NYC Smoking Ban

[Daniel]

Its sad that people are thinking this is an issue over personal preferences and not personal freedoms. It doesnt really matter if you enjoy cigarette smoke or not, its the idea that we are giving the government one more area to control us and hold our hands.

[slkinsey]

Daniel, go back and read through the thread, my friend. It is quite clear that the government has the right and responsibility to enact legislation to protect employees in the workplace. The laws do not force people to "give up their personal freedoms" by restricting smoking in the workplace any more than laws force people to give up their personal freedoms by restricting open masturbation in the workplace. People are perfectly free to smoke and wank... just not at work.

[jeunefilleparis]

Its sad that people are thinking this is an issue over personal preferences and not personal freedoms. It doesnt really matter if you enjoy cigarette smoke or not, its the idea that we are giving the government one more area to control us and hold our hands.

Daniel, that is where I really disagree with you completely. It seems so simple to me. Why should people have to get cancer, a bad cough etc because of some one else's nasty habit. If the government said, you cant serve red meat, or anything with sugar or tell you that you had to brush your teeth and make sure you did everday and we had little screens in our houses that watched us night and day, then hell yeah, the government would be taking away our personal freedoms. However this so called " personal freedom" is not personal and thats the problem, it affects PERSONS not a person.

I am by no means for our government right now and trust me if Bush wins the next election I do not know what I ll do. But the smoking ban is a very different issue to me..........

[Daniel]

Last I checked it is still legal to smoke. So why must a business owner who wants to have smoking in his establishment be denied. No one is forcing anyone to enter into these smoking establishment. There should be places for smokers and places for non-smokers. And if people dont like smoke they have the ability to no enter these places. By demanding one idea on an entire public is too much controll for me.

[menton1]

Its sad that people are thinking this is an issue over personal preferences and not personal freedoms. It doesnt really matter if you enjoy cigarette smoke or not, its the idea that we are giving the government one more area to control us and hold our hands.

Nonsense, personal freedoms stop when they encroach on other's personal fteedoms! The old cliché of yelling "fire" in a theater comes to mind. Anyone has the freedom to inhale on this plant whose packaging is labeled "hazardous" and "causes death" as long as nobody else is forced to inhale it!!

[slkinsey]

Daniel, Menton... I swear this has been covered extensively upthread. Rather than continuing to talk in circles, if this is something you care about please read through the thread.

[jeunefilleparis]

Last I checked it is still legal to smoke. So why must a business owner who wants to have smoking in his establishment be denied. No one is forcing anyone to enter into these smoking establishment. There should be places for smokers and places for non-smokers. And if people dont like smoke they have the ability to no enter these places. By demanding one idea on an entire public is too much controll for me.

If there was actually a ventilation system that could regulate an environment so that its employees would not have to endure the second hand smoke then, i would agree. Also, if someone wanted to open a "smoking bar" and have only smokers run the place, then thats fine too, i could care less if they want to poison themselves, but thats just not happening now. maybe you could invent a mask that workers can wear on their faces while they work so that they can serve smokers?

[Daniel]

Or maybe the workers who dont want to work around smokers could find a job where they dont have to work around smokers.

[jeunefilleparis]

Or maybe the workers who dont want to work around smokers could find a job where they dont have to work around smokers.

you know, thats true too, however there are so many smokers that I have met who are picky about when they are around smoke,,,,,,,,

i just dont understand how you can defend smoking when every aspect of it is just unapealing,,,,, stained fingers, bad breath, smelly clothes, smelly hair, cancer, emphysema,(sp?)

I think its unfortunate that people had to lose jobs, but times change..... and there are plenty of other smoking cities out there still

[slkinsey]

Sorry, Daniel, that is a bogus argument. As detailed upthread, "work someplace else if you don't like it" is not a viable argument against workplace safety regulations.

Now. With that, I am going to suggest once again that you skim through the thread. This discussion is long enough without becoming endlessly extended with reruns of the same arguments.

So... Daniel, jeunefilleparis, et al.: unless someone comes up with something new on this "government restricting personal freedoms" fork of the discussion today, something that reflects a grasp of the extensive conversation in this direction which has already ensued, I am going to start deleting. It's not something I would ordinarily do, but this thread is already over 400 posts and it runs the significant risk of losing all relevance if it becomes the same old thing over and over and over and over again.

