NYC Smoking Ban

[tommy]

well those preliminary tests on small groups are always very telling.

Edited March 11, 2004 by tommy (log)

[Felonius]

Seems to be going well. According to a blurb in amNY, "preliminary tests on a small group of bar and restaurant workers . . . show a significant drop in levels of a nicotine by-product." The tests check the levels of cotinine in the saliva. Cotinine levels in those tested droped by 85% just three months after the ban went into effect.

The fact that these restaurant workers can now only smoke outside during shift breaks may have something to do with it....

[wagyuboy]

According to the Times, the police are going after those hookah places 'cause people are smoking cigarettes there too, and the hookah bar owners haven't applied for the smoking permit. This spells bad news for places like Sahara East (perennial NYU freshman hangout) and Cafe Cairo that need to stick around. In my experience, nobody smokes cigarettes at any of the hookah places in the East Village except for Sahara East which is outside anyway.

[Felonius]

I was at 1020 Lexington (aka "Bar and Books") and decided to have a smoke. When I got my check, there was an additional 5 dollar "tobacco charge" added to the bill! I've been to this place many times before and never heard of this. Is this something that the establishment chooses to boost profits, or some other tax imposed by Bloomberg? Either way, I think it's ridiculous and won't be going back to 1020. Only in NYC would I have to pay 15 dollars plus tax and tip for one cigarette and a glass of well scotch.

[slkinsey]

Felonius, what kind of place is this and how are they allowing smoking?

[SobaAddict70]

And I think that businesses that provide "separate(ly vented) but equal" ("equal" being the key word) smoking/non-smoking sections, and give their employees the right to choose which to work in, might be quite a doable solution.

This is fine in theory.

But let me tell you of two tales, gleaned over the ten plus years I've been at my firm:

1. The case of the lawyer who chain smoked cigars in his office: The odiferous cloud permeated the section of the floor where he sat. This was in the days before odorizers were made available to the non-legal staff in our building. I recall during my first week at the firm, inhaling that mysterious aroma and wondering what in god's green earth was that smell, because it smelled like a cat soaked in month old tobacco water and wrung out to dry.

2. The case of the lawyer who lived in a cigarette fog: I kid you not. Whenever I had to give him a fax or document, I dreaded opening the door to his office because you could kill a potted plant just by putting it 6" away from the CLOSED door to his office. Even TWO odorizers couldn't drive away the smell. That's TWO odorizers going at full blast for at least 10 hours in the evening until 9:30 am the next day.

There's more, but those are pretty illustrative of the conditions we had to endure under "separate but equally ventilated" solutions.

Soba

[bloviatrix]

Soba -- I know this is OT but, they're not still smoking are they? (you know lawyers, they think they're above the law :law:) With the exception of Phillip Morris, all buildings have been smoke-free since at least '93. And, I think they did away with the PM exemption.

[SobaAddict70]

They're not smoking, but I posted those two examples to show why the theory of "separate but equal" doesn't work in the workplace. It's not a question of "choosing to work where we want to" -- our offices and spaces are assigned to us by our respective managers; when smoking was allowed, you had to suck it up and deal with it if you were in close proximity to a smoker. I'm talking about secretaries, messengers, staff. We deal with each other on a close inter-personal basis every day. "Separate but equal" doesn't cut it.

Don't get me started on the ventilation issue either. If someone gets sick on our floor, sooner or later the entire floor falls in line.

All I can say is that the smoking ban is a long time coming, thank god. I recall that before the ban became effective, that smoking was legal within our offices as recently as 1999. (How do I know? Because of the smoking room that was then in place for the non-legal staff and the smoking policy that was then instituted by the firm's managing committee with respect to the lawyers.)

Soba

[Felonius]

Felonius, what kind of place is this and how are they allowing smoking?

1020 Lexington is one of a handful of "cigar bars" that are exempt from the smoking ban. I don't know the exact details, but I heard that establishments that could show that more than 50% of their profits came from tobacco sales were given a special exemption. Apparently there are maybe 5-10 places currently operating under this exemption.

I find it hard to believe that a place like 1020 Lex that charges $10 or more for a well drink could ever sell enough cigars to qualify. I'd bet this was more a secret handshake deal done by Guliani (who is a cigar smoker) to ensure that he and a few of his supporters still had a place to light up a stogie in NYC.

