Due to the volume of news, 2003 had to be split into quarters.
This area contains news from April thru June.
You can view January thru March here.
You can view July thru September here.
You can view October thru December here.

Click on News Header to go directly to their articles

OTHER NEWS SOURCES

---

To view full story CLICK onimage
Note:  Many publications and/or sources do not archive or charge a fee for viewing older articles.
There is a high likelihood that links to articles may no longer be active.

1996 Thru 1999 Archives | 2000 Archives | 2001 Archives | 2002 Archives |
2004 Archives | 2005 Archives | 2006 Archives | 2007 News | Top

June 29, 2003
        Legislation Enacted

Lots of new taxes and fees on obscure items were tucked away in both the state budget and the plan for the city. One example is that New York City residents got a backdoor cigarette-tax increase, because the state will now collect its cigarette tax not just on the price of the cigarettes, but on the price after figuring in the city's tobacco tax. That was seen as a quiet way to raise an extra $11 million without raising the tax rate.

June 13, 2003
        Online and Mail-Order Sales of Tobacco Face a State Ban
        By Patrick Healy

New York smokers already exiled from restaurants, nightclubs, office lounges and taxis are about to lose one more perch: the Internet.

Under a state law that goes into effect Wednesday, New York residents will no longer be able to buy cigarettes from online or mail-order dealers. Tobacco distributors face heavy fines if they sell cigarettes to anyone in New York State except licensed dealers.

Antismoking groups said the ban, instituted after a three-year legal battle, marks a victory. The law will prevent children from buying cigarettes online and will generate millions of dollars in new cigarette tax revenue, said Peter Slocum, vice president for advocacy at the American Cancer Society.

But to New Yorkers like Jackie Silverman, it is just another depressing sign of the times. Ms. Silverman, who has difficulty walking, said the online service that delivered cigarettes to her door spared her time and energy.

"It's taking away your freedom, that's all," said Ms. Silverman, who has smoked for more than five decades. "I feel it's an injustice. Smoking is not illegal, and smokers should not be put under such persecution. We've become the enemy."

Earlier lawsuits by cigarette makers and distributors failed to strike down the ban on Internet or mail order sales. But legal challenges to the new law are not over.

The Online Tobacco Retailers Association and representatives from Native American tribes filed a lawsuit in April challenging the ban. The plaintiffs' lawyer, Joseph F. Crangle, said he would seek a temporary restraining order blocking the law's implementation.

Mr. Crangle said the ban violates Constitutional law governing interstate commerce, and discriminates against Native American dealers, who dominate the online tobacco trade in New York because they are not required to charge any sales tax.

State agencies could not say exactly how many New Yorkers order cigarettes online or how much money they spend. But a study by the advocacy group Fair Application of Cigarette Taxes found that New York lost out on $895 million in potential cigarette-tax revenue.

Helen Vassiliadis, 29, of Astoria stood smoking in a niche of the Reuters Building in Times Square yesterday afternoon — the only spot in front of the building where she said she was allowed to smoke. She sometimes buys cigarettes from the Web site smokersden.com and said the Internet cigarette ban represented an assault on personal freedoms.

"It's my personal choice," she said. "To not allow someone to make their own decision on where to buy a product — it's ridiculous."

June 8, 2003
        On the Run
        By Denny Lee

POETS have compared the cigarette to a lover. They say it fires up the senses and unleashes a forbidden pleasure, like an alluring but dangerous mistress.

I tend to think of cigarettes more as a trusty friend. It is the first thing that touches my lips in the morning and, very often, the last thing at night. In between, smoking keeps me jolted throughout the day, and enables me to indulge in moments for reflection. My cigarettes are always there, next to the computer and phone, whether I'm distracted or focused like a laser.

But cigarettes are best enjoyed with others, like marshmallows around a campfire. To offer someone a smoke is to invite him into your circle. To light a cigarette is to signal the start of an intimate chat. To extinguish a cigarette is to reach a fork in the conversation, an occasion to continue or turn back.

Every smoker knows that cigarettes are not healthy, but then again, neither, often, is drinking. And when the two meet, it is an exhilarating mixture that underscores why so many smoke only after a drink or two. The ritual of lighting up, like the act of toasting, is a time-honored garnish for civilized cocktails. They go together like gin and tonic.

A cigarette is a drinking buddy who never leaves your side, even when you're standing by yourself.

That is why, on the eve of Mayor Bloomberg's smoking ban, it felt as if a close friend were leaving forever. It was March 29, it was raining, and it was a Saturday night, when taxis are normally scarce and the bar crowds grow thick with working stiffs and suburban visitors. I just wanted to stay home and curl up with my ashtrays.

But social obligations beckoned. I found myself at Sea, a cavernous Thai restaurant and bar in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, that features a reflecting pool and a plywood D.J. booth. We finished dinner at 11 p.m., an hour before the ban would propel law-abiding smokers like myself onto the cold and rainy sidewalk. It would be a historic moment. I imagined someone snatching away Dorothy Parker's gin at the dawn of Prohibition.

Still, I could not stay at Sea. The city that had nurtured my habit, that had taught me the thrills of smoking, was about to be transformed into something like Cleveland or, worse, Los Angeles. I hopped into a taxi and went home to the West Village.

A friend from Los Angeles, who smokes only when I visit, had sent me an e-mail. "I sincerely hope you're out there, taking your last drags," she wrote. "Or will this compel you to quit?"

Unlike many smokers, I have never tried to quit, despite the new ban and despite the cigarette tax imposed last July that pushed the price of a pack to nearly $8. My only nod to not smoking is a half-empty box of Nicorette gum in my medicine cabinet, which I bought expressly for trans-Atlantic flights.

I replied to my friend's e-mail: "I'm determined to flout the law at every possible opportunity."

For the first two weeks of the ban, that was what I set out to do. On average, I find myself at bars two or three times a week. I'm lucky to squeeze four around my dinner table, so, as for many New Yorkers, bars are an extension of my apartment.

But despite my plan for defiance, and without realizing it, I avoided the bars like ex-lovers. Sure, I was curious how the ban was playing out. Would bar owners find creative ways to bypass it? Would smokers ignore it?

I suppose it was denial. Instead of heading to the neighborhood bar, I went to my corner liquor store and invited friends over for cocktails - and cigarettes. Confronting the new ban was not my idea of fun. "I heard a lot of people say that," said a friend, Jack, who owns a couple of East Village bars. "They just didn't want to deal."

THE cold wind blew on my virgin outing into the smokeless city. It was the middle of the week and I was meeting friends at Passerby, a stylish bar attached to the Gavin Brown Enterprise gallery in Chelsea. Of the four of us, three were smokers.

It was like walking into a gay bar for the first time: a familiar scene that is slightly, disconcertingly different. About 10 patrons were seated along a hard bench. A D.J. was spinning a mix of garage and techno beats. A bartender stood behind the wooden bar. Then finally, I noticed the new blue-on-white sign behind him. "This is a smoke-free environment," it read. It reminded me of one of those generic airline safety cards.

Still, I held out hope. The city had announced a monthlong grace period before bars were fined over the ban. But as I looked around, there was nary an ashtray or cigarette in sight. My heart sank. I felt as if I were back at the high school dance, under the watchful eye of chaperones.

I approached the bar warily. I am friendly with the bartender, but now he stood before me like the enemy, the first line of defense in the city's war against my smoking enjoyment.

The antagonism was probably mutual. The no-smoking signs mention the city's new 311 complaint line and the Web site of the city's Department of Health, so that patrons can report sightings of secondhand smoke. Every customer, including myself, was now a potential snitch.

I ordered vodka on the rocks and slumped in the corner. The atmosphere in here was never too smoky, but tonight there wasn't a trace of cigarettes. The air seemed so clean, so featureless, so thoroughly unlike a bar. If I didn't want a cigarette, I wanted one now.

We left after one drink and smoked en route to our next stop: a nearby restaurant and lounge with a European outlook, which is to say, a smoke-friendly reputation. The 50's Modernist dining room was empty at 10 p.m., save for one table occupied by a handful of people, including the actor Danny Aiello.

We settled into a corner booth and lighted our cigarettes. Within minutes, the maître d', a fellow dressed head to toe in black, rushed over with an ashtray and ordered us to extinguish. But there was no one here except for Mr. Aiello, we pleaded, and he did not seem to mind. The maître d' was unmoved.

We muttered Bloomberg's name under our breath and carried on. Then, like a gift from the heavens, an ashtray magically appeared with our third round of drinks. The manager, I suspect, had assumed that the nicotine police would be in bed by 11 p.m.

For a moment, we sat and puffed away in silence. I can't remember the last time a smoke tasted so good. A fresh cigarette has hints of sweet plum and walnut, mixed with a bit of spice. The first drag scorches the throat, like a shot of like strong Italian espresso; later ones mellow into a nutty, milky plume.

To my dismay, that restaurant was the exception, aside from a few "smoke-easies" that quietly cropped up around town. During an ambling tour of two dozen bars in Downtown Manhattan and Williamsburg during the grace period, most were in compliance. "No smoking" signs were taped to the wall. Ashtrays were removed. Bartenders watched vigilantly.

I had predicted the opposite, that most bars would test the limits of the ban, at least until the grace period ended. The odds were certainly in smokers' favor: a dozen city inspectors versus several thousand establishments. It would be like finding a butt in a haystack.

But most bar owners I chatted with said they did not want to be flagged for repeat visits.

Meanwhile, the ban had put smokers on the defensive. Although the city had said that smokers themselves would not be punished (despite legislation that allows for $100 fines), few wanted to antagonize their favorite watering holes, or risk the wrath of sanctimonious nonsmokers.

By the time the fines kicked in on May 1, New York night life was firmly under the control of nonsmokers.

It would be one thing if bar owners were given the right to forbid smoking on their premises. But the ban prohibits smoking in every bar, leaving no room for choice.

As a native New Yorker, I feel a certain ownership of the city. But the gritty city I grew up in, where dark pockets beckoned and boundaries were constantly pushed, is feeling more and more suburban in temperament.

MY life as a smoker began during my junior year at Stuyvesant High School, when it was located in a dilapidated building on East 15th Street. It was the mid-80's, and bars and dance clubs back then never carded us at the door, even though we were clearly under age. If we were caught in the streets drinking a beer, the police would tell us to pour it out and send us on our merry way.

Not only could we smoke in movie theaters, alongside the sultry stars on screen, but we smoked in school, behind the thick auditorium curtains. The teacher who oversaw the stage productions could not have missed the butts strewn on the floor, but he must have figured we were old enough to make our own decisions.

I thought about this a few weeks ago at Lava Gina, a dimly lit salsa bar on Avenue C. I was trying to do my part for the city by going outside for a smoke. But a young woman in a tank top stopped me at the door with her arm, held out like a security checkpoint.

She might have been a bartender or bouncer, but tonight her job was to patrol for troublemakers like me who might wander outside with a cocktail in hand. Before I could explain that it was an oversight, my drink disappeared. I wrote in my notepad, "You can't smoke inside, you can't drink outside."