[Cheese]

2 small points...

The report that states that there are more jobs in bars is true, because a fair amount of the bartenders I know had to get second jobs because of the loss to their income because of the smoking ban. There was a good article in the paper the other day that quoted a bar owner as saying that a regular smoking customer would come in for 5 hours before the ban, now they are in less then 4 because they spend the rest of the time outside. That's an hour of profit out of his pocket.

What gets my goat about the whole issue is that there was never a pilot program, or a trial period or anything. It went from smoke all you want anywhere, to never smoke again anywhere. There should have been some middle ground. It's an interesting fact that before the ban when the administration was spouting that non smoking bars would make more money, there wasn't one 'non-smoking' bar in town. You'd think if it were such a cash cow someone would have been doing it the whole time.

[menton1]

What could a middle ground possibly be? Smokers would be allowed to light up but only smoke half a cigarette?

[PoorLawyer]

Or maybe the workers who dont want to work around smokers could find a job where they dont have to work around smokers.

Do you have jobs to hand out? Some people don't have a choice.

[Daniel]

Or maybe the workers who dont want to work around smokers could find a job where they dont have to work around smokers.

Do you have jobs to hand out? Some people don't have a choice.

I actually am looking to hire people. Unfortunately, i have a smoking office in new jersey.

[Bux]

It's an interesting fact that before the ban when the administration was spouting that non smoking bars would make more money, there wasn't one 'non-smoking' bar in town. You'd think if it were such a cash cow someone would have been doing it the whole time.

There was never any smoking allowed in any of Danny Meyer's bars and most of his bars were pretty well separated from the main dining areas so that smoke could have been handled by ventilating systems to allow diners a relatively smoke free environment. Yet his bars were all smoke free from the day they opened and you claim "there wasn't one 'non-smoking' bar in town." By the way, I've been in several of these bars and it was impossible to get a stool and hard enough to get a drink at certain times of the day, the crowd was so deep at the bar.

How do we conduct a rational and civil discussion if you make up your facts?

[Cheese]

Funny, I've smoked in a Danny Meyer restaurant...

There was never any smoking allowed in any of Danny Meyer's bars and most of his bars were pretty well separated from the main dining areas so that smoke could have been handled by ventilating systems to allow diners a relatively smoke free environment.

Can you clear this up? There's a flaw in the logic. If smoking was never allowed, then why were most of his bars separated from the dining areas and what was being handled by the ventilation systems providing you a relatively smoke free environment?

......

Middle ground would be smoking bars/non smoking bars, limited smoking licenses, improved ventilation, sole proprietorship exclusion, or smoking lounges to name a few.

Edited April 2, 2004 by Cheese (log)

[Bux]

Funny, I've smoked in a Danny Meyer restaurant...

There was never any smoking allowed in any of Danny Meyer's bars and most of his bars were pretty well separated from the main dining areas so that smoke could have been handled by ventilating systems to allow diners a relatively smoke free environment.

Can you clear this up? There's a flaw in the logic. If smoking was never allowed, then why were most of his bars separated from the dining areas and what was being handled by the ventilation systems providing you a relatively smoke free environment?

Where was I unclear? You seem to be working from an assumption that the only reason to separate a bar from a dining room is to provide an indoor place to smoke. Gramercy Tavern had a more formal dining room and a less formal tavern room, although neither had a dress code. The food in the tavern room was simpler and less expensive. The bar in the tavern room was usually packed, as were the tables because the food was such a value. Still is.

At Tabla, the downstairs lounge with bar and tables also serves a different menu and a different crowd. Union Square Cafe and Eleven Madison Park follow the pattern, although it's USC that set the pattern. "Could" is the operative word in regard to the ventilation systems. I don't know anything about the heating or ventilating of any of those restaurants. All I said was that they'd be relatively easy to isolate in terms of ventilating. Clearly Danny Meyer, who says he's in the hospitality business, not the restaurant business, had no reason to allow smoking in his bars. If there's a flaw in logic it's in thinking one can't make money selling booze in a smoke free bar in NYC.

I'm not making any moral or ethical judgments here. I'm only correcting the misapprehension that "there wasn't one 'non-smoking' bar in town" before the ban, and I'm adding that a string of them were very successful. I will grant that they were all connected with a place that also served good food.

[tommy]

If there's a flaw in logic it's in thinking one can't make money selling booze in a smoke free bar in NYC.

it should be noted that there are some excellent restaurants attached to these "bars" that you're using as examples. i'd think they are the exception. edit: i see you concede that. again, they are the exceptions.

as far as non-smoking bars, using "bars" in the way that many people clearly use the word "bars", no, i don't recall any. maybe there were one or two. somewhere.

on a different note, i've spoken to a few bar owners who have all told me they've seen a decline in business since the ban. have you all spoken to bar owners?

Edited April 2, 2004 by tommy (log)

[Cheese]

That makes a lot more sense. I clearly remember in some of his places smoking myself or seeing others light up only to have an ashtray placed in front of them and no one ever said a thing. I can understand not having smoking in a eatery, especially the higher end places who cater to customers who are accustomed to that, but what of the blue collar guy in the Holiday Lounge? There's no food there, nothing but old drunk guys who all smoke, run by a bartender who smokes. It seems unfair that a place should be forced to adhere to a law made to protect an employee who doesn't exist.

[tommy]

It seems unfair that a place should be forced to adhere to a law made to protect an employee who doesn't exist.

you really can't be suggesting that the law be applied on a case-by-case basis, can you?

edit for clarity: case-by-case as in "the guy who runs it smokes", so smoking is allowed.

Edited April 2, 2004 by tommy (log)

[Bux]

I've not spoken to bar owners. In my youth I spent a fair amount of time in bars, but it was the smoke that eventually drove them away. That and the fact that it was cheaper to drink at home. It's actually taking some time for that aversion to bars to go away and for me to feel comfortable at a bar. Funny how we get conditioned.

Anyway, I have no idea what the ban has done to business. My only recent point was that smoke free bars existed, albeit attached to good restaurants. I make no claim they were or could have been a majority, or even a sizable minority.

[slkinsey]

Somehow I have the idea that one of the laws (either the NYC or NYS one) has an exemption for owner/operator/sole employee-type places, but the other doesn't.

Regardless, I have a hard time believing that bars with no employees (i.e., operated exclusively by the owners) would comprise more than 1 percent of all bars. So functionally it really doesn't make any difference.

[slkinsey]

on a different note, i've spoken to a few bar owners who have all told me they've seen a decline in business since the ban.  have you all spoken to bar owners?

I think it probably depends on which bar owners you talk to. No one is suggesting, I think, that some bars havent been hurt by the ban. No doubt some of them will be hurt to the extent that they are not able to remain in business. Indeed, I would be surprised if this hasn't already happened to several bars in NYC. That said, most of the bars I pass on the UWS during drinking hours seem to be packing them in just like they always did. This is, of course, by no means a thorough sampling and there are many reasons (Columbia students) why these bars continue to do big business. The thriving bar and nightclub scene in (smoke-free) California suggests, however, that the business in NY will eventually fully adjust to the smoking ban.

[Cheese]

ou really can't be suggesting that the law be applied on a case-by-case basis, can you?

edit for clarity: case-by-case as in "the guy who runs it smokes", so smoking is allowed.

No, but there should be a way that those people can go about their business unfettered by a law that has no relevance to their situation. The suggestions I made earlier, in this case sole proprietor exemption, would at least give places an 'out'. I seem to think the state law might've at one point had some of these exclusions.

Edited April 2, 2004 by Cheese (log)

[Squeat Mungry]

I'm not sure of the details of the NY law, but here in California there is apparently a "sole proprietor" exception that allows a bar to permit smoking if it is wholly owned and operated by one individual (i.e. no employees) who chooses to allow it, and posts clearly that smoking is permitted.

I only know of one place in San Francisco that does this (located conveniently near my apartment!), but there are several in Oakland. BTW, these places are usually packed.

Is there no such provision in the NY law?

Cheers,

Squeat