Permission to Smoke

Some New York counties are granting exemptions from the state's smoking ban to bars and restaurants that lose business as a result of the law. The New York Times reports that the first waiver went to Damons, a bar in Cicero that saw a 40 percent drop in revenue after the ban kicked in. Now Damons has a smoking lounge. The Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association estimates that a tenth of New York establishments with alcohol licenses will be able to obtain waivers, the criteria for which vary from one jurisdiction to another. New York City is not granting any.

Comments

[James Merritt]

I second the endorsement of South Park's "Butt Out" episode. Finally, someone had the guts to use a big media megaphone to ridicule Rob Reiner and his pack of anti-tobacco Nazis. What's even more interesting to me, is that Norman Lear, Reiner's old employer in the "All in the Family" days, is a consultant to South Park this season. I wonder: Did Parker and Stone come up with the "Butt Out" episode with Lear's approval, or even his participation? Is there any love lost between Lear and Reiner? Hmmm ...

Ya gotta love an episode where Cartman says of Reiner, "He just goes around imposing his will on people. He's my idol." This kind of lampooning will probably be lost on Meathead, but he really ought to give it a serious listen and straighten out his thinking.

[Late for the boom]

What I find most interesting in this entire debate about banning smoking in bars and resturants is, this 'let the market decide' argument that the anti-smokers use. It was especially heavily used here in Southern Colorado when they worked on banning smoking in Pueblo. The anti-smoking crowd kept saying that they dont frequent bars and resturants because of the smoking and that if there was a ban on smoking there would be more patrons of bars and resturants.

Its interesting that in 100% of the cities that have pushed and passed anti-smoking laws, sales figures from bars and resturants have gone down not up. Of course they blame the economy for these numbers, overlooking the obvious fact that bars in cities where smoking has not been banned are not seeing the same decline in sales figures.

So, its clear that the market HAS decided, they decided to stay at home and smoke.

For all you anti-smokers who pushed for this, admit it, you never intended to go to the bars and resturants in the first place, and it wasnt the smoke that was keeping you away either.

I hope I die long before the nannys take total control, the US is quickly becoming a very boring place to live....

[late for the boom]

And for the record, I am not a smoker, just a non-smoker who doesnt believe in pushing his choice on others.

[Warren]

This was to be expected. Now they have another tool to wield power and influence with. Soon the number of bars and restaurants that allow smoking will return to market levels, except for all those not in business because they are unwilling to pay the bribes. And we will all pay more for our food and drink. It was never about public safety. It was always about power and money.

[late for the boom]

Warren, of course all those bar and resturants that can afford to pay the 'bribes' er license just happen to be large multi-national corporations like TGIFridays, General Foods, etc. etc. while those who cannot afford it happen to be small family run establishments.

All in the name of capitalisim.... Big business, always in favor of letting the market decide, unless of course a piece of legislature can put thier competition out of business, then its for regulation.

[ed]

Actually, it's about property rights and freedom of association, both guaranteed by our Constitution.

[late for the boom]

Ed, so are you for or against smoking bans?? Considering the fact that property rights and freedom to associate could apply to both sides of the argument....

Just getting a feel for your comment...

[Sam I Was]

Late For The Boom,

I'm not Ed, but I'll be presumptuous enough to speak for him. Actually, I'll just use his own words: "It's about property rights and freedom of association, both guaranteed by our Constitution."

That is a clear argument against smoking bans. Please explain how property rights and freedom of association "could apply" to the other "side of the argument."

[ed]

Took the words right out of my mouth, Sam!

[late for the boom]

Sam and Ed,

I will concede that property rights might be a stretch, the freedom to associate argument on the pro anti-smoking ban has been used numerous times.

you know the old, me and my friends cant go and hang out at a bar because of all the smoking losers ruining my air, complaints.

The private business could be used by the bar owners that WANT to ban smoking, but cant because they will loose out to the ones that do.

Which is directly my 'market decides' argument, if a bar or resturant cannot stay afloat after making a choice like this, then obviously the market says that smoking is what it wants....

If I had paid attention to what was already posted, I would have been able to answer my own question, but of course, I typed, posted then re-read the comments from the top and thought, DOH, Ed already answered the question earlier...

=)

[Sam I Was]

Someone who complains that "me and my friends cant go and hang out at a bar because of all the smoking" is not dealing in the realm of freedom of association. They are simply complaining.