I found myself on the sidewalk, staring at five other people sucking on cigarettes. Smoking was no longer relaxing, but a source of stress. I was not savoring my cigarette like a glass of wine that complements a pleasant conversation. I was smoking because I needed one, like a drug.

I took a long drag and wondered if I was missing out on a better party, perhaps in another city.

Another thought occurred to me. If Mayor Bloomberg was indeed running City Hall like a private corporation, then the entire city was turning into one giant cubicled office, where every inch is designed to be bland and inoffensive and smokers have to take sidewalk breaks.

For smokers, there is a distinct feeling that the walls are closing in. First, there was the cigarette tax, which make our packs among the world's most expensive, up there with Norway's. Next, the new ban required us to smoke these costly butts on the street corner, like prostitutes. Now, even sidewalk smoking seems to be under attack. There are the pedestrians who would be happy to see the city turn into a gated community for nonsmokers, and a new bill introduced by the mayor that would increase penalties for outdoor drinking. The fines, currently at $25, would be raised to a maximum of $150.

Smokers are not going gently into this new city. For the last year, for example, most smokers I know have been dodging the new tax by buying their cigarettes online - the more resourceful from countries like Switzerland, where a pack costs about $1.60, including shipping. (By the way, thanks to the new taxes, I now smoke more because it's cheaper and there is always a carton lying around the apartment.)

Also, an anonymous contributor is underwriting a lawsuit against the ban, based on the First Amendment right to free speech and free association. It could be filed as early as June on behalf of New York City Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, an anti-ban group, said Audrey Silk, the group's founder. They may find some inspiration in a Federal District Court decision on Wednesday that temporarily blocked Nassau County from enforcing its own new ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.

THEN there are the smoke-easies. Smokers were cautious when the ban was new, unsure how this unfamiliar law would play out. But now these places - known mostly to their regulars and determined to keep out what one bartender called the "nonsmoking riffraff" - seem to be increasing.

One bar, on the Lower East Side, does not display its name on the door and requires a reservation for a table. With its antique tin ceiling and unrushed service, it evokes an era when men wore hats and smoking was a symbol of women's liberation. I happened to be there on a recent night when a city health inspector was making a routine visit, burdened with a knapsack full of paperwork. As soon as he walked out, the waiter brought over an ashtray.

Another place, a restaurant and bar in the West Village, draws its curtains after a certain hour and passes out ashtrays disguised as saucers along with the drinks. Most of the patrons seem to know the owner, and the place has the feel of a homespun private club.

On Avenue C, a bar that is marked by a blue light over its entrance has turned what looks like a sunroom into a smoke room. On the weekend I visited, there was hardly space to stand. Smokers were camped out on the floor, like junkies in a heroin den.

Smoke-easies are also sprouting in Brooklyn and other parts of the city. Some Korean bars in Midtown seem to have given no thought to the ban.

These secret havens are a favorite topic among smokers exiled to the sidewalks from city bars. "Have you been to that spot on Ludlow Street?" "I heard there was a place downtown where police officers go." On the Internet, word of other places is starting to filter out on blogs.

Some smokers are creating their own smoke-easies.

On a recent Thursday night, I was at a nightclub near the Holland Tunnel for the opening-night party for a documentary film. A lone smoker lighted up the underground lounge with the strike of a single match. A group of strangers seated across from him broke into applause, soon followed by the flicker of lighters and the orange glow of burning cigarettes. By the end of the evening, the place was lit up like Christmas in May.

June 6, 2003
        Confusion Fills the Air as a Smoking Ban Ends
        By Elissa Gootman

GARDEN CITY, N.Y., June 5 — Three months ago, Nassau County became the first place in the region to ban smoking in all bars and restaurants. Today, on wooden tables and plastic countertops across the county, the ashtrays were back.

Their return inspired surprise, confusion, a few grumbles and, for smokers who had lost all hope, elation.

"Heaven," said Georgia H. Ellis, 52, whose pack of Benson & Hedges 100's rested beside her crispy chicken salad at Leo's, a restaurant and bar here. "I was dumbfounded, absolutely dumbfounded. It was a delight."

On Wednesday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the county from enforcing its ban, after finding that the county had created confusion by failing to repeal its previous, more lenient smoking rules when it passed the new law.

But the ruling, by Judge Denis R. Hurley of Federal District Court in Central Islip, seems to have created even more confusion, prompting dozens of telephone calls to the Nassau County Department of Health. To make matters more complicated, the county law itself will soon be largely moot. On July 24, a state smoking ban that is only slightly more lenient than the county's is scheduled to take effect, meaning that Nassau's smoking reprieve is likely to last a mere seven weeks.

That, Ms. Ellis had not heard. When told, her joy became outrage, then optimism.

"If they find a glitch in the law in Nassau, then they'll find a glitch in the state law," she said. Her lunch partner, Lori DiMaria, 33, who favors Virginia Slims, nodded.

That is a matter of debate. After the ruling, a leader of a coalition advocating smoking bans called it "a bump in the road." But what is clear is that bar owners, workers and customers are confounded.

"They want to know what happens now, that's the majority of the questions," said Cynthia D. Brown, a spokeswoman for the county health department. "The answer is now it goes back to the way things were three months ago."

And then, seven weeks later, back again. But for some smokers, even a brief reprieve was cause for celebration.

Thomas Matloob, 51, was at Leo's on Wednesday when a bartender started placing ashtrays in what had been, and is now once again, the smoking section. Mr. Matloob had to be reassured repeatedly that it was all right to use them.

"I didn't want to light up and get a ticket, for God's sake," he said.

Mr. Matloob returned today to Leo's, where he enjoyed a glass of chardonnay, some Marlboro 100's and the company of two colleagues.

Al Stevenson, a manager of the bar, acknowledged that it would be more work to allow smoking now, only to prohibit it again in July, when the state ban kicks in. But he said it would be worth the effort.

"Going back and forth could be a pain in the neck, but we'll make the best of it," he said. "I've got a lot of customers that smoke. I just want to keep them happy."

At the Empress Diner in East Meadow, an owner, Danny Panagatos, 41, greeted customers with words they had not heard there in months: "Smoking or non?"

The diner was a plaintiff in the lawsuit that prompted the judge's decision, so it was not surprising that today the ashtrays were back on tables in the smoking section, next to the pink silk flowers and ketchup bottles. Already, the room, which workers had scrubbed and sprayed with air freshener to remove the smoky scent, smelled like its old self.

For the first time since February, Dave Drebotick, 45, was able to savor one Marlboro Light before his omelet and coffee, and one afterward, all in the comfort of a booth.

Told he could once again smoke with his breakfast, Mr. Drebotick was taken aback. "I'm like, get out of here, really?" he said.

Mr. Drebotick disputed the notion that the brief reprieve would be too confusing. "Did it once, going to do it again," he said. "That's all."

June 5, 2003
        Citing Vagueness, Judge Blocks Nassau County Smoking Ban
        By Bruce Lambert

GARDEN CITY, N.Y., June 4 — A federal judge today temporarily blocked Nassau County from enforcing its three-month-old ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, a law that helped inspire similar rules in other suburbs, New York City and the rest of the state.

The ruling was the first in the region in the latest wave of smoking restrictions, but its effect, through a preliminary injunction, may be short-lived. A new statewide ban is scheduled to take effect on July 24. Its rules are similar to the Nassau statute, although it allows a few more exemptions.

Whether the Nassau case could be raised in a challenge to the state law is a matter of debate. Arthur J. Kremer, a lawyer for the bar and restaurant owners who brought suit against the Nassau ban, said today's ruling could pave the way to a statewide challenge.

But supporters of smoking bans disputed that claim, saying the issues in today's ruling were unique to Nassau. Will Stoner, a spokesman for the American Cancer Society and leader of a coalition advocating smoking bans, said, "This court case is frivolous, a bump in the road."

Some bar and restaurant owners in western New York have organized protests against the statewide ban, saying it will hurt their businesses. They are threatening to sue and demanding changes in the law to make it more palatable to them.

In today's order, Judge Denis R. Hurley of United States District Court in Central Islip focused on one issue in the Nassau legislation. He found that the County Legislature had created confusion by failing to repeal previous smoking rules, enacted in 1998, when it approved the new, stricter ban. Referring to sections in the two laws, Judge Hurley wrote, "Any person of ordinary intelligence reading both the prohibition and the exemption would be confused and justifiably so."

With contradictory provisions on the books, the judge said that the bar and restaurant owners had a strong case to have the new law struck down as unconstitutionally vague. They also made a plausible argument that they are losing money because of the ban, he said, so they are entitled to have it blocked until the whole case is decided.

"It's a good victory for the little guy," said Mr. Kremer, the lawyer who filed the suit for the bars and restaurants. "The owners have lost millions of dollars that they will never get back."

Nassau officials immediately announced that they would appeal the court ruling, a process expected to take months. The County Legislature's counsel, Sharon Commissiong, defended the ban, saying it implicitly superseded the old law.

The Legislature's presiding officer, Judith A. Jacobs, stressed that although the judge temporarily suspended enforcement of the law, he did not overturn it. Mr. Stoner, the advocate of smoking bans, said that no court in the nation had overturned such legislation.

Although Nassau officials could theoretically fix the legislation by formally repealing the old smoking rules, that may not be politically possible.

The new ban was adopted on a narrow party-line vote, with 10 Democrats in favor and 9 Republicans against. But after complaints from some bar and restaurant owners who say they are losing money, some Democratic legislators have expressed misgivings and indicated that they would not support the law if it came up for a new vote or that they would insist on changes.

"The majority no longer has a majority on this," said the Nassau Legislature's Republican minority leader, Peter J. Schmitt. Ms. Jacobs, the Democratic presiding officer, has declined to bring the issue up for another vote.

June 1, 2003
        Physicians' Group Seeks World Free Of Tobacco
        By Andrew Pollack

CHICAGO — The world's largest organization of cancer doctors began its annual meeting here today by calling for the eventual elimination of tobacco from the world.

The organization, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, called for the establishment of an independent commission to draft a blueprint to achieve a tobacco-free world. The commission would consist of representatives from the public and private sectors and would probably propose new regulations on tobacco and its contents, restrictions on cigarette advertising and measures to discourage exports of American tobacco products.

The society also recommended more immediate measures, like raising taxes on cigarettes and requiring disclosure of their ingredients.

"We're cancer doctors," Dr. Paul A. Bunn Jr., the president of the society, said in an interview. "We get frustrated seeing the devastation caused by tobacco products."

Dr. Bunn said the new statement on tobacco was somewhat stronger than those previously issued by his organization and other medical societies. He conceded, however, that the organization's previous statement on tobacco, which was issued in 1996 and called for measures to limit smoking, had little effect.

Dr. Bunn, director of the cancer center at the University of Colorado, also conceded that it was somewhat embarrassing that the organization was only now coming out with a strong antitobacco policy.

"That's our fault," he said. The society, which has 20,000 doctors as members, was initially concerned with cancer treatments but now realizes that cancer prevention is equally important, he said.

