NYC Smoking Ban

[MatthewB]

However, as Bux points out, none of this really has to do with the utility or advisability of legislation to limit exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace.

I can take a hint.

:heads back to his bio thread:

[slkinsey]

I can take a hint. 

:heads back to his bio thread:

I do think you have a very good point that we should be looking at other issues with air quality and health, and hopefully we are.

[tommy]

It should be up to an owner/operator if he wants to allow smoking in his place.  Just like it's up to employees if they want to work there, and customers if they want to frequent the joint.

yeah, just like it is at every other company and office building in NYC. oh wait, it's not. so much for that theory.

[Felice]

As someone who works in restaurants, I commend the smoking ban. Why should all other employees be entitled to a smoke free environment and waiters are not? I guess the people who work in other professions are more worthy. After all, they're only waiters. Waiters should just get another job if they don't like it.

The fact remains that this is not always so easy to change professions and why should I have to change my job because of someone else's addiction? You would never say that to someone who worked in a bank.

I currently work in a small restaurant that allows smoking (it's in Paris, so I doubt I could find a non-smoking one ) . By the end of the night my eyes hurt from the smoke and I need to go out side just to get a breath of air. I honestly don't mind smoke when I'm eating out, but when you breathe it in for hours at a time, you know it's bad for you. I don't need a government study. I can feel it.

And the interesting thing is that it's only a small percentage of people who smoke. But, if you get one table of chain smokers that's it—the whole place is a smoky haze.

[mogsob]

It is pointless to argue the degree to which second hand smoke affects the human body based on statistical studies. All of these studies are inherently flawed, as they do not prove causation but merely coincidence. Until quite recently, such studies were considered indadmissible in court (and IMHO should have stayed that way). It is also quite pointless to argue about how many cigarettes someone "smokes" per hour in a smoke filled room, as no two people "smoke" the same amount per cigarette. Put differently, smokers addicted to nicotine will inhale enough smoke (regardless of the level of nicotine in the cigarette) to satisfy their addiction levels. As such, smokers will "smoke" more of a light cigarette than of a regular cigarette.

Moreover, I agree that the legal causation case based on second hand smoke is quite inconclusive. Medical science cannot prove how first hand smoke causes cancer or lung disease, so causation here is far from established. However, the same noxious toxins found in first hand smoke are also present in second hand smoke -- if you accept the health risks of first hand smoke, you therefore must also agree that some degree of exposure to second hand smoke also presents those same health risks.

My problem with smokers is purely based on annoyance factor. As I have said previously, smoking cannot be confined to the area around a smoker. Thus, if one person smokes, everyone around them smokes as well. This causes problems for people who are allergic to smoke, or who otherwise find smoke annoying. As there is no inherent right to smoke, such behavior must give way to the rights of those who do not want to be smoked upon.

As for the economic effect on restaurants and bars, I can accept that some of these businesses have been negatively impacted by the ban. However, to blame the woes of an industry on a behavioral ban when there are multiple superseding economic causes is quite simply idiotic.

[babyluck]

1. Allow smoking S of 14th St, W of 9th Ave, N of 125th, and E of Ave. A.

to be continued

[slkinsey]

1. Allow smoking S of 14th St, W of 9th Ave, N of 125th, and E of Ave. A.

to be continued

What would be the point of that? Oh, I know: "let's allow smoking in all the poor areas of Manhattan and not in the rich, tourist and business areas."

Horrible idea.

[MatthewB]

1. Allow smoking S of 14th St, W of 9th Ave, N of 125th, and E of Ave. A.

to be continued

What would be the point of that? Oh, I know: "let's allow smoking in all the poor areas of Manhattan and not in the rich, tourist and business areas."

Horrible idea.

Sam, your new duties should have you busy with other threads. You've put in your time here.

Move out, private! On the double!

[slkinsey]

Sam, your new duties should have you busy with other threads.  You've put in your time here.

Hah! I am a crusader for truth, justice and taking a realistic look at this thing.