The freedom of association at issue here is that of the property owner, who has the freedom to associate with whom he wants -- or disassociate with whom he doesn't want -- on his own property.

[ed]

Late,
The market will decide, if left alone. Only about 20% of Americans smoke now, down from about 50% half a century ago, I believe. Most probably do prefer to eat (and associate) in a smoke-free place. A bar owner, free to choose, will in most cases choose the option that puts the most fannies in his seats. The key principle here is that the property owner must be free to decide the fate of his own enterprise.

[late for the boom]

Ed, you and I are in complete agreement...

[ed]

Late,
As an interesting sidebar, many restaurant owners - before the bans took effect - risked unilaterally prohibiting smoking, as offended smokers could then, theoretically at least, sue them for discrimination. Better to let the government decide who has rights and who doesn't, then simply reply, "Just following orders, ma'am."

[lockjaw02]

Just FYI, waivers are slowly being approved. The first two three-month waivers have been issued in Chautauqua County, one to a bar in Falconer and the other to a donut shop in Jamestown. After three months, they will be reassessed for two-year waivers. One three-year waiver has been granted by Monroe County to Kodak. Two others have been approved in Onondaga County, one to a bar, and the second to a bingo hall (which, strangely enough, is now being investigated by the state racing and wagering board and threatened with closure). Of course, all other bingo halls within the vicinity are now losing business to the one with the waiver and are complaining about an "un-level playing field".

Assemblyman Mills from New Hampton originally called for complete repeal of the ban, but now is sponsoring an all-inclusive option of "smoking licenses".

Believe the waivers are just a tactic to quiet down the most vocal opponents, but expect that this battle is far from over. I don't think the poiticians yet realize what they've gotten themselves into.

[ed]

LJ02,

Is that Onondaga County, New York?
I used to live there.

[Bodhiharma on Holiday]

One interesting statistic, which is never quoted, is that approximately 70% of alchoholics are smokers. Therefore, the core customers of a bar are much more likely to stay at home under a smoking ban.

[bennett]

I wonder how much a local bar owner has to pay the politicians for one of these waivers.

[ed]

Pundits and politicians alike almost always focus on the obvious health risks of smoking instead of the property rights of restaurant owners. Proprietors of these establishments have an inherent right to allow - or ban - smoking. Patrons have a right to agree or disagree with his smoking policy and shop accordingly.

Those who presume to have the right to dictate where a smoker may smoke probably have never learned the difference between "public" and "publicly owned."

[R. C. Dean]

C'mon, ed - what's theirs is theirs, and what's yours is theirs. They can't tell the difference between private and publicly owned, so to expect our masters to parse the diff between public and publicly owned is asking way too much.

[dhex]

BUT ITS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!!!
YOUR OWN GOOOOOOOOOD!!!

[Warren]

The criteria is obvious and I predict entirely consistent from one jurisdiction to another: bars with friends in the local government or some sort of political pull will get exemptions, the rest will not.

[Andy D.]

Anyone else seen that great Southpark episode on smoking? It's brilliant stuff:) If you haven't seen it, and you have Kazaa, I reccomend downloading it there... it's called "Butt Out". One of my favorite Southpark songs, sung to a very upbeat and happy tune at the "Big Tobacco" factory in Southpark:

------------------------
So with a hidee lidee lidee and a hidee lidee lay,
We work and we make cigarettes all hidee lidee day,
So folks can get a brakee from their stressful lidee lives,
and relaxee with the cigarettes we make all day and night.

I like to have a cigarette every now and then,
it makes me feel calmer when the day is at an end.
And if it gives me cancer when I'm 80 I don't care,
Who the hell wants to be 90 anyway?
-----------------------

[ed]

I can't wait for the Ashtray Inspection Stations.

[Will Spencer]

Establishments which receive waivers will have an economic advantage over establishments which are not able to receive waivers.

I wonder how much the local politicians are charging underneath the table to grant waivers?

"It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder. But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." -- Frederic Bastiat

[lockjaw02]

Yes, ed, that's Onondaga County, NY. With the state's attacks on small business owners and smokers, it looks like a good place to be from, as long as you're still not there.