Some other antismoking organizations suggested that they would support the oncology society's recommendations. Dr. John R. Seffrin, chief executive of the American Cancer Society, said the new statement "reflects some of the best practices and best thinking" on how to reduce smoking. William V. Corr, executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said in a statement that the plan was compelling.

May 31, 2003
        Yet Another Smokers' Refuge Succumbs
        By Michael Brick

Smokers grow accustomed to fleeting pleasures. One of the choicest was visiting the Oak Bar at the Plaza, which managed to avoid the city's smoking ban that took effect on April 1. But now that too is gone.

The hotel had remained a refuge for smokers by asserting that it was preparing to apply for an exemption to the smoking ban. At first, a spokeswoman said, the hotel had planned to apply for an exemption as a tobacco bar, meaning one that derived more than 10 percent of its revenue from the sale of cigars. Failing that, it had considered applying for an exemption as a combination restaurant and bar, with proper ventilation and such.

Through April and most of May, the time for a routine inspection from the Health Department never came, and the assertion went unchallenged. Smoke filled the air.

Last Friday, prompted by a call from a newspaper columnist, health inspectors visited and wrote 12 citations, including one for the presence of ashtrays and one for the absence of "No Smoking" signs. No formal request for an exemption was ever filed. This week, according to both a spokeswoman for the hotel and a spokeswoman for the Health Department, the two sides agreed that no exemption would be applicable.

By yesterday afternoon the ashtrays were gone. A lone man at the bar sat talking baseball with the bartender. An elderly couple asked to be moved from their corner table. "It's blowing right on me," the woman said, speaking not of smoke, but of the air-conditioning.

May 26, 2003
        Smoke and Power
        By Bob Herbert

Psst! Want a cocktail and a smoke?

Try the Oak Bar at the venerable Plaza Hotel.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an antismoking zealot, has jacked up cigarette taxes so high that a pack can now cost $7 or more. And he has pushed through a law that bans smoking in nearly all the city's bars and restaurants.

It is now common to see nicotine-addicted men and women gathered on the sidewalk outside their favorite bar, puffing away. "We're constantly getting noise complaints for having people standing outside smoking at 2 in the morning," said Jim O'Brien, the bartender at the Roxy Bar in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn.

Roxy is a small neighborhood spot with mismatched tables and chairs and a pool table in the rear.

"The cops have come three or four times," said Mr. O'Brien.

It's a little different at the Oak Bar, which draws a well-heeled crowd that emits a joyful din in an atmosphere so clouded with cigar and cigarette smoke it can be difficult to see from one side of the room to the other. When you sit down at the bar, a small glass ashtray is placed in front of you immediately.

Smokers, like Lori Phifer, a travel manager with Sony Music, have embraced the Oak Bar with a sense of overwhelming gratitude. "I thank God for places like this," Ms. Phifer told my assistant, Johanna Jainchill, during an interview in the bar one evening last week.

But like a person who enjoys smoking but knows it's not good for you, there was a touch of guilt in Ms. Phifer's comments. She felt compelled to add, "I hate the fact that this is allowed because it's the Plaza and it's a wheeler and dealer kind of place."

Is that why you can smoke in the Oak Bar at the Plaza?

It sure looks like it.

Executives at the Plaza have given the back of their hands to the smoking ban. They say their customers have the right to keep lighting up while management decides whether to seek an exemption. So while less renowned establishments all over the city have shooed their smokers away and watched their business decline as a result, the Oak Bar is doing famously. Its business has improved by about 12 percent since the smoking ban took effect.

"It's clear that there are people who enjoy smoking who feel comfortable in the Oak Bar and patronize us for that reason," said Gary Schweikert, the managing director of the Plaza.

But what about the citywide ban on smoking?

Mr. Schweikert said the Oak Bar may qualify for an exemption based on its physical layout.

I said, "Can you explain what it is about the layout that makes it okay to smoke there?"

"Well, no," he said. "I can't, really."

I asked if a request for an exemption had been filed.

"No," he said. "Nothing formal has been filed."

Then how, I wanted to know, can the Oak Bar customers continue to smoke when patrons at other bars across the city cannot?

Mr. Schweikert tried to explain. He said bar owners, if they believe "in good faith" that they qualify for an exemption, can ignore the ban during the first six months, which he described as a grace period. "The grace period is a self-effectuating exemption," he said.

Got that? It reminded me of the comment attributed to Leona Helmsley: "Only the little people pay taxes."

I called the Health Department about the Oak Bar shenanigans, and officials were not amused. There is no such thing as a "self-effectuating" exemption. Health Department inspectors visited the Oak Bar over the weekend and issued notices of violation.

But last night, when I called the bartender and asked if you can still smoke in the Oak Bar, he said, "Yes, you can."

So the Plaza seems committed to flagrantly ignoring the law. While the "little people" from the Bronx to Staten Island are dealing with the inconvenience of the ban — not to mention the reduced business for bar owners and substantially reduced tips for bartenders and waiters — the power crowd in the Oak Bar continues to light up in grand style, and the owners are cashing in.

For the Oak Bar, the ban has actually been a boon. Perhaps this is another one of those laws that apply only to the little people.

May 23, 2003
        2 Bills Would Soften Smoking Ban Approved 2 Months Ago
        By Winnie Hu

ALBANY, May 22 — State legislators are considering two proposals that would weaken a new state smoking ban by allowing people to light up in bars and restaurants that build stand-alone smoking rooms, or are operated by their owners.

The proposals, which were introduced in separate Assembly and Senate bills on Wednesday, come less than two months after the Legislature enacted a tough antismoking law in nearly all workplaces.

These proposals reflect the mounting opposition to the new law among politicians, smokers, and bar and restaurant owners across the state.

The state ban, which goes into effect July 24, would apply to localities that either do not have antismoking laws, or that have less restrictive ones.

In New York City, it would strengthen the ban that went into effect on March 30 by eliminating exemptions for certain businesses.

The proposals, if approved, would amend the state law by essentially incorporating several of the city exemptions, and in some cases, expanding upon them.

For instance, the city ban allows bars and nightclubs to operate separately ventilated smoking rooms for up to three years, while the state ban does not.

The Assembly and Senate proposals would allow the smoking rooms to remain indefinitely in restaurants, as well as bars. The proposals would also restore a city exemption for establishments personally operated by their owners.

In addition, the Senate proposal would provide a tax incentive to those who build smoking rooms by allowing them to deduct the depreciation on such investments over a shorter period. For instance, a restaurant owner who spends $50,000 to create a smoking room would now reap a tax benefit of $320 a year over 39 years. Under the proposed change, the same owner would receive $4,166 a year over three years.

The proposals have drawn support so far from 26 Democratic Assembly members and 11 Republican senators from across the state, including several from New York City. Though many of these lawmakers initially voted for the smoking ban, they now say that it goes too far and will devastate local businesses.

"I did not realize the impact that it would have," said Senator Martin J. Golden of Brooklyn, who is sponsoring the Senate bill. The senator, who owns a catering hall in Bay Ridge, said he had already lost some of his business because customers can no longer smoke under the city ban.

His bill, he said, "is just an addition that allows those who want to smoke an option as well."

"The nonsmoker is not affected here," Mr. Golden said.

Assemblywoman RoAnn M. Destito, who represents the Utica area, said she had received two dozen complaints from local business owners, including one billiard hall owner who spent $66,000 to build a smoking room. She said that even with the proposed changes, the antismoking law would still protect employees from secondhand smoke.

"I believe that we are going a little too far when it comes to the bars and taverns and neighborhood establishments," she said. "This is a way, I believe, that we can maintain the integrity of the smoking ban and still have a compromise."

But several antismoking advocates pounced on the bills today, pledging to block any effort to weaken the smoking ban. "This is very bad," said Russell C. Sciandra, director of the Center for a Tobacco Free New York. "They're trying to gut the law that we just passed."

This week, hundreds of restaurant and bar owners, mainly from upstate New York, temporarily shut down their Quick Draw lottery terminals to protest the state smoking ban. State lottery officials said that Quick Draw ticket sales had dropped by $537,905 since Monday.

In addition, many restaurant and bar owners have lobbied state representatives and circulated petitions among patrons, and some have passed out buttons. One that reads "I vote, I smoke, it's my right" has been distributed at Nothin' Fancy, a restaurant in Vernon.

Abe Acee, the restaurant's owner, said, "If we want to smoke, we should be able to smoke."

May 22, 2003
        World Health Meeting Approves Treaty to Discourage Smoking
        By Alison Langley

GENEVA — The World Health Assembly today adopted the first treaty ever devoted entirely to health, one intended to discourage cigarette smoking and to reduce the estimated five million deaths it causes every year.

Health advocates said the next step would be to get the treaty ratified by nations throughout the world. While many countries, including those in the European Union and a number of African nations, said they would quickly sign the treaty, the United States and China — both large tobacco producers — made no immediate commitment.

The treaty, called the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, would ban advertising and sponsorship of television programs and entertainment by tobacco companies. It would impose a warning label that would cover 30 percent of the packaging on smoking products and require that all ingredients be listed on the packaging.

It also urges governments to enact strict indoor air laws, impose high taxes on tobacco and crack down on cigarette smuggling.

"We're thrilled," said Cassandra Welch, director of field advocacy for the American Lung Association. "This is an excellent first step. We have major work ahead of us to concentrate our efforts on ratification."

The 192 members of the World Health Organization adopted the tobacco treaty by voice vote, after the United States dropped its earlier objections. Today, Tommy G. Thompson, the United States secretary of health, reminded the assembly that America is a world leader in anti- smoking efforts. "Together," he said, "we can and will make the global threat of smoking a thing of the past."

Mr. Thompson refused to say whether the Bush administration would recommend approval of the treaty. "The United States is carefully reviewing the text of the convention that we adopted today," he said. "We and our outstanding partners worked hard on this treaty."

The adoption of the treaty was a triumph for the departing director general of the World Health Organization, Gro Harlem Brundtland, who worked for four years to focus attention on smoking as a public health threat. By 2020, the agency estimates, 10 million people will die annually from smoking-related causes, most of them from poor nations.

Dr. Brundtland emphasized in a news conference that today's vote was just a first step. "A convention on its own doesn't mean much unless the nations that are signatories push it forward," she said.

Dr. Brundtland said she was confident of gaining ratification from the minimum 40 nations needed to bring it into force. She added that it was especially important that the United States sign it quickly to send a message to the world.

"The U.S. is a big country and has a lot of influence," Dr. Brundtland said. "A U.S. ratification is important, not only for the people of the United States, but for everyone."

Before the treaty can take effect in the United States, Congress would have to pass new laws on tobacco use, some of which could be highly contentious. Specifically, Congress would need to ban tobacco advertising where such a prohibition would not conflict with the Constitution and require that warning labels cover at least 30 percent of the package.

Many of these issues had earlier led the United States to seek a way to opt out of certain provisions of the treaty. Its proposals were sharply criticized, however, leading the Bush administration to drop its objections.

May 19, 2003
        U.S. to Support World Tobacco-Control Treaty
        By Alison Langley

GENEVA — The United States has dropped its opposition to a global tobacco-control treaty and said today that it would vote for the pact at the World Health Organization's assembly this week.

Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, said here today that he would support the treaty, which is known as the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

"Much to the surprise of many around the world, I'm going to be supporting the tobacco treaty," Mr. Thompson told reporters on the eve of the health organization's annual assembly of health ministers from its 192 member nations.

To win final United States approval, the treaty would have to be signed by President Bush and ratified by Congress. Mr. Thompson said that Mr. Bush had expressed support for the treaty, but wanted to have it reviewed by lawyers.

Later he added, "The president is going to make the determination as to if and when he signs it."

If enacted, the convention would be the first international treaty devoted solely to health, according Dr. Derek Yach, executive director of noncommunicable diseases at the World Health Organization.

Among other things, it bans advertising of tobacco products in countries where such prohibitions are constitutional, requires that all ingredients be listed on packaging, imposes broad legal liability for manufacturers and strongly encourages high taxes on tobacco.

The Bush administration has been on record as opposing the treaty as it was written.

When treaty negotiations concluded on March 1, the ranking member of the American delegation, David Hohmann, told a plenary session of negotiators that the United States had reservations about a number of clauses and that it would explore having the treaty changed.

At the end of April, the United States sent a letter to health ministries around the world asking for a change that would allow countries to opt out of any provisions of the treaty with which they disagreed.

The letter was criticized not only by some members of Congress, but by other governments. Only two other countries, the Dominican Republic and Germany, publicly expressed reservations about the treaty, and Germany has since said it will support the pact.

Governments in favor of the convention complained that, after four years of negotiations, the United States was trying to take the teeth out of the treaty.

Mr. Thompson said today, however, that the United States would not seek any changes and that it would vote for the treaty on Wednesday.

"I'm not going to make any changes, no reservations," he said. "Our delegation here, headed by me, is in support of the tobacco treaty."

When asked to explain the shift in the position, Mr. Thompson said, "Someday I will tell you."

He described the April letter as an inquiry to some countries that had constitutional and statutory problems associated with the treaty.

The convention on tobacco control is expected to be approved by the World Health Organization's health assembly on Wednesday. Once adopted, it will be open for signing starting on June 16 and ready for ratification by member states.

Forty countries must ratify it before it takes effect.

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. . . .

May 10, 2003
        New York Sniffs Out Smoke in 2 Bars, Lofty and Less So
        By Alan Feuer

With great fanfare this month, New York City set out to hunt violators of its new indoor smoking ban. So far, only two establishments have been bagged.

The first is the august Hotel Pierre. The second is Señor Swanky's.

At the Pierre, a Fifth Avenue institution, the rich and well-born swirl martinis at the cocktail hour.

At Señor Swanky's, a Columbus Avenue burrito joint, the regulars swill frozen margaritas at the salsa-stained bar.

This is the democracy of the cigarette.

May 1, 2003
        U.S. Wants to Reopen Talks on Global Anti-Tobacco Pact
        By Alison Langley

ZURICH, April 30 — The United States asked officials from 191 countries this week to reopen negotiations on a treaty meant to control the sale and use of tobacco and scheduled to be adopted a month from now at the World Health Assembly in Geneva.

American negotiators said they could not accept the treaty as long as it included a "no-reservations" clause, which would prevent countries from disregarding any provisions they found unacceptable.

In a letter delivered Monday to the director general of the World Health Organization, Gro Harlem Brundtland, United States negotiators said that they supported a strong treaty but that they could not adopt it as written because certain provisions would override state laws.

An assistant to the Brazilian ambassador, who presided over the four-year negotiations that led to the pact, said his embassy opposed reopening negotiations and did not want to allow nations to pick and choose which parts of the convention they would ratify. Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, agreed, saying that a provision allowing countries to withdraw from parts of the convention would be "a poison pill that would kill the whole treaty."

In the paper, Washington said it intended to sign the convention and press for its ratification, but that its ability to do so was undermined by the current prohibition on allowing nations to make reservations. Specifically, a United States official said there were three provisions that Washington could not commit to: setting minimum sizes on warning labels; prohibiting the free distribution of cigarettes; and defining what constitutes an advertisement, which could violate the First Amendment.

April 30, 2003
        Stiff Fines Accompany City's Smoking Ban
           By Michael Brick

For smokers, and the New York City bars that still harbor them in defiance of the law, the night of reckoning has arrived. Stiff new fines go into effect at midnight.

Since the smoking ban started in early March, city officials said yesterday, they have issued 71 violation notices — essentially toothless warnings — to owners of bars and restaurants for failing to enforce it. And the City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene has also received 331 complaints about places that still allow smoking. Most of the complaints have been against restaurants and bars, but some have been against places like nursing homes and bingo parlors, said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city health commissioner, in an interview yesterday.

So far, checks for compliance have mostly been conducted as part of regular annual inspections. The department has performed about 3,000 of those since the Smoke-Free Air Act took effect, officials said.

But now it is time for the second phase: repeated, unannounced visits to establishments with violations or complaints. The repeated inspections will take place within a month to six weeks of a first violation, said Elliott Marcus, an assistant commissioner.

"The places that have had complaints, absolutely we will prioritize," Dr. Frieden said, adding, "We do anticipate that there will be even greater compliance once the fines go into effect."

The penalty for a first violation is $200 to $400, for a second, $500 to $1,000, and for a third, $1,000 to $2,000. On the third violation within a year, the owner's license to do business can be revoked. By comparison, violations for rats in the kitchen also range from $200 to $2,000 in fines. And while repeat offenders for other health violations generally receive higher fines, the amount is at the discretion of inspectors and an administrative tribunal.

April 27, 2003
        A Lot of People Love This Dirty City
        By Jesse McKinley

Three weeks ago at a club half a block from the smoke-free environs of City Hall, Jesse Hartman, an Eddie Izzard look-alike and the frontman of the downtown band Laptop, was wailing through the group's new single, "Ratso Rizzo."

"Every hangout I had, had become a boutique, and every local bar turned to one with a theme," Mr. Hartman sang. "But thanks to a deep recession, there's no more gentrification. You're back, Ratso Rizzo. I'm glad you're back."

The crowd, made up of employed and semiemployed 20- and 30-somethings, went wild. That may well be because the song, which pays homage to the pathetic indigent played by Dustin Hoffman in the 1969 movie "Midnight Cowboy," illustrates the silent glee felt by a certain clique of New Yorkers who are happy that, despite all the attempts to burnish the city into a shiny tourist attraction, some of its traditional grime and grit seem to be returning.

It's an attitude — calling it a movement would be a stretch — that combines equal parts yuppie-go-home schadenfreude and a new middle-class sedition, a sense of rebellion that may best be typified by the surprisingly widespread defiance of the recent smoking ban.

In fact, if behavior in a variety of Lower Manhattan bars over the last month is indicative, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg may have unwittingly unleashed the long-dormant bad boy and bad girl in thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens, creating a new petit criminal class that smokes furtively in bathrooms, the backs of bars and under tables.

April 19, 2003
        On the Day of Bouncer's Funeral, a Martial Arts Student Is Charged
        By Shaila K. Dewan

The killing was strange from the start, and has gotten only stranger. A bouncer stabbed to death, some said, because of the
city's new ban on smoking in bars. A missing weapon. Three siblings arrested, then released, then revealed to be the
children of a Chinatown gangster.

And yesterday, a new suspect, whom the police described as a suicidal young Filipino-American trained in a vicious Filipino
martial art in which even beginners learn lethal knife thrusts.

The suspect, Isaias P. Umali II, was arraigned yesterday on charges of killing the bouncer, Dana Blake, with a single stab wound early Sunday morning at a downtown nightclub after a fight broke out over a burning cigarette.

Mr. Umali tried to commit suicide on Monday after learning that Mr. Blake had died, said George F. Brown, the chief of
detectives.

April 14, 2003
        Death Does Not Surprise Bartenders and Patrons
        By Corey Kilgannon

Enforcing New York's new anti-smoking law has led to friction between the staff and customers of some bars and clubs in the city, several workers and patrons said last night. Most said they were not surprised that a bouncer at an East Village bar had been killed the night before in a fight that, witnesses told the police, started after he told two brothers they were not allowed to
smoke inside.

"Of course the smoking ban has the potential for violence," said Blake Webster, a manager at Tortilla Flats, a Mexican restaurant at Washington and West 12th Streets in the West Village. "It's another thing you have to tell extremely inebriated people to do."

More problematic, he added, was babysitting sidewalk smokers outside so that they do not become a neighborhood nuisance. "You keep telling people to keep it down, of course they're going to get mad at you," Mr. Webster said. "You ask them to move down the block a bit and they run out on the check."

James Bradley, 35 a bartender at the Horseshoe Bar, on Avenue B and Seventh Street, said that the outdoor smoke break has upset traditional tavern territoriality.

"The problem is when the smokers come back in after a cigarette and say `Where's my beer?' or `This was my seat.' Then you have the potential for altercations."

A bouncer at Red Rock West Saloon, who is known to patrons as Johnnie Wacko, spoke of an ongoing battle between bar workers and patrons since the ban went into effect on March 30. Red Rock, at 10th Avenue and 17th Street, attracts a lot of motorcyclists who, the bouncer said, do not like to be told to do, or not do, much of anything. For example, he said, many patrons have perfected the art of covert smoking by cupping the cigarette and keeping it in their jacket pockets between puffs.

The constant nagging and reminders annoy both customers and bar employees, said Allie Stone, a bartender at Manitoba's, on Avenue B near Seventh Street.

"Most regulars blame the city, not the bar," said Erica Gloger, 26, who was drinking beer at Meow Mix, a bar on East Houston Street. But weekends tend to bring more strangers, more drunkenness, and more altercations.

April 14, 2003
         Bouncer Dies; Family Blames Smoking Ban
         By Shaila K. Dewan

A bouncer at a bar on Manhattan's Lower East Side was fatally stabbed early yesterday during a fight that broke out after he asked two patrons to put out their cigarettes, the police said.

The bouncer's brother blamed a ban on smoking in restaurants and bars that went into effect two weeks ago for the death, calling his brother, Dana Blake, ''the first casualty'' of New York City's new law.

April 10, 2003
        A Bar Steeped in the Past, and Still Cured in Smoke
        By Michael Brick

At the end of the rug-draped hall, past the gold and glass baubles, there is the Oak Room, that musty, dark, clubby place where leather chairs with big gold buttons stand beneath elegant bas-relief. Among the newest observable inventions is a television. Baseball is on.

And the air is thick with smoke, as it has been for decades.

This room induces nostalgia in many ways. Most glaringly, it is a throwback to just two weeks ago, when people could smoke cigarettes in bars in New York. Here at the Oak Room in the Plaza Hotel, they still can, and they have come here because they can, though they do not know why they can.

To the question of whether this is open defiance of the law, the answer is no, according to an Oak Room manager who refused to give his name. He says the bar is allowed to permit smoking under the municipal Smoke-Free Air Act while it applies for a permanent exemption.