[babyluck]

1. Allow smoking S of 14th St, W of 9th Ave, N of 125th, and E of Ave. A.

to be continued

What would be the point of that? Oh, I know: "let's allow smoking in all the poor areas of Manhattan and not in the rich, tourist and business areas."

Horrible idea.

Sam, your new duties should have you busy with other threads. You've put in your time here.

Move out, private! On the double!

Yup, I knew if I just wrote that with no explanation I'd get something interesting. Maybe I should let it stew for a while...

Nah.

I'm a smoker. I hate the middle section of Manhattan. Don't give me a list of the many worthy restaurants & cultural landmarks there. I know. I just wish I didn't have to travel through the Mall of America to get to them.

It was a facetious suggestion, but let's ask the non-smokers in the forum -- where do you hang out?

[SobaAddict70]

Uh, no.

I live in the middle section of Manhattan. My stepfather died due to a heart attack due to complications caused by diabetes in conjunction with health issues that were partially caused by smoking (ok, he quit in the early 90s, but he had been doing it for at least 20+ years beforehand).

I'm pretty rabid when it comes to second-hand cigarette smoke; I just keep it buried most of the time. The Mayor's ban is a good idea that while almost impossible to enforce with 100% consistency, is a great idea and a long time coming.

Sorry, I just don't relish the idea of dying young, much less inhaling SOMEONE ELSE'S vaporized poison.

Soba

[Felonius]

I can understand the logic/merit behind the employee health issues. On the other hand, I am not entirely convinced by the data I've seen that second hand smoke is a significant enough threat to warrant a total ban.

Here's what ticks me off though..... If I belong to a private club, which has a private room, which is set aside for smoking and no employee ever has to enter (other than to clean it when the club is closed and no one is smoking), why the hell can't I go in there and relax with a cigar or cigarette? This makes absolutely no sense to me, and I believe it is a totally unwarranted infringement on my personal liberties by Bloomberg & Co. Having an occasional celebratory cigar or an after-dinner martini and cigarette with good friends at the club is something I really enjoy.

Will one of the many smoking ban proponents on this board explain to me why this right has been taken away from me, when it poses no risks to employees or other non-smokers in NYC?

To me, this kind of over-reaction on the part of bureaucrats breeds nothing but contempt for the law.

Edited July 24, 2003 by Felonius (log)

[slkinsey]

Yes, it does seem reasonable to provide for things like dedicated ventilated smoking rooms in private clubs and also "cigar bars" that generate more than a certain amount of their revenue from tobacco sales. And, AFAIK, this is exactly what was allowed by Bloomberg and Co. whom you wrongfully malign in this case. It was, in fact, Pataki and Co. with their stricter state law that are to blame for your particular complaint.

Mind you, it may be that the real reason your club doesn't allow smoking even in the private smoking room is that the Board didn't want to spend the money on the duct work, etc. in that room it would have taken to comply with the NYC law. As it turns out, in light of the state law, it was a pretty good financial decision.

[tommy]

i love threads like this.

[MatthewB]

i love threads like this.

We know that.

The important--and unanswered--question is, "Why?"

[Felonius]

My mistake, you are correct that the State ban is ultimately the culprit here. However, Bloomberg got the ball rolling and didn't seem to mind one bit when he flattened my fun at the club. I have no doubt the club would have provided the changes in physical plant to accomodate adequate ventilation, seeing as their members have thousands of cigars in the club's humidor. In this case, I think special ventilation would have been unwarranted (though probably required by law), because the scale of the rooms and distance between this room and employee areas is pretty damn big. Incidentally, smoking is also forbidden outside on the terrace. How the hell that smoke is going to harm anyone is beyond me. Sidewalk pedestrians beware, there are smokers on the terrace 40 feet over your head!!!!

When laws become this overbearing and farfetched, look out. Next thing you know, they'll be banning steakhouses (high cholesterol, beware!) and nightclubs (loud music is dangerous to your ears!).

