurants. After all, even the Irish are moving in that direction!

[baruch]

bars/rests that ARE legal can have only 4 or fewer owners. its amazingly how crowded these places are, & the bar-type food served is now better than ever usually these places have several tv's; therefore the patrons seem extremely pleased at being able to eat, drink, watch several sporting events, a la the yankees & the nets last nite, & smoke - all @ once

funny there were no fights, people seemed pretty civil & happy, no complaints or rantings, no bashing 1 way or the other, no one hanging outside to disturb or to litter, bartender did not smoke, but did not ramble on about secondhand smoke.

just an update report to add to the thread.

[IrishCream]

bars/rests that ARE legal can have only 4 or fewer owners. its amazingly how crowded these places are, & the bar-type food served is now better than ever

So there are some bars in NYC where smoking is still allowed?

[pogophiles]

It is also political of pogophiles to post this "debunking" as some kind of proof that there is nothing wrong with secondhand smoke...

...and which I note none of the pro-tobacco folks here has mentioned in their rebuttals...

Not sure what is "political" about responding to the statement by a previous poster that all studies showing no causal link were funded by "Big Tobacco". Nor did I state that I believe second-hand smoke to be harmless. Nor am I "pro-tobacco".

For the record:

I do believe that the danger of second-hand smoke has been overstated,

I do believe that business owners should have some latitude in how to run their businesses,

I do believe that market forces (including the willingness of employees to work in certain environments) should be allowed to work,

I do believe in avoiding the temptation to over-regulate our lives...

[elyse]

I just heard cigar bars are still around (is that obvious?). A friend of mine had me meet him in the tobacco/pipe/cigar shop on 6th between 56th & 57th a few weeks ago. I got a headache. Maybe they'll let you bring hooch.

[slkinsey]

It is also political of pogophiles to post this "debunking" as some kind of proof that there is nothing wrong with secondhand smoke...

...and which I note none of the pro-tobacco folks here has mentioned in their rebuttals...

Not sure what is "political" about responding to the statement by a previous poster that all studies showing no causal link were funded by "Big Tobacco". Nor did I state that I believe second-hand smoke to be harmless. Nor am I "pro-tobacco".

My sincere apologies if, responding to the tenor of your previous post, I misconstrued the subtext. Although I can see how you may have reasonably inferred it from my post, I did not intend to say that you personally were "pro-tobacco." For the record, I don't think I said that the only studies showing no causal link were funded by big tobacco. What I said was:

The tobacco companies want to make it look like there is controversy, but really there isn't.

This is not the same thing as saying that the only studies showing no link were funded by big tobacco. It says exactly what it says: the only people out there who are saying that secondhand smoke isn't bad for you are the tobacco companies (and the people who listen to them). These are the same companys, I should point out, that until a few years ago were also saying that firsthand smoking wasn't bad for you either. I should also point out that there is a big difference between the study you "exposed" and the tobacco-funded studies. The tobacco-funded studies typically strongly "disprove" any such link, whereas your study at least suggests that some linkage may be there, but does not have good statistical power (and I pointed out several reasons why this is bound to be the case).

If I may quote myself again, I said "The scientific/medical community is pretty well lined up in the 'it's bad for you' camp." I stand by that assertion. Whether or not there is "proof" from long-term epidemiological human studies... well, there isn't. And I don't think there ever will be. This is just way too complicated a topic of study, and the various confounding factors are simply too great for a study of this kind to produce particularly meaningful results. If anyone really wants me to go through the long and boring explanation of why this is the case, I can. That said, controlled animal studies, as well as the environmental animal study I cited, all point to ETS as being bad for one's health. So it really is a case that just about everyone in the medical/scientific community knows ETS is bad for you, and that a certain kind of "proof" is lacking (i.e., a statistically powerful long-term environmental human study).

Finally, and again for the record, I'd like to point out that I was equally condemning of anti-tobacco people citing such studies as a smoking gun supporting their views:

The reason [the WHO study] is cited a lot [by anti-tobacco people] is because of politics...  ...both sides think that the respective studies prove their particular points

Moving on...

I do believe that the danger of second-hand smoke has been overstated,

I have already said:

I agree that some of the dangers of secondhand smoke have been exaggerated.

I do believe that business owners should have some latitude in how to run their businesses,

Also agreed... they should have some latitude. The question is what degree of latitude allows the business owners enough freedom to run their businesses and yet still protects the public. The smoking ban has got to be a tiny requirement in the grand scheme of all the government regulations a bar must follow.

I do believe that market forces (including the willingness of employees to work in certain environments) should be allowed to work,

I'm sorry, but this is absurd. If that were the case, then every office building in this country would be filled with smoke and people would have to work in them because they need work. It's always easier for business owners to do nothing than it is for them to do something like this. If market forces and the willingness of employees to work in a certain environment were the primary factors, we'd still have people working with asbestos. It is a documented fact that people will continue to work in an environment they know is killing them because they need the money. Industrial Revolution? Coal mines? There are thousands of examples.

Also, for everyone in NYC who thinks market forces should be allowed to work and determine the way people run their businesses... I am certain your landlord will be glad to hear of your support the next time the rent regulation laws come up for another vote. There are some business owners who would really appreciate some latitude in how to run their businesses.

I do believe in avoiding the temptation to over-regulate our lives...