According to Sandra Mullin, a spokeswoman for the City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, bars have until Sept. 26 to apply for one of several kinds of exemptions, including one for cigar bars. (The city law calls them tobacco bars.)

The Oak Room makes little effort to explain or widely publicize the fact that cigarette smoking is allowed.

Scott Bussy said, "I hate the secondhand smoke, but what I hate more is that somebody thinks they're going to legislate this out of the building."

Mr. Ennico repeated, "It's the ambience."

Back to the details of the new law. Ms. Mullin said the Oak Room — and other places applying for exemptions from the smoking ban — would have to demonstrate that it has been in existence since before Dec. 31, 2001. (That part should be easy. The management could probably just submit videotapes of the films "The Way We Were," "Network" and "North by Northwest." They could probably just go ahead and forget about "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York.") It will also have to show that it derives at least 10 percent of revenue from selling cigars.

"They can allow smoking if they in good faith believe that they are going to qualify," Ms. Mullin said. If inspectors visit the place in the meantime and determine that it clearly will not qualify, she added, a notice of violation will be issued.

A state law banning indoor smoking, while more restrictive in many ways, places no additional burden on those hoping to qualify for exemptions as cigar bars.

The menu on the tables at the Oak Room might make a good exhibit to present to the arbiters of what is and is not a cigar bar at the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, if just to demonstrate the good faith part. It says: "The Oak Bar has a long tradition as a haven for cigar smokers. The Oak Bar not only allows cigar smoking, we downright encourage it."

There is a lot more smoking of cigarettes, though, which are not sold here, and that does little to help make the case that this is a cigar sales establishment.

Still, the cigarette smokers are glad for the haven.

"We've both got the book upstairs on how to quit smoking," said Ben O'Donoghue, a Dubliner on his honeymoon with Rachel O'Donoghue. "But we were, like, `Wow, finally, a bar you can smoke in.' "

"The Plaza seems like the place where you do what you please."

April 5, 2003
        When Banned Smoke Heads Outdoors, Pedestrians Say They See New Threat
        By Shaila K. Dewan

Now that the cigarettes are, in theory, banished from the great indoors, the foodies can freely sniff the aroma of their truffled
entrees. The air in the taverns is at least as clear as the air on a subway platform.

But out in the park, it is awfully hard to breathe. Walking down the sidewalk can seem dangerously precancerous. Gardens and
enclosed patios are suddenly, just on the brink of balmy weather, impossible settings for the pure of lung. And it seems
reasonable to ask if pregnant women will soon be seeking refuge in bars.

The little knots of smokers who have been huddled near the doors of office buildings for years have sprouted, as predicted, in
front of the city's bars and restaurants. But the problem is not the noise, which was so direly predicted before Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's smoking ban took effect early this week. It is the smoke.

Workplace hazard? Think of the doormen, bouncers and valet parkers, not to mention the gardeners. Think of the man outside
Guernica on Avenue B on Thursday night, next to the velvet rope. (Velvet really absorbs that tobacco odor.) He had just quit
smoking, but thick plumes danced, temptingly, around him. Give this man, who lives in the Bronx and said his name is St. Eyes, a nicotine patch. His resolve is being tested.

Over in Greenwich Village, Jean West, 46, came out of the Blue Note marveling at how fresh her clothing still smelled and giving active consideration to the potential health benefits of the ban. But, invoking every New Yorker's right to a whole menagerie of pet peeves, she quickly shifted to disgust.

"On the other hand," she said, "the streets are definitely starting to stink more. I feel like I'm always ducking the cloud, you
know?"

Ms. West, a stagehand, held her nose and staggered around an imaginary cloud of tobacco smoke. "And if you want to go into a bar now, you have to walk through a pile of old butts," she said.

To some, it seems as if the city's ashtrays have been taken outside and collectively dumped in the streets, lending them the
perpetual appearance of a shag carpet the day after the party.

"If you're inside the club, you ash in an ashtray," Joel Santiago, 32, complained to his friend Julani Benjamin, 24, outside the
West End Bar on 113th Street and Broadway. "But now smokers are outside, and they just ash all over the place. I mean, stale
butts, you know how bad that smells?"

There are places where alfresco smokers may as well be indoors. Like the recessed entrance to 11 West 42nd Street, where
Simon Rosen, who often passes through the building on his way to work at the New York Public Library, runs the tobacco
gantlet.

"Anytime you have a bunch of them with the smoke wafting, it's very unpleasant," said Mr. Rosen, who added that he was
particularly sensitive to tobacco smoke. Then he said, "My eyes are starting to burn," and departed.

Forest fires are not the only hazard of outdoor smoking, as Anne Mullen, an ad producer, is quick to point out. Ms. Mullen, who has a baby daughter named Charlotte, said she had found herself paying extra attention to sidewalk smokers who flicked butts into the street, often at just the height of a baby stroller. If she is wheeling her daughter past a group of smokers, she is likely to go just a bit faster to minimize the exposure, she said.

Danielle Ferrari, 24, also had stroller issues. She pushed her daughter, fast asleep under a woolly pink blanket, past the Eden
Bar on the Upper West Side. "When it's 10 people out on the sidewalk, and everybody's smoking, that's a whole lot of smoke
you're talking about," Ms. Ferrari pointed out.

Other stroller-pushers took a resigned approach. "There's so much pollution already that a cigarette probably doesn't make it
any worse," said Maria Gonzalez, chauffeuring her 3-year-old through Midtown.

Some restaurants and bars have taken a firm stance. "We don't allow them to smoke right in front of the establishment," said
Robert Paulling, 35, a bouncer at the West End. "They can go to the corner, or down the street, just not in front of the bar. We
figure, if customers have to walk through a cloud of smoke to get into the bar, what's the point of having a smoke-free bar now?"

Those who opposed the smoking ban in the first place were quick to criticize its effect on the great outdoors. "This law is going
to make the city dirtier than it's ever been," warned Juliette Miller, a hostess at Gage & Tollner in the Fulton Mall in Brooklyn.
"Wait till it's 90 degrees outside; we're all going to suffocate."

April 4, 2003
        Behind New York's Smoking Ban, the Tenacity of Two Legislators
        By Winnie Hu

When Assemblyman Alexander B. Grannis proposed his first antismoking bill a quarter-century ago, many of the lawmakers here laughed it off. Some blew smoke in his face, literally.

But now Mr. Grannis is the one smiling, after the Legislature enacted landmark legislation last week that bans smoking in nearly
all workplaces, including restaurants and bars, in the state. Gov. George E. Pataki immediately signed the bill, allowing it to take
effect in late July.

While many state leaders and antismoking groups have taken credit for the new smoking ban, Albany insiders say that it was the perseverance of two men that made it all possible. One is Mr. Grannis, 61, a veteran liberal Democrat from Manhattan who has crusaded for years against smoking. The other is Senator Charles J. Fuschillo Jr., 42, an ambitious newcomer who once ran a social services agency before becoming part of Long Island's powerful Republican Senate delegation.

Between them, they managed to revive an antismoking campaign that had died in the Legislature last year. More important, they
secured the backing of influential legislative leaders despite stiff opposition from some Republicans and an intense lobbying
campaign by the restaurant, liquor and tobacco industries. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was listed prominently as a
sponsor, and the Senate majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno, publicly pledged to support it.

Not content with banning smoking in the workplace, Mr. Grannis has already set his sights on his next target: smoking at public
beaches and parks — "to protect those areas from being used as public ashtrays."

"We still have a ways to go," Mr. Grannis said. "There are a lot of people who are still smoking, and I think we have to find ways to help them — if they want to — to break the habit."

April 4, 2003
        Too Costly an Appeal
        Editorial

When it comes to civil lawsuits, tobacco companies are high on the list of disliked defendants. That makes it even more important that judges be vigilant in making sure that cigarette makers, like other unpopular parties, are given the full
protection of constitutional due process. Mindful of that, an Illinois trial court acted wrongly when it required Philip Morris to
post a $12 billion bond before it could appeal an adverse judgment.

On March 21, Judge Nicholas Byron of Madison County, Ill., found Philip Morris, now a subsidiary of the virtuous-sounding
Altria, liable in a class-action lawsuit. The plaintiffs, more than a million smokers, convinced the judge that despite federally
mandated warnings, they had been fraudulently misled by Philip Morris into believing that light and low-tar cigarettes were less
harmful. The judge awarded them $7.1 billion in damages, their lawyers $1.78 billion and Illinois $3 billion. He then set the
appeal bond required at the total liability, plus interest.

Whatever the merits of the underlying decision, it is absurd to require someone — even a cigarette manufacturer — to put up
$12 billion to file an appeal. That is the kind of ruling that erodes the credibility of our legal system.

Even if Philip Morris fails to overturn the judge's ruling on appeal, it stands a good chance of getting those damages reduced. Yet in making an appeal so prohibitively costly — the company claims that it would have to file for bankruptcy to post it — Judge Byron renders the right to an appeal nearly meaningless, thus violating the defendant's due process rights. The plaintiffs may hope that the situation forces Philip Morris to settle now, but such pressure would be akin to extortion.

Things get even stranger, as they usually do when tobacco is involved. It turns out that this unpopular defendant does have some powerful allies, if not exactly friends: most of the states that have successfully sued the industry and obtained a $246 billion settlement. Many state governments, strapped for cash, have borrowed against those expected payments. Judge Byron has managed to underscore the degree to which states have become hooked on tobacco, and their paradoxical interest in seeing cigarette makers like Philip Morris continue to prosper. Its bankruptcy would imperil the ability of states to continue plugging their budget gaps with settlement revenues. California has already had to put off a mid-April $2.3 billion bond offering backed by its share of the tobacco settlement.

Many states will now be filing legal briefs and lobbying Illinois officials on Philip Morris's behalf. Still, the terms of the appeal
bond should not be struck down to ameliorate states' fiscal crises, but rather to uphold principles of due process.

April 2, 2003
        On a Clear Day I Can Eat Forever
        By William Grimes

WHEN the last cigarette was stubbed out in New York restaurants this week, diners achieved a historic victory. No longer would a rolling cloud of Merit Light smoke obscure the view and the taste of a pristine slice of sashimi. Forevermore, smoke flavor would be in the food, put there by the chef, and not on it, straight from the lungs of the guy at the next table.

So why don't I feel better about the new smoke-free era? As a diner, critic and epicure, I applaud the new antismoking law. I loathe cigarette smoke, in the same way that classical concertgoers loathe the sound of coughing and real soccer fans loathe hooligans. Smoking is the enemy of food. It distorts or disguises flavors. It dulls the taste buds. It has no place in a restaurant.

Yet a primitive voice deep inside me wants to yell no. As a former smoker, I recall the deep, inexplicable pleasure of lighting up a cigarette after a meal and slowly enjoying a cup of coffee. Needless to say, I did not care that my pleasure caused others pain. I was like the driver of a Lincoln Navigator with eyeball-searing headlights. My cigarette made me happy. It provided solace. It soothed my nerves. It promoted deep thinking. I was also expert at blowing smoke rings, one inside another, so when I wasn't theorizing, I was perfecting an arcane craft.