[tommy]

i love threads like this.

We know that.

The important--and unanswered--question is, "Why?"

because threads where people get to tell others what to do and how to act are fascinating. whether it's tipping, how to order, what to eat to stay within religious guidelines, where to eat, what music to listen to, how to ride a bike...they're always a lot of fun.

[MatthewB]

because threads where people get to tell others what to do and how to act are fascinating.  whether it's tipping, how to order, what to eat to stay within religious guidelines, where to eat, what music to listen to, how to ride a bike...they're always a lot of fun.

Well, didn't we found this nation so that people get to tell others what to do & how to act?

[slkinsey]

Incidentally, smoking is also forbidden outside on the terrace.  How the hell that smoke is going to harm anyone is beyond me. Sidewalk pedestrians beware, there are smokers on the terrace 40 feet over your head!!!!

The ban, of course, has nothing to do with protecting customers or pedestrians. It is there to protect employees. Of course it will run roughshod over certain situations where a more gentle approach might be more appropriate, but that is the nature of this kind of law. It has to be fairly strict and inflexible to have any balls. Anyway, acording to this article it probably has to do with the fact that your club's terrace is enclosed. If it were open, I think smoking would be allowed there.

From the article:

Part of the members' frustration surely also stems from the fact that the law — all 21 pages of it — doesn't give the clubs much wiggle room. The law bans smoking "in all enclosed areas within public places," and among the definition of public places, it lists, explicitly, "membership associations," or clubs. Even covered outdoor spaces of clubs are off limits to smokers. So while it's legal to smoke a cigar on the terrace of the Knickerbocker Club on Fifth Avenue, which is open to the heavens, it is illegal to puff on the loge of the Racquet and Tennis Club, which is recessed into the building, and therefore, technically, covered.

I also found the following passage of interest:

There are a few narrow exceptions, though. One is for clubs that have no employees — which gave some members of the Union Club, on East 69th Street, an idea: why not create a special class of membership for the employees, to get around the law? When other members raised the specter of busboys on the squash courts, the idea was quickly scrapped.

The emphasis is mine, of course.

When laws become this overbearing and farfetched, look out.  Next thing you know, they'll be banning steakhouses (high cholesterol, beware!) and nightclubs (loud music is dangerous to your ears!).

This is a common straw man example intended to make the smoking laws look like the beginning of totalitarianism, but in fact there is a big difference here. Number one, no one is forcing the employees at a steak house to eat the food that is served there. One could concievably be a complete vegetarian and still work at a steak house. Second, it is possible for employees at nightclubs to protect their hearing from the damage of long-term exposure to loud sounds very easily. It is not so easy for the employees of that same nightclub to protect themselves from secondhand smoke, short of wearing a hazmat suit.

[tommy]

Well, didn't we found this nation so that people get to tell others what to do & how to act?

it's one of our constitutional rights. like smoking and undertipping i'd say.

[MatthewB]

Well, didn't we found this nation so that people get to tell others what to do & how to act?

it's one of our constitutional rights. like smoking and undertipping i'd say.

You forgot the right to mercilessly trash Rocco.

[mogsob]

When laws become this overbearing and farfetched, look out.  Next thing you know, they'll be banning steakhouses (high cholesterol, beware!) and nightclubs (loud music is dangerous to your ears!).

Actually, there are laws on the books concerning the volume of music (routinely ignored, but should be enforced for the same reasons a smoking ban is a good idea). Steak, however, harms only those that eat it.

The distinction here is CHOICE. If someone else smokes, nonsmokers have no choice but to inhale second hand smoke. If someone plays music at harmful levels, you have no choice but to endure it. But if someone orders a steak, the vegetarian at the table doesn't have to eat it.

Now I can here the response -- nonsmokers can choose not to eat out. That is simply not an option for many people, who commonly do deals and conduct business in restaurants, not to mention the fact that restaurants/bars/clubs form an essential part of the social fabric of the city. The tyrrany of the minority smokers has endured for far too long.