There are regulations and there are regulations. I would agree that a regulation that prevents you from smoking at all is a bad regulation. This regulation is not there to prevent you from smoking. It is there to prevent your smoke from being breathed bya non-smoker at their place of employment. Likewise, the sexual harassment laws are not there to prevent people from fondling women's breasts. They are there to protect women from having their breasts fondled at the workplace. Etc. Etc. Etc.

What I don't get about certain smokers (and pogophiles, I am not saying you are one of them) is their philosophy that smokers should be allowed to light up anywhere they want and that, if the smoke bothers anyone that's their problem and they should just take themselves elsewhere. I just don't get that. Even more interesting is that I know a lot of smokers and very few of them are actually all that upset about the smoking ban. Indeed, I find it interesting that many of the smokers I know don't even smoke in their own apartments.

[Fat Guy]

Restaurateur fights smoking ban with OTB

[slkinsey]

Restaurateur fights smoking ban with OTB

Interesting. From the title of the story, one would think that the inclusion of OTB in the restaurant somehow permitted smoking on the premises. As it turns out, he has decided to open an OTB location in his restaurant to offset claimed business loss due to the smoking ban.

After reading the article and doing some poking around, I have some thoughts:

1. Wasn't smoking banned in restaurants, except in the bar area, a long time ago?

2. I know that restaurants make a lot of money on booze, but I have a hard time understanding how he could have "lost about 30 percent of [his] business due to the new no-smoke law" (emphasis mine). As it turns out, the owner runs Sidetracks as a restaurant during day and a nightclub in the evening. This makes his claimed business loss more understandable. But really he losing that money more as a bar owner than as a restauranteur. With bars, and especially those with a "scene" happening, I woud predict that business will rebound after a while as smokers who spend money in these places realise there is no other game in town and adapt.

3. Sidetracks seems to be fairly political and a local center for the fight against the ban.

4. Scroll down to "Gambling Machines" in this article for coverage with a slightly different flavor. I find it interesting that OTB "is expected to generate about $3,000 per month for the establishment." Is this supposed to cover his 30% loss? Yikes.

[bourdain]

Cafe license fees are up 400 percent.

Unemployment is at highest levels in nearly a decade.

The dollar is weak.

Prices for ingredents are higher--especially imported as the Euro is stronger than ever.

Fixed expenses to follow. (They never get cheaper)

Property and municipal taxes are skyrocketing.

Restaurant business-already hurt by a weak ecomomy was already down.

Good time to deliver yet another quick, devastating kick to the nuts to restaurateurs and bar owners. For their own good of course.

FACT: Dessert, cognac, coffee biz is way down as customers rush for the exits after the entree.

Walk-outs on checks are up as customers can now feign a smoke break and run away. Fewer people are drinking. Fewer people are eating. Those eating and drinking are drinking and eating LESS. And check averages are down. I will accept a random sampling of any TWENTY restaurants and ANY twenty bars (truly chosen at random) as final call on this subject--as EVERY operator, waiter, bartender I have spoken to volunteer that the effect has been "murderous". (reports of decline ranging from 7-30 percent since the ban).

And to this panorama of misery add this to the mix:

Exciting new restaurant trend in NYC!! Outback Steakhouse! Olive Garden in Gramercy area!! "Ironic" fast food! (see recent Times article)The future is here. And it sucks.

[slkinsey]

FACT: Dessert, cognac, coffee biz is way down as customers rush for the exits after the entree.

Walk-outs on checks are up as customers can now feign a smoke break and run away. Fewer people are drinking. Fewer people are eating. Those eating and drinking are drinking and eating LESS. And check averages are down.  I will accept a random sampling of any TWENTY restaurants and ANY twenty bars (truly chosen at random) as final call on this subject--as EVERY operator, waiter, bartender I have spoken to volunteer that the effect has been "murderous". (reports of decline ranging from 7-30 percent since the ban).

Hmm... I'd be interested to see the numbers on this. And I'd be interested to see what those numbers are like 6 months from now. And, really, given the fact that smoking has been banned in restaurants for quite some time, I have a hard time believing that restaurants are really suffering all that much. Other than some restaurants that were allowed to offer limited smoking in a bar area, I don't quite understand what the big difference is. I'd like to get an undersanding of the number of NYC restaurants that were able to accomodate a significant number of smokers before the ban. My guess, based on my observations, is that it isn't all that many. As I said before, I have a lot of friends who smoke, and none of them has changed their restaurant eating habits as a result of the ban. Bars... now that's a different story.

For whatever it's worth (if we're going to get anectodal), I work with a lot of people on the UWS and have been hanging around @SQC on Columbus/72nd pretty much since it has been open. They have never allowed smoking, and it doesn't seem to have hurt their business any.

Anyway, I rather imagine that someone (or, more likely, several someones) is collecting data on the economic impact of the new smoking law, and before too long we'll see some of their findings.

[tommy]

For whatever it's worth (if we're going to get anectodal), I work with a lot of people on the UWS and have been hanging around @SQC on Columbus/72nd pretty much since it has been open.  They have never allowed smoking, and it doesn't seem to have hurt their business any.

i bet their business would change if they then started suddenly allowing smoking. i think the crux here is the change in atmosphere. namely, smoking to non-smoking overnight.

Edited June 7, 2003 by tommy (log)