Smokers enjoy smoking. It's even legal. But gradually that pleasure, admittedly pernicious, is being taken away. By temperament and by profession, I am aligned with the pleasure seekers. Therefore I find the no-smoking crusade disturbing, even though it works to my benefit. What's next? Cakes and ale?

There are all sorts of dining dangers that could also be regulated. Persistent loud noise can damage the eardrums. Many Manhattan restaurants are fearsomely, and intentionally, loud. Let's get the State Legislature to crack down on noise pollution. Send inspectors with noise meters and hand out fines.

And then there's fat. Imagine the public benefit in requiring restaurants to provide full nutritional information next to every dish on the menu. Even better, waiters could be required to issue health warnings to any diner foolish enough to order a steak with
béarnaise sauce. Clearly we would all be healthier and happier under such a policy.

Smoking is a special case, of course. Nonsmokers, in a smoke-filled room, become smokers themselves, against their will. They are held hostage. But it seemed as though the city's restaurant culture had achieved a happy, civilized medium with the introduction of smoking and nonsmoking sections.

Everyone had a choice (except for the waiters who served the smoking section), and, in the end, a veto. Diners who found a
particular restaurant too smoky could go elsewhere. Smokers, who also have a vote, could go to the restaurants that accommodated them.
 
 
 
 

1996 Thru 1999 Archives | 2000 Archives | 2001 Archives | 2002 Archives |
2004 Archives | 2005 Archives | 2006 Archives | 2007 News | Top

June 29, 2003
        WRITER'S SMOKIN' MAD AT LAW
        Liz Smith

'FRESH air and innocence are good if you don't take too much of them - but I always remember that most of the achievements and pleasures of life are in bad air," said Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

This is the quote Lewis Lapham leads off with in his Harper's magazine "Notebook," wherein he attacks Mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-smoking ordinance. It will delight the likes of Fran Lebowitz, Graydon Carter and many others, and perhaps become a rallying point for repeal of the current law.

Here are a few of Lapham's points: "It's no good trying to explain . . . that exposure to secondhand smoke is likely to do as much harm as handling a lead pencil or close association with a side order of mashed potatoes. Despite the repeated attempts to classify secondhand smoke as a weapon of mass destruction, nobody has yet identified it as a cause of death."

Lapham, one of the best and the brightest, goes on to expound on subliminal class warfare in New York, stupid examples of political correctness, the constitutional questions surrounding "sumptuary laws," and the manner in which he says the mayor "heartlessly apes the imperial manner of the Bush administration."

I don't smoke myself and detest it. Too many friends and relatives have died of it. But this is the best of the jeremiads against this controversial law.

June 29, 2003
        WEB SELLERS BURN TAX-DODGE PUFFERS
        By Al Guart

New Yorkers dodging heavy taxes on cigarettes by buying from Native American sellers on the Internet could be hearing soon from the taxman.

Under a settlement in the federal appeals court, the Ojibwa Trading Post, a popular online cigarette vendor based in upstate New York, has agreed to report its sales and hand over customer names to authorities every two weeks, effective immediately.

The reporting is required under the federal Jenkins Act.

"Our client complies with all the laws," said Joel Daniels, a lawyer for Ojibwa, located on a Seneca reservation in upstate Irving.

It is currently not known how many customers Ojibwa Trading Post has in New York, but the Seneca reservation is thought to be the largest distributor of online cigarettes in the state.

Agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms seized 3.5 million of Ojibwa's cigarettes from an upstate warehouse last April on grounds they were untaxed and destined for sale over the Internet.

In the first federal case pitting the state against a tribal Web retailer, Ojibwa sued on various grounds to regain their seized cigarettes, including claims that the raid was made within a sovereign Native American nation.

A settlement was negotiated last week after a federal appeals court shot down many of the legal claims being made by Ojibwa, sources said.

"Supposedly, they are now going to report sales to tax authorities," said ATF counsel Jeffrey Cohen. "We'll see if they follow up in compliance with the law."

Customers who buy online from the Double D smoke shop, another Seneca retailer, also might have reason to be anxious.

Last March 11, ATF agents raided the Double D headquarters and impounded computers.

Probers are examining files within the computers to determine Double D's business volume. They are expecting to also find client names, sources said.

"If we come up with names of clients, they could be turned over to state tax authorities," said ATF spokesman Joseph Green.

In a further action aimed at stemming the sales of untaxed cigarettes, the state is poised to enforce a new law imposing fines and jail time on commercial shippers who deliver untaxed smokes.

The aggressive tactics may be paying off.

On Web pages and in other advertising, some Internet sellers have removed their boast of not reporting sales to authorities. Other retailers are no longer shipping to New York, and the Seneca tribe has challenged the state ban on Internet sales in federal court.

The city and state report increased revenues from cigarette sales despite whopping price hikes last year.

The city collected $138.5 million from cigarette sales between July 1, 2002, and last May 30, a 456 percent jump from the previous fiscal year. The state pulled in $90 million.

June 29, 2003
        COMMISH PACKS A BIG PUNCH
        By Al Guart

City Finance Commissioner Martha Stark was fuming mad when a man tried to sell her a $5 pack of untaxed Newports on Park Avenue last month.

Stark called in city sheriffs to confront the man.

Carlos Tolentino, 23, of The Bronx, was found to be in possession of two cartons of untaxed cigarettes, the sheriff's office said. He was given a summons and his booty joined more than 7,000 cartons and 13,000 packs impounded in an evidence room in Brooklyn.

The smokes will be sold at auction to manufacturers, starting at $10 a carton.

June 25, 2003
        FUMING BAR OWNERS' ANGRY KICK LINE
        By Frankie Edozien

Bar owners yesterday used a public hearing on the city's cabaret laws - which regulate dancing - to sound off on the smoking ban, which they charge is forcing tipsy patrons into the streets to puff away. David Rabin, co-owner of Meatpacking District hot spot Lotus, said the smoking ban has been a quality-of-life damper.

"The smoking law is going to prove the single most damaging issue for night life," he said at the hearing at New York Law School.

"Now we have exactly what we've predicted, the streets filled with smokers - with nowhere to turn."

The original purpose of the hearing was to let New Yorkers sound off about the cabaret laws, which ban dancing unless the establishment has a special license.

June 20, 2003
        PROHIBITION'S PROFITEERS
        Editorial

Prohibition's return comes a few steps closer in New York. A law banning Internet sales of cigarettes to New York residents went into effect this week.

The bill purports to protect state residents from themselves - especially "the children," on whose behalf no end of mischief is achieved each legislative session.

But it's really about money.

New York's budget is in no small way balanced upon the backs of the nicotine-habituated - and Internet sales have been putting a big dent into the take.

Now the buttleggers can be expected to ramp up operations.

Cigarette smuggling, for example, has long been an organized-crime staple. Now there's growing evidence that it has become a lucrative business for terrorist organizations.

Last month, the U.S. Attorney's office in Alexandria, Va., charged 10 people with smuggling.

They have been connected with a Detroit man arrested with several hundred thousand dollars in wire-transfer receipts directed to people and groups associated with the Lebanon-based Hezbollah.

Similarly, a Charlotte, N.C., case of cigarette smuggling involves another 10 people associated with Hezbollah; eight pled guilty to smuggling and two others were convicted at trial.

A May 23 Washington Post story notes that New York's law enforcement was already concerned about a butt-smuggling epidemic:

"The [Virginia] investigation began with a phone call last year to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from investigators with the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance. New York officials were concerned that a rise in that state's cigarette taxes would trigger a surge in smuggling."

That's simple cause and effect.

The further Michael Bloomberg, the state Senate's Joe Bruno and the rest of the New Prohibitionists continue on this path, the more attractive cigarettes will be on the black market.

And the more Hezbollah will profit.

June 19, 2003
        Pataki: Ash Fray Has Come To A Close
        By Kenneth Lovett

ALBANY - Gov. Pataki yesterday declared efforts to ease the soon-to-take-effect statewide smoking ban all but dead. "I think it's unlikely at this time," Pataki said as state lawmakers worked to conclude the legislative session.

Since signing the ban into law, Pataki has held out hope for the possibility the state Legislature would amend it to help businesses who fear they will be hurt by the ban.

But while the restaurant and tavern industry has pushed for an amendment allowing for separately ventilated smoking areas, leaders in both houses have shown little interest in revisiting the issue before today's scheduled end of the session. "It gives us hope, but we remain on guard," said Russell Sciandra of the Center for a Tobacco Free New York. "This is Albany. You have to watch out for the last-minute stuff."

The statewide ban goes into effect July 24 and will bar smoking in most indoor public places.

Lobbyists on both sides of the issue said yesterday they're unaware of any push to change the law.

Scott Wexler, executive director of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association, said the best hopes for opponents of the ban is a lawsuit that is being prepared.

Meanwhile, bar owners were sticking to their protest of the smoking ban by continuing to turn off their Quick Draw lottery machines. On Tuesday - the second day of the latest round of protests - Quick Draw sales were down $163,732 from the average Tuesday, according to Carolyn Hapeman of the state Lottery Division

June 18, 2003
        QUICK DRAW LOTTERY $MOKED
        By Kenneth Lovett

ALBANY - Quick Draw sales throughout the state plummeted Monday by 14.5 percent as nearly 250 bars owners began a second round of protests over the looming statewide smoking ban.

The state Lottery Division yesterday reported $1.10 million in Quick Draw sales on Monday, down $185,473 from the average Monday.

While the number of bars participating in the ban dropped somewhat from the first protests last month, the overall dip in sales was the second highest since they began.

"It's significant," said Scott Wexler, of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association. "It just shows there continues to be widespread concern about the economic effects of the ban."

Bar owners are fighting an uphill battle to get the state Legislature to amend the smoking ban, which goes into effect July 24, to allow for separately ventilated smoking areas before ending the legislative session this week.

"They're cutting off their nose to spite their face," said anti-smoking activist Russell Sciandra of the bar owners' protest.

But while bar owners held firm in their protest, it appears that a call by pro-smoking groups for smokers to avoid all lottery games this week in protest of the coming ban went up in flames.

Overall sales in non-Quick Draw lottery games actually jumped 10 percent thanks in large part to huge Mega Millions and Lotto pots, said Lottery spokeswoman Carolyn Hapeman.

With a jackpot of $115 million on Monday, Mega Millions sales jumped 239 percent over the average Monday, Hapeman said.

Lotto boasted a jackpot of $32 million and saw its sales rise 37 percent over the average Monday.

"All I can say is that the jackpots are high, and people are responding," Hapeman said.

Audrey Silk, the founder of New York City Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment who called for the lottery protest, expressed disappointment.

"You can't fight greed," Silk sighed. "We live in a very me society."

June 14, 2003
        LOTTERY TARGETED IN LATEST ASH FRAY
        By Kenneth Lovett

ALBANY - Pro-smoking groups are urging a boycott of the state lottery next week to coincide with another planned shutdown of Quick Draw machines by angry bar owners upset with a coming statewide smoking ban.