The one thing that should qualify this for the "News of the Weird" is that anti-smokers keep bellowing in one breath that bans are good for business, but bemoan the granting of waivers as devastating to the ban in another. Just the fact of the sheer numbers of waiver requests seems to indicate that if antis are right about bans being "good for business" then bar-owners are so dumb that they aren't in business maximize their profits. Does anyone with a lick of common sense really think all these people would rather eak out a meager living to allow smoking than to be rolling in the dough by being smoke-free?

Politicians need to stop pandering to special interests, let market forces determine an owner's fate, and start respecting property owners' rights.

[Highway]

So it's moved from a total ban to 'waivers' for the connected 10%, and now we're talking about 'smoking licenses'? Hey great! Another big bureaucracy and revenue stream for the government. Of course they'll need new people to do inspections, to make sure some bars aren't going outlaw, and to make sure their licensure is in order. And unlike the taxes on cigarette sales, I'd imagine this one will be a bit more resilient to declines as the percentage of smokers decline and the amount they smoke declines. Plus, you can just ratchet up the 'license fee' when you need a bit more revenue.

[Brendan Perez]

I'd be interested to see if those bars with smoking ban exemptions bordering areas without exemptions will see business pick up, the same way liquor stores on the Nevada side of the Nevada-Utah border seem to do quite well.

[taylor]

that episode of southpark is great. And the funny thing is, hte very day after I saw it was "Georgia Day" at our school, and we watched "Song of the South"...;

With a zipetee do dah and a zipetee day
My oh my, what a wonderful day!

(also, I bet Token's name was taken form that movie)

[taylor]

that episode of southpark is great. And the funny thing is, hte very day after I saw it was "Georgia Day" at our school, and we watched "Song of the South"...;

With a zipetee do dah and a zipetee day
My oh my, what a wonderful day!

(also, I bet Token's name was taken form that movie)

[taylor]

sry that that post appeared twice, my bad. and i don't see a way to delete it on this forum. you(admin) can the last two off

[nicole]

its not just the smoking that is an issue people dont' look at the fact that smoking and non smoking sections are so close together that it serves no purpose to have those two sections. Also some people have sever cases of breathing problems and smoke will trigger attacks. think about the waiters or waitresses who dont' smoke but have to work smoking sections. i didn't think about smoke bothering me until i worked in a resturant and had to start off in the smoking section. it gave me really bad headaches, sinus problems, and i felt like i couldn't breath sometimes. if resturants would make a smoking lounge or a place that can be closed off it wouldn't be so bad but its not just about those who visit the resturant it is also about those who work there and are assigned to work in that section. i don't have anything against people who smoke i just feel that you can go 30-45 mins with our a cigarette or step outside. I am sorry if i offended anyone

[nicole]

its not just the smoking that is an issue people dont' look at the fact that smoking and non smoking sections are so close together that it serves no purpose to have those two sections. Also some people have sever cases of breathing problems and smoke will trigger attacks. think about the waiters or waitresses who dont' smoke but have to work smoking sections. i didn't think about smoke bothering me until i worked in a resturant and had to start off in the smoking section. it gave me really bad headaches, sinus problems, and i felt like i couldn't breath sometimes. if resturants would make a smoking lounge or a place that can be closed off it wouldn't be so bad but its not just about those who visit the resturant it is also about those who work there and are assigned to work in that section. i don't have anything against people who smoke i just feel that you can go 30-45 mins with our a cigarette or step outside. I am sorry if i offended anyone

[nicole]

its not just the smoking that is an issue people dont' look at the fact that smoking and non smoking sections are so close together that it serves no purpose to have those two sections. Also some people have sever cases of breathing problems and smoke will trigger attacks. think about the waiters or waitresses who dont' smoke but have to work smoking sections. i didn't think about smoke bothering me until i worked in a resturant and had to start off in the smoking section. it gave me really bad headaches, sinus problems, and i felt like i couldn't breath sometimes. if resturants would make a smoking lounge or a place that can be closed off it wouldn't be so bad but its not just about those who visit the resturant it is also about those who work there and are assigned to work in that section. i don't have anything against people who smoke i just feel that you can go 30-45 mins with our a cigarette or step outside. I am sorry if i offended anyone

[nicole]

my e-mail is disconnected right now. i just voiced an opinion. i was not judging not tearing down those who do smoke. I understand that completely banning smoking would be almost impossible to do. i just hope that you will understand that i was voicing my opinion about smoke and your waiters or waitresses. i really hope that i didn't offend any one it is just an opinion everyone is entitled to that