I am not a heavy smoker, but do enjoy a cigarette or cigar with a drink now and then. I've become a fan of the smoking ban in practice (though perhaps not in theory), as it certainly makes for a better environment for the majority of people out and about in NYC. However, I do wish there were a few more places where one could have the option of a smoke with a good martini. The fact that so many outdoor areas (i.e. balconies or sidewalk areas with awnings) and rooms in private clubs where no employees are present are included in the smoking ban is draconian, unecessary, and rather ridiculous in my humble opinion.

[Daniel]

The only thing that i have noticed is the government coming into a private business and controlling its right to run itself. I have notcied that people are forgetting this country is run on free enterprise and if people are against something the drop of sales would force a business to change.

I am just fearfull for the day when bloomberg tells a place like Brick Lane Curry House to make there phaal more mild because the sauce might be dangerous for a chef to handle. Or that some customers dont like indian food so they are going to have to start serving cheeseburgers instead. hehe

[phaelon56]

So has the government taken away the "right to the persuit of happiness" of drinkers who want to imbibe enormous amounts of alcohol and then get into a car and drive?

That was done many, many years ago but enforcement has gotten far stricter and in many areas (including my own) the blood alcohol level that defines intoxication (as opposed to just impairment) has been lowered to .08 from .10

These, of course are the DWI/DUI laws.

Most of the restaurants I favor have long tended to be non-smoking or primarily non-smoking but last wekeend I was visiting in NYC and had the occasion to hang our at length in some bars with a drinking friend. As a non-smoker, I always tolerated the smoke in bars as a matter of course and just figured it was worth the aggravation if I wanted to be there to hang with certain people or see certain live music. The smoking law in NY State had certainly presented a hassle to foplks who like smoking in bars and I'm not personally in support of the law but I'll have to admit that hanging out in bar became much more pleasant for me after this change.

I don't know the exact details, but I heard that establishments that could show that more than 50% of their profits came from tobacco sales were given a special exemption.

There is also a "hardship clause" that tavern owners can apply for. If they can document a loss of revenue exceeding 20% of net profits when comparing pre and post smoking income and it exists for more than three consecutive months.... waivers are being granted. We have one tavern in this area that has already applied for and received the exemption.

Note to smokers: the upstairs area at the Campbell Apartment bar on the upper deck Vanderbilt Ave side of GCT is a legal smoking area.

[tommy]

Note to smokers: the upstairs area at the Campbell Apartment bar on the upper deck Vanderbilt Ave side of GCT is a legal smoking area.

i just walked by the Campbell Apt the other day and thought "i guess that place is a little more bearable now that there's no smoking". i guess i was wrong.

[menton1]

I saw on the news that they just banned smoking in all restaurants and pubs in the entire country of Ireland. And sitting outside is not even an option in Ireland...

If those "smoky" pubs can exist without smoking, then it should be a piece of cake in the bars of New York!!

[mjr_inthegardens]

And sitting outside is not even an option in Ireland...

surely it doesn't rain ALL the time?

-mjr

[tomweir]

No, it doesn't rain all the time. It can rain a fair bit of the time though but it never lasts for long.

Half the country is thrilled, the other half are smokers and publicans. Here's hoping they use this to raise the level of food in pubs here.

[mjr_inthegardens]

No, it doesn't rain all the time. It can rain a fair bit of the time though but it never lasts for long.

Half the country is thrilled, the other half are smokers and publicans. Here's hoping they use this to raise the level of food in pubs here.

I'd add that Ireland does not have winters as harsh as NYC where there were a ton of people bearing incredible cold for a drag outside clubs and bars and restaurants, so perhaps it'll make it easier to bear.

The smoking ban in NYC has led to the implementation of new outside areas by clubs and restaurants looking to accommodate smokers and to keep their outsides clean.

-mjr

[menton1]

  saw on the news that they just banned smoking in all restaurants and pubs in the entire country of Ireland. And sitting outside is not even an option in Ireland...

If those "smoky" pubs can exist without smoking, then it should be a piece of cake in the bars of New York!! 

surely it doesn't rain ALL the time?

-mjr

No, it doesn't rain all the time, but both in Ireland and the UK it would be quite rare to find any outdoor tables at pubs or restaurants... it's just not a part of their culture. Probably has something to do with the weather, but they just don't do that...