"The state's just not getting the message that nobody is happy with this," said Audrey Silk, founder of the New York City Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment.

"The only thing that the politicians seem to understand is votes and state finances, and we're going to get them both ways," added Silk, who is publicizing the protest on her group's Web site this weekend.

Silk and Wayne Phillips, of the fledgling upstate Smoker's Coalition, hope smokers will not only avoid Quick Draw, but also Mega Millions, Lotto, scratch-off games and any other state-sanctioned gambling.

"I certainly feel we've uncovered their Achilles heel, and that's the place to attack," Phillips said.

In a protest of the soon-to-take-effect state smoking ban last month, several hundred bars turned off their Quick Draw machines for up to a week - costing the state nearly $700,000 in revenue.

Beginning July 24, the state law will ban indoor smoking in most public places across the state.

Angry bar owners and smokers have called for lawmakers to amend the smoking ban to allow bars and other establishments to provide separately ventilated smoking areas.

But a top legislative aid said yesterday a change in the law is not likely before the state Legislature ends its session on Thursday.

"It's not something where there appears there will be a three-way agreement," the aide said, referring to Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Majority Leader Joe Bruno and Gov. Pataki.

Bar owners are gearing up for a second Quick Draw protest beginning Monday through Friday.

Supporters of the state law note that polls have shown that nearly 80 percent of the adults in New York don't smoke.

"You have more support for this law than anything the Legislature has done," said Blair Horner of the New York Public Interest Research Group.

As for the lottery protest, Horner sarcastically asked, "So it will be a sin-free week?"

According to lottery spokeswoman Carolyn Hapeman, the state takes in $112 million a week for all games, including $10.2 million for Quick Draw and $52 million in instant scratch-offs.

Hapeman wouldn't estimate how much the state could lose next week if smokers follow through with the boycott, saying simply that "any loss is a loss."

June 10, 2003
        BARS PLAN TO DRAW OUT SMOKE-BAN PROTEST
        By Kenneth Lovett

ALBANY - Upset at the coming statewide smoking ban, restaurant and bar owners from across the state are planning another Quick Draw blackout for next week, The Post has learned.

Last month, hundreds of bar owners turned off their Quick Draw machines for as long as a week in protest of the smoking ban, costing the state nearly $700,000 in lost revenues.

A second round of protests is planned for Monday through Friday of next week - which, not coincidentally, is the scheduled last week of the legislative session, said Scott Wexler, of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association. The restaurant and tavern industry is pushing for lawmakers to revisit the smoking ban before they finish their business.

The ban, which takes effect July 24, prohibits indoor smoking in almost all public places.

Bar owners would like to see the law changed to allow for separately ventilated smoking areas.

Anti-smoking groups criticized the ploy, scoffing that the protest will hurt the bar owners as well as the state.

"We'll see if their strategy of extortion works," said Blair Horner, of the New York Public Interest Research Group.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver reiterated yesterday that he is not in favor of substantially altering the law.

He said he would support allowing those businesses that have already spent money to comply with local anti-smoking ordinances to be able to recoup their costs.

The change would have virtually no impact in the city, where just one bar owner filed for an exemption that would allow for a separate smoking room for three years, according to the city Health Department.

Silver said he would not support a tax credit for those who spent money preparing for the local laws, something in which Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno has expressed an interest.

June 8, 2003
        CIG POLICE SMOKE OUT BOOTLEGGERS
        By Al Guart

Bootleggers hoping to cash in on the city and state cigarette tax hikes are getting their butts kicked.

There has been a 30 percent spike in arrests for illegal trading in tobacco products, while seizures of untaxed cigarettes are up a whopping six times for the same period last year.

From Jan. 1 to May 30, cops from the NYPD's Cigarette Interdiction Group arrested 44 bootleggers and confiscated 12,018 cartons of untaxed cigarettes, said NYPD Deputy Chief Michael Collins.

Some of the seized smokes came from Virginia and Delaware, while others had no state tax stamps on them, sources said. Some cartons were counterfeit brands smuggled in from China.

In some cases, the contraband was shipped to New York in plain brown boxes, while other smugglers drove across state lines to collect the illicit cigarettes, cops said.

The increase in bootlegging came after the state and city heaped $3 in taxes on a pack of cigarettes last summer.

Smugglers face sentences from probation to up to five years in prison depending on the quantity of smokes seized and whether they are charged by state or federal authorities.

June 7, 2003
        57 CIG-BAN VIOLATORS PAYING THE PRICE SO FAR
        By Stephanie Gaskell

The city Health Department handed out 57 tickets for violating the smoking ban during the first three weeks of May, officials said yesterday.

The citywide ban went into effect March 30, but Health Department officials told business owners only warnings would be issued until May 1.

As the Post reported last month, health inspectors handed out 29 tickets for the first nine days of May.

From May 9 to May 23, they handed out an additional 28, according to spokeswoman Sandra Mullin.

Only 13 of the 57 violations were for illegal smoking, she said.

The rest were given out for violations such as not posting "No Smoking" signs or having ashtrays on the bar.

"The vast majority of restaurants and bar operators are protecting their workers from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke," Mullin said.

She said the department has received 402 complaints from people calling 311, the city's non-emergency hotline, or filing a complaint on the department's Web site at www.nyc.gov/health.

So far, no one has been cited for violating the ban more than once, she said.

Some of the businesses ticketed include the Bryant Park Café, Sheraton New York Towers and the VIP Club in Manhattan, Ecstasy bar in Brooklyn, Escape Lounge in the Bronx and Athens Café in Queens.

Meanwhile, a coalition of health officials warned Albany lawmakers that any attempt to weaken the statewide smoking ban would make enforcement more costly and difficult.

In recent weeks, bar owners have lobbied to relax the state ban set to take effect July 24 by letting bars have separate smoking rooms.

June 5, 2003
        NASSAU BUTTS BAN GOES UP IN SMOKE
        By Sam Smith

The "no smoking" signs are coming down in Nassau County - for now.

A federal judge halted enforcement of the county's 3-month-old smoking ban yesterday, allowing smokers back inside bars and restaurants - at least until an appeal is heard or until the statewide ban takes effect July 24.

Puffing proponents cheered the decision and said it will bolster their case against the state ban.

"It's very meaningful," said Scott Wexler, executive director of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association. "It gives our lawyers a road map on how to attack the state law."

Wexler said his association plans to file that suit later this month.

In his 16-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Denis R. Hurley granted the preliminary injunction sought by Long Island restaurant and tavern owners and called the county ban unconstitutionally vague and economically harmful.

Hurley criticized sloppiness in the drafting of the law, which led to portions of the county's 1998 partial smoking ban remaining in effect after the total ban took over on March 1.

A "person of average intelligence" would be confused by the new law, Hurley wrote.

The judge also decided that plaintiffs were suffering irreparable economic harm in lost business to Suffolk County, which doesn't have a ban.

"This is a big victory for a lot of small businesses," said Arthur J. Kremer, attorney for the bars and restaurants. "They get eight weeks of being able to compete with Suffolk County, and it lays the groundwork for a state challenge."

Kremer plans to pay a $75,000 bond today to cover any damages that may be suffered by the county. The bond must be paid before the judge's ruling can take effect.

The county legislature, which yesterday filed an appeal as a defendant in the case, passed the smoking ban last year along strict party lines, the Democratic majority in favor.

Minority leader Peter J. Schmitt even took part in an illegal "Smoke In" last month at a local bar to protest the ban.

June 5, 2003
        WESTCHESTER BANS SMOKING
        By Andy Geller

Westchester joined the Big Apple in banning smoking yesterday - and that lit up smokers' fury.

"I think it's stupid," fumed Frank Feeney, a 43-year-old contractor enjoying a drink at Dunne's Pub in White Plains. "People who don't like the smoke shouldn't come here. It's ridiculous."

The pub's owner, Sean Dunne, grumbled that he could lose 50 percent of his bar business because of the ban.

Westchester County legislators voted 12-3 to approve the ban in March.

June 4, 2003
        BAR BIGS BACK CIGS
        By Kenneth Lovett and Frederic U. Dicker

ALBANY - Angry bar owners from across the state descended on the Capitol yesterday to protest the state's soon-to-take-effect smoking ban.

About 100 bar owners chanted and carried signs proclaiming, "No smoking, no customers," "Smokers are not criminals" and "New York says no to tobacco smoking but yes to tobacco dollars."

The state law that goes into effect July 24 prohibits smoking in most public places, including restaurants and bars.

It also eliminates an exemption in the city's ban that would have allowed specially ventilated rooms.

May 28, 2003
        PATAKI WILL LISTEN TO RE-BUTT-AL ON CIG BAN
        By Kenneth Lovett

ALBANY - Gov. Pataki yesterday said for the first time that he's open to easing a statewide ban on smoking due to go into effect in late July.

"When I signed the bill, I said we wanted to look at the impact and see if there were some ways to minimize or mitigate the impact - so, yes, it is something I would look at," Pataki said.

The city smoking ban that went into effect earlier this year allows bars and restaurants to have separately ventilated smoking rooms for three years - but it was superceded by the state law, which does not contain that exemption.

Asked specifically about allowing separately ventilated rooms for smokers, Pataki said, "It is something that we should look at."

Pataki's comments yesterday came after Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno said last week that they are open to considering possible changes to the state law.

An aide to Mayor Bloomberg said he did not expect major changes to the state law that would impact the city.

"It's unlikely, but anything's possible," the aide said.

A group of state lawmakers, who believe the state law goes too far and will hurt businesses, are seeking to ease the restrictions by adding exemptions that would make the law more like the city's ban.

A bill sponsored by Assemblyman Peter Abbate (D-Brooklyn) and 25 other Democrats would allow smoking sections as long as there are special ventilation systems.

It would also permit smoking in owner-operator bars and restaurants.

Legislation in the Republican-led Senate, sponsored by Martin Golden (R-Brooklyn) and 10 other Republicans, has similar provisions but would also offer tax incentives for establishments to build the special smoking rooms.

Even before the state law was passed, few New York City bar owners were building specially ventilated smoking rooms, because many believed the cost wasn't worth it if the rooms would have to be closed anyway in three years, as the city law requires.

A Bruno spokeswoman said he will study the proposed amendments and discuss the matter with his members. A Silver spokeswoman was also noncommittal, saying he supports the law that was passed but is willing to listen to his member's concerns.

Scott Wexler, of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association, called Pataki's comments "encouraging."

Hundreds of restaurant and bar owners last week protested the ban by turning off their Quick Draw machines for several days - a move that through Saturday cost the state $682,000 in sales, before a $30,000 rebound on Sunday.

"It's apparent they're being heard," Wexler said.

Anti-smoking groups, including the American Cancer Society, and lawmakers opposing the changes expressed "disappointment" in Pataki.

"The law has not gone into effect," said Senate bill sponsor Charles Fuschillo (R-L.I.). "We should let it take effect."

Assembly bill sponsor Alexander "Pete" Grannis (D-Manhattan), citing polls showing public support for the tougher law, said he hasn't noticed a strong desire by his house's leadership to make changes.

