Smoking Ban Takes Effect March 30
Can someone tell me is it all bars that are affected by this ridiculous draconeon law or just those under a certain size/capacity.
It occurs to me job advertisments for bars where smoking is allowed could carry the Surgeons General Warning and those who don't mind or do smoke could work in these places.
How daft is this ?!?!?!?!?
Smoking Ban Takes Effect March 30
Almost all bars are affected, with the exception of a few who have maintained a tobacco bar status. I know of a few downtown who have ignored the ban altogether - there are definitely some die-hards out there. But most places with outdoor areas still allow smoking at outside tables.
Gunslinger, your idea may be sensible (or not), either way, I'm SURE that every conceivable argument has been tried - to no avail.
Smoking Ban Takes Effect March 30
Don't you smell something ? *
Smoking Ban Takes Effect March 30
May 16, 2003
Want to Smoke? Go to Hamburg
By JOE JACKSON
LYON, France
I never thought I'd say this, but I'm thinking of leaving New York for a city that's free and tolerant and treats me like an adult. Berlin, maybe, or Barcelona, or even London, the city I left nearly 20 years ago.
I came to live in New York to be a musician and a bohemian, but the last time my band played in the city, in April, there were no fewer than five "No Smoking" signs in our dressing room. Two weeks later in Hamburg, Germany, our dressing room had five ashtrays. You can guess where we felt more welcome.
New York used to have an edge — that sense that something thrilling can happen at any moment and that anyone, not just rich people and tourists, can be a part of it. Now even the bohemians are turning sanctimonious. Singers I know, who got through 20 years of smoky gigs, have become overnight converts to the total smoking ban in New York (though they don't complain about the smoke when they're in Europe). Can't we just be grown up? Besides, a bit of haze in the air makes the lights look better.
The smoking ban is just one part of the strangulation of New York's night life — a crackdown on everything from topless bars to noise — which began under Rudolph Giuliani and has continued under Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Many of us preferred the old X-rated Times Square to the new "Disneyfied" version. Besides, shouldn't a great city be able to tolerate a red-light district?
Nightclubs and bars can't allow their patrons to dance unless they have an expensive, hard-to-obtain cabaret license; clubs are closed if even one customer is found using drugs; and rich condominium owners who move into neighborhoods made fashionable by trendy clubs go to court to complain about the noise.
But the smoking ban is the last straw, the thing that has me packing my bags in utter disgust. And the new state law that is going into effect in July is even more draconian. What exactly is the problem with separate, enclosed, ventilated smoking areas?
I like a couple of cigarettes or a cigar with a drink, and like many other people, I only smoke in bars or nightclubs. Now I can't go to any of my old haunts. Bartenders who were friends have turned into cops, forcing me outside to shiver in the cold and curse under my breath (the bar can also be fined if I make too much noise). I go back inside to find my drink gone, along with my place at the bar. It's no fun. Smokers are being demonized and victimized all out of proportion.
"Get over it," say the anti-smokers. "You're the minority." I thought a great city was a place where all kinds of minorities could thrive. "The smoking ban works in Los Angeles," they say. But Los Angeles has a very different culture, not to mention more space and a better climate for outdoor smoking. "Smoking kills," they say. As an occasional smoker with otherwise healthy habits, I'll take my chances. Health consciousness is important but so are pleasure and freedom of choice.
As for secondhand smoke, there is research that shows it's not nearly as dangerous as some, like Mayor Bloomberg, would have us believe. And common sense tells you that a bit of smoke now and again, just when you're in a bar, isn't going to kill you — especially if you're in a separate nonsmoking section.
There are ways to keep everyone happy. Make high-tech clean-air ventilation units, which are used in many pubs in London, compulsory; they really do suck out most of the smoke from the air. Have separate smoking rooms. Have separate smoking establishments. Stop putting unreasonable restrictions on smoking outdoors; if traffic fumes, garbage trucks, panhandlers and who knows what else can't spoil a tough New Yorker's al fresco supper, surely we can handle a bit of cigarette smoke.