[JosephB]

New York City released a study today showing that the restaurant and bar industry has prospered despite the smoking ban. NY Times. Some bar owners are dubious because the study lumps all food and beverage establishments together.

[slkinsey]

New York City released a study today showing that the restaurant and bar industry has prospered despite the smoking ban.    NY Times.  Some bar owners are dubious because the study lumps all food and beverage establishments together.

Some relevant excerpts for posterity:

The study also found that air pollution levels had decreased sixfold in bars and restaurants after the ban went into effect. . .

From April 2003 to January, the city collected about $17.3 million in tax payments from bars and restaurants, a rise of about $1.4 million over the same period a year earlier. . . . The [tax] rates have not changed since before April 2003.

An average of 164,000 people were employed in restaurants and bars in 2003, the highest number in at least a decade. Since the smoking ban took effect last March 30, employment in bars and restaurants has risen by 10,600 jobs, taking into account seasonal fluctuation.

The number of the city's bars and restaurants - roughly 20,000 - remained about the same. . .

[jeunefilleparis]

I honestly have to say that I have gotten such pleasure watching smokers huddle in doorways of office buildings on the coldest, nastiest days of the year, or the rainy ones. i have no sympathy whatsoever and the whole sugar debate was beyond ridiculous. if smokers want a warm dry place to smoke, they can smoke in their own homes.

ok thats my 2 cents

L

[tommy]

New York City released a study today showing that the restaurant and bar industry has prospered despite the smoking ban.    NY Times.  Some bar owners are dubious because the study lumps all food and beverage establishments together.

Some relevant excerpts for posterity:

The study also found that air pollution levels had decreased sixfold in bars and restaurants after the ban went into effect. . .

From April 2003 to January, the city collected about $17.3 million in tax payments from bars and restaurants, a rise of about $1.4 million over the same period a year earlier. . . . The [tax] rates have not changed since before April 2003.

An average of 164,000 people were employed in restaurants and bars in 2003, the highest number in at least a decade. Since the smoking ban took effect last March 30, employment in bars and restaurants has risen by 10,600 jobs, taking into account seasonal fluctuation.

The number of the city's bars and restaurants - roughly 20,000 - remained about the same. . .

wow. those stats sure say something.

[menton1]

So the hubbub the bars made last year about the smoking ban is evocative of Shakespeare: "...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound of fury, signifying nothing."

I'm sure in Ireland the pubs will also continue to prosper minus smoking...

[slkinsey]

Well, it is worthy of note that bar owners are critical of the report because the statistics are for bars and restaurants together. The implication by these parties is that the situation is not so rosy for bars as the report indicates. The implication of this is that restaurants have been doing so well that they have skewed the results up to the extent that widesperad difficulties in the bar business have been obscured. While I am sure there is some element of truth to this, and certainly it is the case that certain bars (and certain restaurants) have definitely been hurt by the ban, I have a hard time believing that bars as a group are doing significantly worse than the report indicates. For this to be true, restaurants would, as a group, have to be doing substantially better than the report indicates in order to achieve the same aggregate numbers.

[theakston]

Also the "Same period a year earlier" (April 2002) on which they were basing the comparison was when tourism was still in shock from 9-11.

[slkinsey]

Also the "Same period a year earlier" (April 2002) on which they were basing the comparison was when tourism was still in shock from 9-11.

An excellent point, Theakston. The article does mention the criticism that the "increase in tax payments and jobs must be weighed against the restaurant industry's emergence from the post-9/11 recession." I wonder how the observed 9% growth compares to the growth in previous years and how it compares to the growth that might have been expected were the ban not in effect. It's hard to "prove" anything in terms of the true economic impact, of course, because the ban didn't happen in a vacuum and there are other economic forces at work which affect the outcomes. I guess the main thing I took out of this report is that the bar and restaurant industry haven't gone down the tubes as many ban opponents were predicting. I wonder how the 9% growth compares to the growth in related/similar industries during that timeframe.

I have always tried to point up the fact that the smoking ban was for the benefit of employees and not customers. Just to tell a personal anecdote... I went out to a rodizio in Newark a few nights ago where there was some smoking. It was interesting to notice how much it irritated me now that I am used to smoke-free dining.