[Felonius]

When laws become this overbearing and farfetched, look out.  Next thing you know, they'll be banning steakhouses (high cholesterol, beware!) and nightclubs (loud music is dangerous to your ears!).

Actually, there are laws on the books concerning the volume of music (routinely ignored, but should be enforced for the same reasons a smoking ban is a good idea). Steak, however, harms only those that eat it.

The distinction here is CHOICE. If someone else smokes, nonsmokers have no choice but to inhale second hand smoke. If someone plays music at harmful levels, you have no choice but to endure it. But if someone orders a steak, the vegetarian at the table doesn't have to eat it.

Now I can here the response -- nonsmokers can choose not to eat out. That is simply not an option for many people, who commonly do deals and conduct business in restaurants, not to mention the fact that restaurants/bars/clubs form an essential part of the social fabric of the city. The tyrrany of the minority smokers has endured for far too long.

Ok, I'll grant that my steakhouse analogy was not particularly relevant, and I don't think asking non-smokers to put up with smoke in restaurants is fair either.

I just feel there should be a place where people who choose to smoke can do so socially in NYC, other than on the sidewalk. I'm not a big supporter of smoking. However, I do feel that something is wrong in this country when members of a private club can't enjoy a cigar in a room where employees will never be asked to be present. This is a "tyranny of the majority" if you ask me. I am an adult, I am endangering no one but myself, but I can't smoke a cigar or cigarette - why? The logical argument for the ban has to do with endangering the health of employees, yet the law as written oversteps this purpose.

[Felonius]

The ban, of course, has nothing to do with protecting customers or pedestrians.  It is there to protect employees.  Of course it will run roughshod over certain situations where a more gentle approach might be more appropriate, but that is the nature of this kind of law.  It has to be fairly strict and inflexible to have any balls.  Anyway, acording to this article it probably has to do with the fact that your club's terrace is enclosed.  If it were open, I think smoking would be allowed there.

From the article:

Part of the members' frustration surely also stems from the fact that the law — all 21 pages of it — doesn't give the clubs much wiggle room. The law bans smoking "in all enclosed areas within public places," and among the definition of public places, it lists, explicitly, "membership associations," or clubs. Even covered outdoor spaces of clubs are off limits to smokers. So while it's legal to smoke a cigar on the terrace of the Knickerbocker Club on Fifth Avenue, which is open to the heavens, it is illegal to puff on the loge of the Racquet and Tennis Club, which is recessed into the building, and therefore, technically, covered.

I also found the following passage of interest:

There are a few narrow exceptions, though. One is for clubs that have no employees — which gave some members of the Union Club, on East 69th Street, an idea: why not create a special class of membership for the employees, to get around the law? When other members raised the specter of busboys on the squash courts, the idea was quickly scrapped.

The emphasis is mine, of course.

When laws become this overbearing and farfetched, look out.  Next thing you know, they'll be banning steakhouses (high cholesterol, beware!) and nightclubs (loud music is dangerous to your ears!).

This is a common straw man example intended to make the smoking laws look like the beginning of totalitarianism, but in fact there is a big difference here. Number one, no one is forcing the employees at a steak house to eat the food that is served there. One could concievably be a complete vegetarian and still work at a steak house. Second, it is possible for employees at nightclubs to protect their hearing from the damage of long-term exposure to loud sounds very easily. It is not so easy for the employees of that same nightclub to protect themselves from secondhand smoke, short of wearing a hazmat suit.

Why must it be the nature of of "this kind of law" to "run roughshod over certain situations"? The "certain situations" in this case seem to be any situation in which someone wants to smoke, other than on a sidewalk or in their apartment (which by the way, several co-ops are now trying to restrict). Why not write a better law that also respects the rights of smokers who are not endangering others? I disagree that it must be this "strict and inflexible" in order to achieve its stated goal of protecting employees. In my humble opinion, I think this is an excuse for a poorly written law, and that those who wrote it have more on their agenda than just protecting employees. I suspect there is a moral or other agenda (smoking is a nasty habit, those people should know better, I'm helping them save themselves, etc.) motivating these lawmakers' actions.

The image of "busboys playing on the squash courts" is just an inflammatory low blow intended to make members of clubs look bad (what a bunch of elitist jerks those club members must be!). Would the author of that statement expect the busboys at his favorite restaurant to sit down with him and his date for dinner? C'mon, give me a break!

Finally, the terrace at the Racquet and Tennis Club mentioned in the article is about as "enclosed" as the sidewalk far below it.

[slkinsey]

Why must it be the nature of of "this kind of law" to "run roughshod over certain situations"?   The "certain situations" in this case seem to be any situation in which someone wants to smoke, other than on a sidewalk or in their apartment (which by the way, several co-ops are now trying to restrict).   Why not write a better law that also respects the rights of smokers who are not endangering others?

Well... yes, the NYC law, I think, is a much better law than the NY State law, and did just that.

What I mean by "running roughshod" is the fact that any law will run up aginst certain situations in which is it not entirely appropriate. Take, for instance, the law that says you cannot drive your car across an intersection when the traffic light is red. Take that law and apply it to a rural town at 4:00 AM when the driver can clearly see that no cars are approaching in either direction for miles. Here is a situation where the driver is forced to sit in his car and wait for the light to turn green because of a silly law, despite the fact that it really should be perfectly fine to go across the intersection. So, what are lawmakers to do? On the one hand, they can start creating all kinds of special exemptions and potential cases where the law doesn't apply, etc. This is a slippery slope, however, as the number of such potential situations will continue to increase and there will always be the possibility of lawbreakers arguing that the regular traffic law shouldn't have applied in their case, etc. And, of course, by the time they're done, the lawmakers will have taken a simple law that was easy for everyone to understand and enforce, and turned it into a very complicated law that no one really understands and is very difficult to enforce. Or, on the other hand, they can keep the law simple and "run roughshod" over the driver needlessly sitting in his car at that intersection.

Pataki et al. clearly went with the "simpler is better" philosophy. Now, that said, and as I said before, I do think that the NYC law is also simple and easy to understand, and it makes a more reasonable accomodation for private clubs and "cigar bars." Perhaps, in the future, the state law can be modified to accomodate these situations a bit better -- who knows? But, even with the NYC law there are going to be plenty of "special cases" who don't feel as though they are recieving the proper accomodation... just the same way some people think it's wrong that they have to wait at a red light in the middle of the night on deserted streets.

In re to co-op boards restricting smoking... that's just the nature of the beast. Co-ops can regulate pretty much whatever they please. If they can prevent people from owning pets in their own apartments (and it is pretty clear they can), then they can prevent people from smoking in their apartments. As an apartment dweller myself -- and one who lives on the same floor with several apartments of smokers -- I can tell you the hypothesis that cigarette smoke is completely contained in the apartment of the smoker is absolutely incorrect, as I can immediately tell when my neighbors are smoking.

The image of "busboys playing on the squash courts" is just an inflammatory low blow intended to make members of clubs look bad (what a bunch of elitist jerks those club members must be!).  Would the author of that statement expect the busboys at his favorite restaurant to sit down with him and his date for dinner?  C'mon, give me a break!

I don't know about that... I am and have been a member of a number of private clubs and organizations over the years, and I don't think it is reasonable to make a direct analogy with eating dinner at the same table with the busboys. After all, no one would be forcing the club members to play squash with the club's busboys, only to allow the busboys access to the courts. This, IMO, is more analogous to allowing the busboys to eat at one's favorite restaurant. And, personally, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that as long as the busboys dressed and acted appropriately. I rather imagine that the author of the article shares my sentiment in this regard.

Finally, the terrace at the Racquet and Tennis Club mentioned in the article is about as "enclosed" as the sidewalk far below it.

Looks more enclosed than that to me.