Let employees who smoke, or are prepared to sign some sort of waiver, work the smoking venues. Have smoke-free serving areas and let patrons carry their own drinks into smoking areas. Keep the ban but allow people to apply for exemptions or smoking licenses. Limit the number of licenses so that plenty of places remain smoke free.
See how reasonable (or desperate) we smokers are? We just want somewhere to enjoy a legal product in a sociable environment. This can be resolved in a spirit of tolerance, which is increasingly rare in this increasingly joyless city. Bar and club operators should unite and lobby for fairer laws. Meanwhile, London is looking pretty good. Or Paris, or Moscow. . . .
Joe Jackson, the recording artist, is author of "A Cure for Gravity." His latest album is "Joe Jackson Band: Volume 4."
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
Smoking Ban Takes Effect March 30
Wait a minute. Let's draw a distinction between smoking bars and topless bars.
Spectator sex is the inherent right of every American male.
I never took visiting businessmen out for cigaretes.
Smoking Ban Takes Effect March 30
I have.
Smoking Ban Takes Effect March 30
It's so true - all these crack downs are embarrassing. This isn't Indianapolis. I'd back a red-light district in a heartbeat.
Smoking Ban Takes Effect March 30
Oh-oh. Before my significant other reads this, I'll amend my last post to include female.
Or I'll need sleeping mitts.
Smoking Ban Takes Effect March 30
I wouldn't go as far to bring back red-light districts, certainly not to Times Square or elsewhere. We don't need hookers or strippers hanging out at every street corner, attracting drug dealers or serial rapists.
But this smoking ban has clearly gone too far, and I've heard reports of some lost business. If this keeps going on any longer, we may have sleep researchers and other health activists calling for curfews to be imposed on the city Boston-style. Let's hope this latter horror doesn't happen.
Smoking Ban Takes Effect March 30
There's really nowhere that we can put a red-light district that's relatively devoid of residents. *People would generally complain about that sort of ::ahem:: business going on in their neighborhood, not to mention that we'd never be able to displace them all to accomodate said businesses.
Smoking Ban Takes Effect March 30
NIMBYs fight street lights and seven storey buildings, there's no way in hell a red light district could ever pop up in Manhattan. But don't kid yourself, some city streets as they are now are far more dangerous than a government regulated red light district would be.
In New York, you can still go to an all-nude strip club, you can play high stakes black jack, you can drink after 4am, and you can even smoke at a bar. More an more illegal "after hours" places open all the time with every new restriction, just as speakeasies flourished during Prohibition. The city shouldn't be a secret underworld, a little more toleration would go a long way.
Smoking Ban Takes Effect March 30
I think there might be some relatively unused industrial areas that could house a red-light. *Hell, Hunt's Point already has an illegal one, why not clean it up, get it on the tax rolls and "class up the joint?"
Smoking Ban Takes Effect March 30
Hunts Point doesn't even have a subway stop within its core.
May 19, 2003
No Smoking in New York. See Ya. (5 Letters)
To the Editor:
When I first heard about the new smoking ban, I felt the same way as the recording artist Joe Jackson ("Want to Smoke? Go to Hamburg," Op-Ed, May 16) — that the city was just putting more restrictions on having fun.
I don't smoke, but I've always felt that smoking and drinking do go together. Then a few weeks ago I was in a New York City bar for the first time since the ban was put into place, and I must admit it was a relief to be able to breathe clean air. I'm sure that for people who are addicted to nicotine, it is an inconvenience, but even my friends who are smokers tell me they prefer the cleaner air. Besides, doesn't smoking strain vocal cords? *
NICK FLATTERY
Ridgefield Park, N.J., May 16, 2003
•
To the Editor:
I am sorry that Joe Jackson is thinking about leaving the country because of New York's smoking ban (Op-Ed, May 16). Mr. Jackson should keep in mind that the main reason for this ban was to protect the workers, not just the patrons.