He said the only amendments he believes are being seriously considered are ones that would provide tax credits to businesses that had spent money to build separately ventilated smoking rooms before the state passed its law.

May 27, 2003
        ROWDINESS RISE A DRAG: NEIGHBORS BLAME BANNED BUTTHEADS
        By Jeane MacIntosh

Quality-of-life complaints in Manhattan have skyrocketed over the past two months - and a lot of residents, cops and business owners are placing the blame on Mayor Bloomberg's smoking ban.

"We've definitely had more complaints since the smoking ban - noise, fights out on the sidewalk, harassment of pedestrians. You name it, it's gone up," said a cop who patrols Bleecker Street.

The officer's sentiments echo those of dozens of street cops, residents and restaurant owners who've complained to The Post about the quality-of-life issues associated with the smoking ban that took effect April 1.

Among their biggest beefs:

* Noise levels on the sidewalks have increased, keeping residents awake.

* Throngs of smokers outside bars have created inescapable secondhand smoke clouds for passers-by.

* Smoker-filled sidewalks are causing congestion and often force pedestrians into the streets.

* Smoke wafts up into open windows of apartments above bars and restaurants.

* Cigarettes litter the streets.

According to NYPD statistics, noise has topped the list of complaints in Manhattan. Figures show that those complaints in precincts south of 59th Street jumped 160 percent, to 3,229, between April 1 and May 18 this year as compared to the same period last year.

North of 59th Street, noise complaints jumped 64 percent, to 5,558.

Residents and bar-restaurant owners and workers in some high-traffic areas say they are worried summer will bring an even bigger increase in quality-of-life complaints.

"I can't escape the smoke outside . . . It's only going to get worse come summer," said Charles Wolf, who heads the Bleecker Area Merchants' & Residents' Association.

Some residents have taken matters into their own hands - hurling trash and eggs from upper windows onto smokers below, police and bar staff said.

May 27, 2003
        MIKE'S CRIME WAVE
        By Patrick Fleenor

EARLIER this month, federal authorities announced the arrest of 10 people charged with smuggling millions of dollars worth of cigarettes from Virginia to New York. The 10 are reportedly now also being investigated for ties to terrorism. Two weeks earlier, New Jersey police stopped a truck headed to New York City and found more than $1 million of bootleg cigarettes.

Those are only the latest in a series of busts of large-scale smuggling rings supplying the city's illicit cigarette market. That market got a big boost last year when Mayor Bloomberg hiked the city's cigarette excise tax from 8 cents to $1.50 a pack.

That hike, coupled with increases that brought the state excise to $1.50 per pack, have pushed the price of legal brand-name cigarettes to more than $7.50 a pack. As a result, smugglers can earn hundreds of thousands of dollars with every truckload of cigarettes.

Also suppling the city's illicit market are thieves who target businesses that distribute and sell cigarettes. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reports a dramatic rise in tobacco theft in the metro region in recent years. Law-enforcement officials as far away as Virginia and North Carolina also report a rash of heists that they believe were committed to supply Gotham's booming black market for butts.

This wave should have been no surprise: The same thing happened after the state doubled its cigarrette tax in the late '60s. That tax hike - to 10 cents a pack, roughly 57 cents in today's dollars - encouraged organized crime to ruthlessly push aside competitors and quickly dominate the smuggling racket. By 1967, officials estimated that a quarter of the cigarettes smoked in the Empire State were bootleg. The problem was thought to be even more pervasive in the city.

The doubling of the state excises, with added state and city hikes in the late 1960s and 1970s, also spurred crime against legitimate businesses. The chairman of a state commission that probed the illicit tobacco trade told Congress that the tax hikes had created a situation where workers in the legal sector were "confronted almost daily with the risk and dangers of personal violence which are now inherent in their industry."

To the dismay of other states, the crime wave rapidly spread beyond New York's borders. Across the country, trucks carrying cigarettes were hijacked and businesses selling them were robbed to supply New York's black market.

State and city officials experimented with a variety of ways of reigning in the tax-induced crime, including mandatory prison sentences for cigarette bootleggers, expanded police powers of search and seizure and more regulation of the industry. But none of those measures had much effect.

Finally, by the mid 1970s, with tobacco-related crime rising and governments and business losing millions to bootlegging each year, a special state commission recommended that the city's cigarette tax be repealed. Gov. Malcolm Wilson enthusiastically embraced a trial version of that recommendation, saying: "One major incentive to organized crime is the high New York City cigarette taxes, piled on top of the state tax, which have made that city the promised land for cigarette bootleggers."

While the governor fought hard for repeal of the tax, parochial politics scuttled its passage. But escalating violence - including a series of homicides resulting from turf battles and efforts to silence witnesses - discouraged lawmakers from further tax hikes in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This allowed the era's high inflation to reduce real cigarette-tax rates by more than 40 percent, which sapped the profitability of bootlegging and so reduced smuggling and related crime.

But lawmakers' memories are woefully short when it comes to the harmful effects of taxation. By the late 1980s, state cigarette taxes were again on the rise - prompting Robert L. Shepherd of the state Department of Taxation and Finance to note in 1989, "In New York, it is literally more profitable to hijack a cigarette-delivery truck than an armored truck."

Today, at least half of the cigarettes smoked in the city have somehow avoided state and city excises. And it's not just the mob: ATF officials report street gangs and terrorist groups are now also involved in the city's illicit cigarette trade.

Mayor Bloomberg stands by his historic tax hike: "We all know that smoking kills. And increasing the cigarette tax saves lives." But, as history so clearly demonstrates, it isn't that simple. The widespread availability of cheap cigarettes via the black market undermines the mayor's claim that hiking cigarette taxes reduces smoking.

Worse, his paternalistic effort to protect smokers from themselves has placed other Americans at greater peril.

May 25, 2003
        PUFF SNUFF TOO ROUGH FOR BELOVED BIZ
        By Steve Dunleavy

DON Alonzo emerged from the Korean War unscathed, but he says Mayor Bloomberg has put a final nail in his coffin.

He looked up at a picture of the grave of his uncle buried in Normandy after he died for freedom, and he looked over a sign that was an obituary for his restaurant.

The sign read simply enough: "Alonzo's will be closing its business on May 30th. 'Thanks' to Mayor Bloomberg!"

"I've been in the restaurant business for 21 years and now I have pretty much lost it all. But worst of all I have lost people who are like my family," Don was saying.

"Ten of the staff are gone. People very close to me. My chef for 15 years who has four kids, he has no job because I don't have a restaurant anymore." Don blames Bloomberg's draconian smoking ban on the demise of his restaurant.

Alonzo's on 45th Street near Second Avenue is an elegant Italian bistro that relied massively on business from people who work at the huge United Nations building complex.

"Europeans, Africans, South Americans, they all smoke. They would come here for lunch, dinner, parties," Don said. "They don't come here now. I had to tell them they cannot smoke. They stay at the United Nations where they can eat, drink and smoke."

Photographer Jim Alcorn and I strolled a block away to the Vienna Café in the United Nations building where a courtly gentleman from Romania, named Ioan Roman, lit my cigarette. Ioan, is a retired colonel in the army of his homeland, a chemist and former director of nuclear, bacteriological and chemical warfare suppression.

"I was a weapons inspector with UNMOVIC in Iraq until January this year," Ioan said.

"I think all over the world in bars and restaurants, oh, about anywhere in the world, you could smoke in restaurants. Yes, you smoke in restaurants in Baghdad."

Ain't freedom grand.

May 25, 2003
        SMOKING BUZZ OUT IN THE OPEN
        By Braden Keil

Forget Lizzie Grubman and Conscience Point, Billy Joel and the bottle, and "foreigners" in summer rentals.
The buzz talk in the Hamptons this summer is likely to revolve around two hot subjects - smoking and the proposed casino.

Those looking to escape from Mayor Bloomberg's tough smoking rules in the city will be disappointed when the statewide bans kick in July 24.

While East End restaurants have been relatively smoke-free for the past few years, thanks to bar-enclosure restrictions, the smoke-heavy nightclubs will face their biggest challenge just as the summer season begins.

But some Hamptons nightclub owners have plans to provide smoking facilities for any fuming clientele. Many of the clubs that are not in residential areas already have outside decks where patrons can party and smoke hearty.

The biggest problems for smokers could emerge at those "enclosed" clubs in residential "quiet zones."

Those club managers say patrons who want to have a puff will have to use parking lots.

"It will only be a matter of time before that gets ugly," said one summer renter near one popular gin joint in Bridgehampton.

At 6-year-old Jet East nightclub in Southampton, partner Noah Tepperberg says the drawback will be the constant foot traffic in and out of the club as customers head to a decked area to light up.

"Sometimes it kills the energy of the room when people are leaving as others are coming in," he said

May 25, 2003
        A BURNING ISSUE
        By Cynthia Vespereny

Wouldn't it be fun if the throngs of employees manning outside entrances to the city's office towers were professional greeters, eager to offer beverages, directions or help with your bags?
Well, they're not. What's more, they're blowing smoke in your face. And their employers, concerned about productivity in a weak economy and skyrocketing healthcare costs, are probably worried sick.

With the smoking ban forcing workers to descend from skyscrapers to puff outdoors, cig breaks could cost employers a $10.5 billion a year in time alone, according to Post research.

"That's a pretty nasty figure," said productivity expert Breck England, who estimates services employees - representing the lion's share of the city's workers - make an average $100,000 a year in salary and benefits.

Smoking is "driving up healthcare costs and driving down productivity. We'll pay a lot for it," said England, vice president of product development at FranklinCovey.

The performance-imProvement firm is backed by Stephen Covey, author of best-seller "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People."

Here's how The Post arrived at the $10.5 billion figure. First, there are roughly 3.5 million workers in the city, according to the New York Department of Labor.

"The jobs are very heavily clustered in professional services," said state labor market analyst James Brown.

About 24 percent, or 840,000, of the 3.5 million workers likely smoke, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

How far must they go for a cigarette break? The city's office towers average 35 stories, noted Gregory Heym, chief economist at the Real Estate Board of New York.

So smoking breaks that used to require five or six minutes take about 12 minutes or more.

Based on that $100,000 pay and benefits package, four to five breaks of 12 to 15 minutes each total an hour a day, or $240 a week per smoking employee.

That's $202 million a week for all working stiffs who smoke, or $10.5 billion a year. Making matters worse are higher costs for smokers in already expensive insurance plans. Overall, healthcare costs have ballooned to 15 percent of gross domestic product.

And large employers will pay 16 percent more for health plans in 2003 in the fourth consecutive year of double-digit increases, a Towers Perrin study found.

"If I were an employer, I'd probably find a way not to hire the smoker," said England. However, it is illegal to ask a job applicant if he or she smokes.

"The cost of smoking is multitudes bigger than the cost of taking breaks," pointed out Mark Ellwood, founder of Toronto-based Pace Productivity, noting increased illness and absenteeism among smokers.

Robert Gordon, professor of economics at Northwestern University, doesn't see longer smoking breaks hindering office workers.

"They seem to have time to surf the Web from their office computers, buy from eBay, make tra