As he stated, there are many compromises that can be made to allow smokers to smoke in establishments without bothering the nonsmoking patrons, but the workers would still be affected. Given the high rate of unemployment, you can't argue that if you don't want to work in a smoking environment, you should get another job. All people should have equal access to employment, which I believe overrides equal access to smoking environments.
Good luck to Mr. Jackson in his search for a new home. I will welcome him back to New York when he finds that any other place he chooses to live in will eventually come up with its own type of smoking regulations that don't suit him.
HEIDI SILVERSTONE
New York, May 16, 2003
•
To the Editor:
Even though I am a lifelong nonsmoker, I agree with Joe Jackson ("Want to Smoke? Go to Hamburg," Op-Ed, May 16). New York's ban is more government intrusion in people's private lives, which ironically seems to be happening more and more in Republican administrations.
If Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg really cares about the health of restaurant and bar workers, how about getting them some good health care coverage? *
DAVID JENKINS
New York, May 16, 2003
•
To the Editor:
The May 16 Op-Ed articles by Joe Jackson and Kirk Douglas about smoking were both right and wrong.
As smokers past and present can attest, it isn't that easy to quit. But it can be done. In my case, in 1967 I was going through three packs a day, until I was overcome with one powerful incentive: fear. I became convinced if I failed to quit I'd be dead in two years or less. I did manage to quit, but it took several weeks and a gradual tapering off.
As for Mr. Jackson, he is wrong to think his smoking could be tolerated by nonsmokers; I became so intolerant of ambient smoke that I gave up one of my favorite passions, bowling. I became aware that the odor of secondhand smoke permeated my clothing, a condition of which I had been previously ignorant.
Smoking is an insidious addiction, and those who are "occasional" smokers are rare indeed. Mr. Jackson can go find freedom to do his thing wherever he pleases, but not in my neighborhood.
STANLEY KUSHNER
Toms River, N.J., May 16, 2003
•
To the Editor:
To Joe Jackson's list of smoke-friendly cities (Op-Ed, May 16) I would add Lisbon, where I attended a business dinner last week. The restaurant was crowded, the buzz lively, and yes, some people were smoking. It seemed to disturb no one, and the ambience was nothing short of energizing.
Why not allow individual establishments to choose whether they are smoking or nonsmoking environments, and, as Mr. Jackson suggested, let the consumer decide? Surely the dictate of free commerce is a cause Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg should support? *
KEN CARLTON
Brooklyn, May 16, 2003
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
(Edited by Christian Wieland at 11:35 am on May 22, 2003)
Smoking Ban Takes Effect March 30
Haha wow...banning poisonous fumes from being spread throughout a public place? *weep* That's awful! I think every time a person enters a restaurant, they *should* be forced to inhale toxic carcinogens!
---In all seriousness, I feel that this is a good law, a person who enters a public restaurant should not be placed in an environment that is unsafe. Period.
Smoking Ban Takes Effect March 30
And what do you say about the toxic carcinogens emanating from our cars and buses? We are forced to breathe that! *Weep* Let's ban outdoor dining as well - how can we force workers to work under those conditions!
Where does it end?
It apparently isn't about YOU or any person who enters a public restaurant as you proclaimed. It's about workers, and in some places it's a conundrum. The bartender at Arthur's Tavern (Jazz Club) told me that business is so low they may now close a few nights a week. This place is famous for free jazz every night! What a shame. The three bartenders (who happen to smoke) aren't making the money they used to, and if the place closes they have to go look for another job in a bad economy. Way to look out for the workers! And who cares about small businesses, I guess.
Look, I don't smoke cigarettes and I'm all for no smoking in restaurants. It has been a pleasure to breathe clean air in bars and not come home smelling like an ashtray. But the law is way too restrictive. Can't there be some place where smokers (including many of our tourists) can go and have a beer and a cigarette if they want? You don't have to go there if you don't want to breathe it. You can get off your high horse and go spread carcinogens from your S.U.V. instead.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks